Could it be possible a Weimar Republic without Versailles?

I would like to know your opinion about the possibility of a transition from the German Reich to the Weimar Republic without the existence of the Treaty of Versailles.

That is, if the revolutions that put the end of the Reich and their monarchies would have anticipated the end of WWI and a faster transition to the Weimar Republic could have prevented the conditions imposed to Germany at Versailles. Maybe just only more reasonable terms like the devolution of Alsace-Lorraine and some compensations, but not all the harsh conditions that ultimately would damage the Weimar Republic and boost the Nazism. Maybe the union of German Austria could have not been banned in that scenario.

Of course, France could have not agree to softer conditions, but I think UK and US would be fine with this scenario and France was not in good condition for a large-scale invasion of Germany so...
 

Deleted member 1487

I would like to know your opinion about the possibility of a transition from the German Reich to the Weimar Republic without the existence of the Treaty of Versailles.

That is, if the revolutions that put the end of the Reich and their monarchies would have anticipated the end of WWI and a faster transition to the Weimar Republic could have prevented the conditions imposed to Germany at Versailles. Maybe just only more reasonable terms like the devolution of Alsace-Lorraine and some compensations, but not all the harsh conditions that ultimately would damage the Weimar Republic and boost the Nazism. Maybe the union of German Austria could have not been banned in that scenario.

Of course, France could have not agree to softer conditions, but I think UK and US would be fine with this scenario and France was not in good condition for a large-scale invasion of Germany so...
The revolution happened before the ToV and the Republic was declared before then too, as it was thought the democracies would be more interested in working with a republic rather than the monarchy. So the Weimar Republic was declared in November 1918, well before the ToV happened. The elections happened in January 1919, again well before the ToV. It was Weimar that signed the peace treaty at Versailles in fact.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weimar_Republic

So yes, it happened IOTL.

As to the US and British being softer...well the US wanted to be softer IOTL, but was overrules and walked away from the conference. The Brits wanted harshness, but later changed their tune when the realities of the treaty because evident. France was too important to overrule on A-L or the Austria+Germany union. I don't see the treaty possibly being more lenient in the end, but I can perhaps see things being more moderated in revising the treaty later. It would certainly help if Wilson was able to manage the politics of the treaty better domestically and not have a stroke and get wiped out in the 1920 election.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The revolution happened before the ToV and the Republic was declared before then too, as it was thought the democracies would be more interested in working with a republic rather than the monarchy. So the Weimar Republic was declared in November 1918, well before the ToV happened. The elections happened in January 1919, again well before the ToV. It was Weimar that signed the peace treaty at Versailles in fact.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weimar_Republic

So yes, it happened IOTL.


Well, I did not explain myself clear enough :)

I know the Weimar Republic was declared before Versailles (Nov 1918), but it was too late for avoiding the scenario that would lead to the Treaty of Versailles. I was thinking about a Weimar Republic proclaimed maybe at the same time of the Red Revolution or so, like one year earlier. At that point probably the Allies would have accepted softer conditions of peace (no Brest-Litovsk, no Spring of 1918 etc etc).
 

Deleted member 1487

Well, I did not explain myself clear enough :)

I know the Weimar Republic was declared before Versailles (Nov 1918), but it was too late for avoiding the scenario that would lead to the Treaty of Versailles. I was thinking about a Weimar Republic proclaimed maybe at the same time of the Red Revolution or so, like one year earlier. At that point probably the Allies would have accepted softer conditions of peace (no Brest-Litovsk, no Spring of 1918 etc etc).
They only way that could happen is if Germany loses a year earlier. Weimar was a product of the collapse of the German army in the field and the generals saying they would no longer fight to keep the monarchy in power; they turned to the republic to get a better peace deal. The monarchy was still quite political solid in late 1917, it was only after major field defeats in 1918 that it finally lost public support.
 
They only way that could happen is if Germany loses a year earlier. Weimar was a product of the collapse of the German army in the field and the generals saying they would no longer fight to keep the monarchy in power; they turned to the republic to get a better peace deal. The monarchy was still quite political solid in late 1917, it was only after major field defeats in 1918 that it finally lost public support.

Yes, you are right.

So what could happen if we introduce some PoD to make the monarchy to lost that support earlier that IOTL and so make the Allies to accept a softer deal for peace?
 

Deleted member 1487

Yes, you are right.

So what could happen if we introduce some PoD to make the monarchy to lost that support earlier that IOTL and so make the Allies to accept a softer deal for peace?
Actually an earlier defeat would if anything mean a harsher peace because the Allies are stronger and can enforce it, while Germany is somewhat less bad off. You'd almost have to have the war go longer and France to lose power in the alliance, while also some how ensuring the Allies aren't going to push for an even harsher peace due to the longer, more destructive war. Getting a less harsh WW1 peace is pretty tough.
 
