France gets what it demands: alternate Treaty of Versailles

Again no one can break up Germany ever but nobody has any problem to balkanize France in a german victory. A Germany without rhineland might not have the power to start WWII.
 
Again no one can break up Germany ever but nobody has any problem to balkanize France in a german victory. A Germany without rhineland might not have the power to start WWII.

Agreed, but how do you prevent the Rhineland wanting to re-unify with Germany unless France is prepared to squash any attempt to bring that about? As IOTL the status of the Rhineland is going to be a highly emotive issue for the Nazis and other Nationalist groups to try and exploit. The problem with OTL's Versailles was that while public opinion in the Entente Powers wanted a harsh peace, it wasn't prepared to pay the blood price of enforcing that peace. That created the worst of both Worlds, an angry, humiliated Germany wanting revenge and an indifferent Entente that didn't see the danger until it was too late.
 
Agreed, but how do you prevent the Rhineland wanting to re-unify with Germany unless France is prepared to squash any attempt to bring that about? As IOTL the status of the Rhineland is going to be a highly emotive issue for the Nazis and other Nationalist groups to try and exploit. The problem with OTL's Versailles was that while public opinion in the Entente Powers wanted a harsh peace, it wasn't prepared to pay the blood price of enforcing that peace. That created the worst of both Worlds, an angry, humiliated Germany wanting revenge and an indifferent Entente that didn't see the danger until it was too late.

How to prevent Rhineland wanting to reunify with Germany ? Easy. Rhineland goes socialist, Bavaria and Baden-Wurtemberg (assuming they get independance, best way with a King so there is opposition to reunification at the top) goes moderate conservative while the rest goes fascist.
 
How to prevent Rhineland wanting to reunify with Germany ? Easy. Rhineland goes socialist, Bavaria and Baden-Wurtemberg (assuming they get independance, best way with a King so there is opposition to reunification at the top) goes moderate conservative while the rest goes fascist.
That might work.
 
How to prevent Rhineland wanting to reunify with Germany ? Easy. Rhineland goes socialist, Bavaria and Baden-Wurtemberg (assuming they get independance, best way with a King so there is opposition to reunification at the top) goes moderate conservative while the rest goes fascist.
That might work. Could there have been a German civil war after WWI?
 
How to prevent Rhineland wanting to reunify with Germany ? Easy. Rhineland goes socialist, Bavaria and Baden-Wurtemberg (assuming they get independance, best way with a King so there is opposition to reunification at the top) goes moderate conservative while the rest goes fascist.

Yes, but I think you greatly overestimate the tolerance of the Allies for a socialist government in Western Europe, especially at the height of the Russian Revolution.
 
Yes, but I think you greatly overestimate the tolerance of the Allies for a socialist government in Western Europe, especially at the height of the Russian Revolution.

I'm a french, for me socialist means social-democrats, you know, like the people in power in France half the time in the interbellum or who were elected just after the war in Germany.
 
Again no one can break up Germany ever but nobody has any problem to balkanize France in a german victory. A Germany without rhineland might not have the power to start WWII.

Xgentis, will you please stop axe-grinding for once and point to actual threads where France is being balkanized after a German victory.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
Agreed, but how do you prevent the Rhineland wanting to re-unify with Germany unless France is prepared to squash any attempt to bring that about? As IOTL the status of the Rhineland is going to be a highly emotive issue for the Nazis and other Nationalist groups to try and exploit. The problem with OTL's Versailles was that while public opinion in the Entente Powers wanted a harsh peace, it wasn't prepared to pay the blood price of enforcing that peace. That created the worst of both Worlds, an angry, humiliated Germany wanting revenge and an indifferent Entente that didn't see the danger until it was too late.

Agreed. I would use the word treasure, not blood. But it is the right analysis. As the post WW2 shows, Germany can be changed and modified with multi-generational occupation. The problem with any harsh ToV is that the Soviets will not help France and England. And neither will the USA. And it is questionable whether any England of the 1920's will be willing to maintain a large standing Army in Germany. Looking at post WW2 forces in Germany, I would guess you would need a million troops in Imperial Germany for 50 years. Not only do you have to pacify a disarmed Germany, you have to deter the eventual Soviet aggression to the east. So even if we assume the UK chips into the occupation duties 50/50, the France needs 500K men in Germany. They need the 300K or so to control the colonies (from memory), and the will need some in France proper. We are probably looking at a 3.5 to 4.0 year conscription of over 80% of males. Politically impossible, or very close to impossible. And if we assume no substantial UK help (just a division or two), then we have over a 5 year conscription period. What is often forgotten is how the world turns out if Germany really does go pacifist. Stalin exploited weakness, and either France/England stop the Soviets in a war where they will lose at least 10 million dead, or they accept the communist dominating an area at least as big as the Warsaw pact.

