Domestic and economic situation in France that lost WWI

NoMommsen

Kicked
well ... it's not me opening up this Pandora's box
Why would a French peace treaty not follow the peace treaties Germany imposed during the war that were both far harsher than Versailles?
... what treaties you refer too?

Brest-Litovsk?
- Which imposed some reparations compared to the ToV laughable:​
in the end 6 billions instead of 269 billions as demanded in 1920 (conference of Boulogne)as well as 1921 (conference of Paris) by the entente powers. ... aside and plus the 20 billion goldmarks (~ 7.000 tons of gold) as a 'first payoff'.​
And these 6 billions were also to be accounted against civilian losses of russians as kinda compensationfor them.​
also:​
No restrictions on military, no restriction on the navy, no restrictions on fortifications, no request on 'war criminals', no war guilt clause, no surrender of the majority of its merchant navy, no unilaterality of most-favored status, no restrictions of economy or politics abroad (ToV articles 128 to 158), no internationalisation of its rivers and railways​
Which didn't included occupation of genuine ethnic russian land (and I don't assume the majority of finns, estonians, latvians, lithunians, ukrainians or geogians would have rrendered themself a 'genuine russians esp. at that point of time) like the german Rheinland.​

However, there were two further treaties concluded by/through Germany during the war:

Bukarest 1918?
There were some military 'conditions' set for the time even after the war would have completely be over. However,​
regarding the numbers of reduction to peace time footing still MUCH more lenient in downgrading from ~ 350.000/4000.000 (? war time field army in 1916 after mobilisation also of first wave of reservists was ~ 564.000) to something about 200.000 infantry plus artillery plus cavalry. Somewhat about halfing its peacetime army compared to the about eightst/12.5% the german army had to be reduced (roughly 800.000 prewar to 100.000 postwar)​
For the time of war still occupation by CP forces which costs have to paid for by Rumania. ... similar ToV.​
The territorial losses were to an IMHO at least on par compensated for by the ceeding of Bessarabia to Romanian.​
No imdemnities!​
... though in a way some future 'payment' by leasing of its oil wells andcontrols of rumanian agricultural and infrastructural economy for the further time of fithing​
but no payment in kind as sort of 'reparation'​
Admitted the further controls of rumanian agricultural and infrastructural economy as well as the control/watching over the rumanian goverment and bureaucracy for the time of the ongoing war were something not similarly adressed in the ToV but in 1919 there was no war going on anymore.
Arguably somewhat more humiliating than the ToV with its controls of domestics for the time being of the not to be forgotten still ongoing war and according conditions and demands on the CP still lesser in military and financial terms.

Berlin 1918?
The peace treaty between Finnalnd and Germany. ... more or less simply acknowledged finnish independence from Russian and its souvereignity.
Otherwise it simply put relations on a 'peacetime footing'​
with no reparation,​
restoring private property and a​
commonly organized compensation of civilian economical losses.​
Militarily it called for the exchange of PoWs of either citizenship and only demanded the demilitarisation of the Âland islands eventually settled by an agreement of Finnland, Sweden, Germany and Russia​

... any other treaties?

Now ... actually in what respect was Brest-Litovsk or any other of the named treaties 'harsher' than Versailles? ... esp. in the longer (next decade) run?

And also given the context that the 1871 peace treaty Germany forced on France was significantly harsher than Versailles, something many seem to forget when calling Versailles "the most unfair harshest treaty in the history of ever™️"
Well ...
Against post WW1 as well as WW2 propaganda Elsaß-Lothringen at this time - 1871 - actually WAS mostly germanspeaking with the exclusion of minor regions in the area of Metz which were included in exchange for the Belfort region as wished by the french delegation - then part of departement Haut-Rhin which originally was demanded as a whole - which therewith stayed with France.

