Different Versailles Treaty

What if the peace treaty that ended WWI did not place guilt on any of the participants and the punishment given to Germany was not punitive such as they did not have to pay reparations and they somehow had some access to the Lorraine Alsace territory?
You mean, what if the Entente/Allies did not win World War I? After all, if the Entente/Allies still win World War I, then such a Versailles Treaty is certainly not going to happen!
 

LordKalvert

Banned
Where would the millions of troops come from?

France isn't exactly far from Germany. The mere fact that France could mobilize and invade while having the heavy weapons needed to actually win should be enough

Even the occupation of the Ruhr (which did not involve mobilisation on that scale) led to the fall of the French government which carried it out.

France caved to Anglo-American pressure. Poincare was right- if you backed down, then you will see them renege on everything. The correct course would have been to increase the German payments and include the occupation costs as well (Germany did this after 1870)

And as already noted, had the victors been willing to make that kind of effort, they would not have needed to do it - a far lesser effort would have sufficed to enforce OTL's peace treaty.

Exactly the point. There really isn't the need to occupy the whole country. Control over a few strategic points is enough. Ports and railroad junctures
would have crippled the German economy in weeks. Simply add a charge of 50,000,000 marks a day to the bill and the Germans would have seen reason

The reparations were not that high that Germany couldn't pay them
 
France isn't exactly far from Germany. The mere fact that France could mobilize and invade while having the heavy weapons needed to actually win should be enough


Only for as long as it takes the Germans to notice that the will to mobilise and invade does not exist. So unless you know some way to bring that will into existence - - .
 
Only for as long as it takes the Germans to notice that the will to mobilise and invade does not exist. So unless you know some way to bring that will into existence - - .
That's the main problem. There was a will to invade in 1923, but there was no will to keep occupation beyond 1925. France managed to make profit from their brief occupation of Ruhr, but backed down under pressure. There was a way, but there was no will. If French clenched their teeth, covered their ears and went "nananana! can't hear you!" over foreign protests, it would be down to who caves in first: French or Germans. If French government wouldn't back down, it wouldn't fall.
 
That's the main problem. There was a will to invade in 1923, but there was no will to keep occupation beyond 1925. France managed to make profit from their brief occupation of Ruhr, but backed down under pressure. There was a way, but there was no will. If French clenched their teeth, covered their ears and went "nananana! can't hear you!" over foreign protests, it would be down to who caves in first: French or Germans. If French government wouldn't back down, it wouldn't fall.

The Germans did back down - at least enough for the French to claim a success.
 
The Germans did back down - at least enough for the French to claim a success.

The Germans backed down completely. They stopped supporting the insurrection in the Rhineland and started negotiating for a solution. With the help of american bankers, they managed to get the French to withdraw eventually.
 
Top