Actually an earlier defeat would if anything mean a harsher peace because the Allies are stronger and can enforce it, while Germany is somewhat less bad off. You'd almost have to have the war go longer and France to lose power in the alliance, while also some how ensuring the Allies aren't going to push for an even harsher peace due to the longer, more destructive war. Getting a less harsh WW1 peace is pretty tough.

I guess this idea needs a very complicated balance: the weaker Germany is, the harsher Treaty of Peace would face...but the weaker the Allies are, the fall of the monarchy is less likely.
 
The Brits wanted harshness, but later changed their tune when the realities of the treaty because evident.

Actually it was the British demands that made the treaty unsustainable for the Germans. Remove the pensions from the reparation plans and it would be less than half of what it was a largely sustainable if the German government don't run their economy into the ground voluntarily like they did OTL.
 

Deleted member 1487

Actually it was the British demands that made the treaty unsustainable for the Germans. Remove the pensions from the reparation plans and it would be less than half of what it was a largely sustainable if the German government don't run their economy into the ground voluntarily like they did OTL.
It was the Brits that demanded that the reparations be lowered once the capacity of Germany to actually pay was assessed after the first payment, but the French weren't about to let that happen; they sent the economy into a tail spin when they occupied the Ruhr to extract reparations, which were unsustainable for the German economy.
 
It was the Brits that demanded that the reparations be lowered once the capacity of Germany to actually pay was assessed after the first payment, but the French weren't about to let that happen; they sent the economy into a tail spin when they occupied the Ruhr to extract reparations, which were unsustainable for the German economy.

The French refused because the brits refused to change the percentage of reparation given to each nation meaning that the Brits got almost as much as the French (when the British were the ones that asked for gigantic reparations, France demands were limited to civilian damage done by the Germans, womething the German economy was capable to pay for and which was morally necessary [they fucking drowned mines after the armistice while retreating]) while having suffered almost no material damage from the war while Belgium and Northern France were still devastated. The French didn't give a fuck about paying their own pensions, but the Brits didn't want to. And yes, the German government was as much responsible as the French for destroying their economy (numerous economists described the actions of the German gov as economic suicide).
 

Deleted member 1487

The French refused because the brits refused to change the percentage of reparation given to each nation meaning that the Brits got almost as much as the French (when the British were the ones that asked for gigantic reparations, France demands were limited to civilian damage done by the Germans, womething the German economy was capable to pay for and which was morally necessary [they fucking drowned mines after the armistice while retreating]) while having suffered almost no material damage from the war while Belgium and Northern France were still devastated. The French didn't give a fuck about paying their own pensions, but the Brits didn't want to. And yes, the German government was as much responsible as the French for destroying their economy (numerous economists described the actions of the German gov as economic suicide).
Because the Germans ran out of gold and the rest of the world suspended the Mark's ability to convert to gold, i.e. they could not buy gold with their paper currency abroad and the French demanded payments in gold (or cut rates for German coal that they couldn't afford to just give away after the war). Gerald Feldman makes the case that the Germans were effectively out of options at the point they inflated their currency and had to play chicken with France or their economy would grind to a halt anyway and totally implode if they turned over commodities instead.
https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-great-disorder-9780195101140?cc=us&lang=en&

So while the German inflation crisis had roots in Germany printing money during the war and selling off their gold stocks to neutrals for imports, it was the demands of the French for gold and full reparations that effectively backed the Germans into a corner and the only way out besides total economic collapse was deferring that while they coasted on printed currency. The Brits were not out of line to demand reduced payments and their fair share of the reduced payments, it wasn't that the French were the only ones with claims to reparations money. The problem was that the French wanted the money immediately in full regardless of German ability to pay, rather than letting their economy recover enough to get to the point of being able to pay reparations. They never really recovered after WW1 either; the US had to step in with the Dawes and Young plans to basically pick up the tab by loaning Germany money, which of course fell off in 1929. After that Germany never really got back on its feet until Hitler spent the country into bankruptcy on arms and started taking out major debts and defaulting on them throughout the 1930s. Really it was only in the US mandated world economy system post-1948 that the German economy recovered and prospered on trade and a normal economy, not the vampire economy of the Nazis or the loan based economy of the Weimar period.
 
The Brits were not out of line to demand reduced payments and their fair share of the reduced payments, it wasn't that the French were the only ones with claims to reparations money.

So you don't like the French so much that you can't even admit that the share the brits asked from reparations were in no universe fair ? The French asked for reparations for damage done to civilian properties (which were almost non existant in Britain), while asking nothing else. It was British intransigence and their desire to not pay their soldiers' pensions (which the French governement never had a problem paying for it's european soliders, or even for others europeans soldiers, Alsatian soldiers in the Reichswehr or latter the Wehrmacht had their pensions paid by France) that made the reparations unsustainable and when they realized that they didn't drop their claim, they asked others whose countries where in shambles to drop theirs. Germany could have paid the reparations originally asked by France and Belgium, especially given that their industry was untouched (unlike the Northern France and Belgium industry which was destroyed by the retreating german army).

