Best and Worst possible Treaty of Versailles

nobody cares about Serbia, just like how Italy and Japan were ignored OTL.

On the contrary, you could argue that Serbia and Japan were the 'winners' of WW1. Well, Serbia was devastated, but practically tripled in size. Japan basically got everything they could possibly want, for nothing. Unless you count the racial equality clause. And that was more a political demonstration than anything else.
 
I agree with the general Machiavellian principle, but I think the treaty of Versailles basically followed it - if it had been enforced. The only change I might make would be giving Italy a bit more of the Adriatic coast - other than that, I'd just hope the allies instantly jump on Germany when it starts remilitarizing - or perhaps even when it elects the Nazis.


A psychological impossibility.

Istr a story of a French politician visiting London in 1836. He and Stanley Baldwin were chatting, up in the Strangers Gallery of the House of Commons, when the Frenchman asked if there is any chance of a response to the reoccupation of the Rhineland.

Baldwin's reply was essentially "Forget it". He pointed down at the government front bench, and said "You have to remember, every one of those men is a survivor of the Somme".
 
A psychological impossibility.

Istr a story of a French politician visiting London in 1836. He and Stanley Baldwin were chatting, up in the Strangers Gallery of the House of Commons, when the Frenchman asked if there is any chance of a response to the reoccupation of the Rhineland.

Baldwin's reply was essentially "Forget it". He pointed down at the government front bench, and said "You have to remember, every one of those men is a survivor of the Somme".

Yay, time-travelling governments!:p:D:rolleyes::cool:
 
I think in some ways we did get the worst Treaty of Versailles possible because it set up conditions that very strongly helped lead to World War II.
 

Cook

Banned
A psychological impossibility.

Istr a story of a French politician visiting London in 1836. He and Stanley Baldwin were chatting, up in the Strangers Gallery of the House of Commons, when the Frenchman asked if there is any chance of a response to the reoccupation of the Rhineland.

Baldwin's reply was essentially "Forget it". He pointed down at the government front bench, and said "You have to remember, every one of those men is a survivor of the Somme".

We can rule out any such incident ever having taken place; of Baldwin’s entire Cabinet only one man served in the trenches in World War One: Anthony Eden. He did indeed fight at the Somme and was awarded the Military Cross for his efforts there. Given that he, out of Baldwin’s entire cabinet, was the only one to oppose Appeasement, we can dismiss the suggestion that it was the veterans of the previous war that were responsible for the paralysis in Britain during the lead-up to the Second World War.

Any response to the German occupation of the Rhineland had to be French anyway; they had the largest and best equipped army in Europe and had a common border with the Rhineland. In addition to which, it was French security that was at stake, not British; the Rhineland had been demilitarized at the insistence of Marshal Foch, who insisted that the Rhine was the essential line of defence for France.

That the French did not respond with a police action despite a full year’s warning of Hitler’s intentions is the fault of one man and one man alone: General Gamelin, Generalissimo commanding the French armed forces.
 

Tannhäuser

Banned
Yeah, I'm fairly confident that French threats would have been enough to force the Germans to back down, which would have probably resulted, one way or another, in the fall of Hitler. If not, the war would have been brief and nearly bloodless. I recognize that the Allies were psychologically unable to do this - and for that reason I think no treaty could have prevented WWII. The ToV, however, would have worked if the allies did not abandon it.
 

Tyr Anazasi

Banned
Yeah, I'm fairly confident that French threats would have been enough to force the Germans to back down, which would have probably resulted, one way or another, in the fall of Hitler. If not, the war would have been brief and nearly bloodless. I recognize that the Allies were psychologically unable to do this - and for that reason I think no treaty could have prevented WWII. The ToV, however, would have worked if the allies did not abandon it.

But that treaty was unenforceable. Only enfuriating Germany. Thus indeed it was the treaty, which could have prevented ww2: by abandoning until 1929.
 
Top