The reaparations to be payed ... 5 billion goldfranc equalling 1450 tons of gold ... in total (instead of the above mentioned ~7000 tons of gold only for the first payoff given that due to the rules of goldstandard the worth of gold was rather ... 'stable' over this time and as such understood by the politicians in Versailles in 1918 as well - regartdless nowadays economical shenanigans applied).
- France was to be (and was) cleard after the first 500.000 franc - 30 days after ratification - regarding the departements Somme, Seine inferieur and Eure would be payed and​
- after the payment of the next 1 billion franc the remaining departements Oise, Seine-et-Oise, Seine-et-Marne, Seine as well as the forts of Paris would and were cleared of german occupational troops.​
- and the next 500.000 franc should be payed until 1st May 1872​
- the last 3 billions should be payed until 2nd March 1874, if not there would be addition 5% interest on these 3 billions to be payed.​

Regarding economics ... on the border rivers both parties were garnted the same right and the now to be re-installed trading agreements should be refurnished to granting "most-favored-nation" status to each other (german states to France as well as France to german states). ... by-n-large rather just a normalization of economical relations on equal footing.

France was left together with its whole empire (contrary to Germany after the ToV) in such a ... 'bad' condition that it payed all of its indemnities already in 1873 - avoidung any interest rates - so that the last german soldier left France on 16th September 1873.
... compare that to the occupation of the Rheinland IOTL​
Also
No restrictions on military, no restriction on the navy, no restrictions on fortifications, no request on 'war criminals', no war guilt clause, no surrender of the majority of its merchant navy, no unilaterality of most-favored status, no restrictions of economy or politics abroad (ToV articles 128 to 158), no internationalisation of its rivers and railways​

Now ... actually in what respect was Frankfurt 'harsher' than Versailles?


... also ... "imposed" on France ... actually there WERE negotiations and Bismarck and v. Arnim actually reacted tothe injections of the three french diplomats.
... much different to what happened to either german delegations at Compiegne as well as Versailles.
 
Last edited:
IMHO Germany had as much motivation to make the peace treaty after a victory as 'humiliating' as the french IOTL. During the last somewhat over 100 years french rulers had 3 times attacked german lands
Napoleon I (Rheinbund 1806 and its further encroachments/occupations until 1813)Napolen III and ofc theIII. Republique (as the german understood it being 'forced' by encirclement and 'forced' to take arms against France once again)Three times french arms 'failed' to defeat german soldiers in the end and obviously the french nation needed to be contained in a much more thorough way it was the last times. Not to forget, the german populace esp. at home- as it 'feeled' it - had suffered more than the french populace esp. at home and as a whole with its access to food and other goodies from abroad
Nap I didn't invade a unified Germany and he was more a threat to Europe in general than to only Germany.
Nap III was tricked into war, everybody knows Bismarck wanted to use France to unify Germany.
And now France isn't that much of a threat, without the help of the Entente they stand no chance against Germany.
So, yes: I would agree that after a german victory the demands of the treaty could/would be less severe than the ToV to be at least somewhat better 'digestible' for the french politicians - in the minds of the german politician (who due to their 'legalistic' proveniance and claim for acceptability would insist on 'real' negotiations contrary to what happened IOTL in Versailles)... though still conveived as by the french populace and french national propaganda esp. as utterly humiliating.
Humiliation a second time means people would start to give up on the idea of revenge.
But I would agree that every french postwar goverment ITTL would do its very best to avoid - at least for the next 5 to 10 years ... I would assume ... how long is the half-worth time of a french goverment of the III.republic again? :winkytongue:
France doesn't have a realistic chance to oppose Germany and both sides know that, they've been defeated while in the war with GB and Russia.
 

NoMommsen

Kicked
Nap I didn't invade a unified Germany and he was more a threat to Europe in general than to only Germany.
Nap III was tricked into war, everybody knows Bismarck wanted to use France to unify Germany. ...
The german populace supported by their historians perceived it different. ... and didn't give such 'finess' of truly 'invasion' - Nap I's troops occupied ... erhm 'were garrisoned' in large parts of Germany or why actually Nap II declared war.

... Humiliation a second time means people would start to give up on the idea of revenge.
...
France doesn't have a realistic chance to oppose Germany and both sides know that, they've been defeated while in the war with GB and Russia.
Never underestimate the amount of stupidity and ability to ignore reality by humans esp. if in large(r) 'masses' if they have an ... 'emotional' patriotic itch ... ;)
 
Never underestimate the amount of stupidity and ability to ignore reality by humans esp. if in large(r) 'masses' if they have an ... 'emotional' patriotic itch ... ;)
A mass of angry persons in Paris cannot cause a war with Germany so easily, there won't be much Germans to pogrom since they all left.
 
Top