And France needed the money immediately. It had it's own debts to pay (while Germany had basically none) and it had to rebuilt a whole region (some families where still living in the street in 1924, the last mine to reopen reopened in 1928). What Britain had to rebuild ?
 

NoMommsen

Donor
Oh well, good old arguemental battle about the 'reparations question' of the ToV ...;) ... but maybe a bit too fast into postwar problems, first we would have to get the OPs POD to get in motion


Perhaps a way to get any kind of 'republic' earlier is something similarly happens as the HSF mutiny in late 1916. The HSF mutiny in 1918 was IMHO 'just' the trigger that started the revolution - or any kind of overthrowing upheaval. Already in midth 1916 the Reichstag started to get ... uneasy with the delay of domestic reforms promised/offered to them for the 'Burgfrieden'.
If you have something similar maybe together with one of Willys 'baad moments' you might get the ball rolling, resulting in kind of a provisionally goverment similar to Kerenski in Russia (Willy takes the hat and his son becomes figurehead for such a goverment). End of 1916/beginning of 1917 Germany wasn't truly beaten yet and still a powwerfull military force. Therefore it would have enough power to - perhaps - make a deal on more equal terms.
 

Deleted member 1487

So you don't like the French so much that you can't even admit that the share the brits asked from reparations were in no universe fair ?
It has nothing to do with not liking the British. The Brits suffered damaged too from German bombers and naval bombardments, plus of course the targeting of their naval shipping. The Brits had reasons to get their fair share too. I think the French also had reasons to get their share of reparations for damages, but the Brits should have deferred their pension requirements until later.

The French asked for reparations for damage done to civilian properties (which were almost non existant in Britain), while asking nothing else. It was British intransigence and their desire to not pay their soldiers' pensions (which the French governement never had a problem paying for it's european soliders, or even for others europeans soldiers, Alsatian soldiers in the Reichswehr or latter the Wehrmacht had their pensions paid by France) that made the reparations unsustainable and when they realized that they didn't drop their claim, they asked others whose countries where in shambles to drop theirs. Germany could have paid the reparations originally asked by France and Belgium, especially given that their industry was untouched (unlike the Northern France and Belgium industry which was destroyed by the retreating german army).
I agree that the Brits, if still insisting on the pension payments, should have deferred them too as the situation in the 1920s was so bad in Germany that to get payments without collapsing the government and German economy they'd have to defer payments and spread them out over a longer time period to ensure that Germany stabilized and then could pay reparations. The big issue as well, besides Germany losing over 2 million working age men in the war, was that they had a negative balance of trade before reparations were accounted for due to losing their trade markets outside of Europe and in Russia due to the blockade and war. Then the Allies put up tariffs against Germany so not only could the economy not import enough to function properly, it also then had to pay reparation on top of that. All reparations were unsustainable, even the just ones based on damages inflicted by Germany. Everyone needed to tone down demands and not hobble the German economy if they wanted to get paid, but France was so gungho about not just reparations but also hobbling the German economy to cripple her ability to remilitarize that Germany was forced into insane monetary policy to show the world that reparations payments were not sustainable right after the war and that Allied post-war tariff policy was killing the German economy. The German economy may have been relatively untouched by war, but the only thing Germany had in abundance after losing Upper Silesia, the Saarland, and Alsace-Lorraine was some coal, so it had to import all the materials it needed to run its economy from abroad. If you have no foreign exchange due to reparations eating up all German gold, then Germany cannot import and run its economy, because it doesn't have the raw material inputs to get exports to raise money for reparations. Unless Germany was allowed to run a trade surplus and turn that surplus over as reparations, they couldn't pay reparations without their industry grinding to a halt; for France that was partially the goal, but it was harmful to the British and US economies, who traded with Germany, as did France and other nations. It was ultimately unsustainable without collapsing the German government and economy, which meant no reparations for anyone.

And France needed the money immediately. It had it's own debts to pay (while Germany had basically none) and it had to rebuilt a whole region (some families where still living in the street in 1924, the last mine to reopen reopened in 1928). What Britain had to rebuild ?
Sure, but you get no money and in fact a vast trade/economic vacuum that takes down the world system if the German economy implodes because it cannot function without a trade surplus creating reparations. It needed to export much more than it cost to buy the necessary raw materials to run its economy and pay wages so that it had a surplus to turn over to the Allies. But Germany had a trace deficit after WW1 AND had to pay reparations. Sure France needed the money, but Germany was unable to pay without imploding its economy and taking the world with it. That's why when the German economy tanked after the Ruhr Occupation the US had to step in and offer loans to keep Germany able to pay, otherwise the world economy would have fallen into Depression over the collapse of the German economy. Germany had huge internal debts, several tens of billions of marks and if it didn't pay that back the internal economy would grind to a halt.
Britain had London bombed, several coastal towns shelled by the German navy, and much of its merchant fleet sunk, while its financial institutions had bankrolled the entire Entente war effort before the US showed up and offered a bunch of loans.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_strategic_bombing_during_World_War_I
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raid_on_Scarborough,_Hartlepool_and_Whitby
 
Top