And then there is the public of the two countries. Both radicalized by massive losses and the excessive wartime propaganda. Some games have no solutions. Even it you went back in time and persuade the big 3 leaders what would happen, they could not have prevented a bad outcome. Sure, they would avoid Nazism, but only at the cost of bankrupting France and England. As soon as Wilson leaves, the USA will leave. And then the Soviets have a great situation. Not weakened by WW2, but almost destined to gain a huge sphere of influence. At times, Stalin could only be deterred by blood an iron.

So the solution is clear, you need a more post Napoleon type solution that leaves a strong but slightly weaker German with borders that work in the east and west. But no one is going to allow a vote in A-L by district to see where border is. Same for Posen and West Prussia. And the part that could make it where German nationalist were ok with losing some of their land -gaining Austria and the Sudetenland - is a not starter for the Entente. Not to mention that it would make sense to vote in Tyrol, but then the Italians freak out. And the sad thing is all these issue were know before hand. By early 1915, there are articles talking about how an Entente win that destroys Germany means Russia dominates Europe and France/England have to have huge armies to hold them back. It is only the very odd, near ASB events of OTL where Russia imposed harsher terms on itself than B/L, do we have a situation where France and the UK don't have to have wide spread conscription.
 
That might work. Could there have been a German civil war after WWI?
What if a civil war breaks out while the treaty of Versailles is being negotiated? It did take nearly a year in OTL and Germany was very unstable so it is very possible. Maybe Trade Unionist/Socialist take over the Rhineland and separatists take over Bavaria and Baden-Württemberg then the rest of Germany is left as a rump state that will probably fall to fascists in 10-15 years. The Allies, sick of war, could stop the sides fighting then they write up a treaty breaking of the rebel held areas as new states. Their people are happy that Germany is being punished for WWI, the governments are happy that they don't have to deal with Germany, the rebels are happy that they get what they want and while Germany is not happy it blames the rebels rather than the Allies.
 

Cook

Banned
Maybe Trade Unionist/Socialist take over the Rhineland...
The Rhineland was under allied military occupation following the signing of the Armistice in November 1918. They occupied everything west of the Rhine, plus three bridgeheads. A social Democrat government in the Rhineland along the same lines as Ebert's would be acceptable to them, but Socialist and Marxist would not.
 
The Rhineland was under allied military occupation following the signing of the Armistice in November 1918. They occupied everything west of the Rhine, plus three bridgeheads. A social Democrat government in the Rhineland along the same lines as Ebert's would be acceptable to them, but Socialist and Marxist would not.

But the socialist governments in Berlin always tried to get rid of the occupation - why should that be different for a socialist government in the Rhineland?


In any case, the question is how to get a stable partition over the long run. It's not sufficient to have a catholic-conservative Southern Germany, a socialist Western Germany and a protestant-fascist eastern Germany with partial backing by France and Belgium. We had a Leninist Eastern Germany and a capitalist Western Germany IOTL both heavily backed by supwerpowers and we still saw reunification. The question is how to get several states stable, economically prosperous, and different enough to never try unification.
 
But the socialist governments in Berlin always tried to get rid of the occupation - why should that be different for a socialist government in the Rhineland?


In any case, the question is how to get a stable partition over the long run. It's not sufficient to have a catholic-conservative Southern Germany, a socialist Western Germany and a protestant-fascist eastern Germany with partial backing by France and Belgium. We had a Leninist Eastern Germany and a capitalist Western Germany IOTL both heavily backed by supwerpowers and we still saw reunification. The question is how to get several states stable, economically prosperous, and different enough to never try unification.

Catholic states of the south of Germany split of due to regionalism and the entente supporting them to punish germany. After a few years and the breakup of Austria Hungary and worried about alt-fascist/protestant Germany (2nr reich minus southern states, the part that go polish, Danish, Belgian and French, and a French backed independant Rhineland) rearmement and irredentism push the southern states very close to switzerland and austria. The entente accept unification of Bavaria and austria and Baden-wurtemberg with Switzerland or Austria (there was a movement for it after WWI IIRC). Meanwhile social-democrats come to power in the Rheinland State and when the popular front is elected in France get aligned with France.

Or else you could have the same scenario with the norteastern part of Germany going communist instead of fascist (strongest KPD and USPD before it was in Saxony and Brandenburg IIRC) that align with Stalin. Rhineland align with France and England, while Austria/Bavaria align with Fascist Italy.

Xgentis, will you please stop axe-grinding for once and point to actual threads where France is being balkanized after a German victory.

OTL when Wallonia was separated from France after the Napoleonic Wars. Several map in the map thread.
 
What if a civil war breaks out while the treaty of Versailles is being negotiated? It did take nearly a year in OTL and Germany was very unstable so it is very possible. Maybe Trade Unionist/Socialist take over the Rhineland and separatists take over Bavaria and Baden-Württemberg then the rest of Germany is left as a rump state that will probably fall to fascists in 10-15 years. The Allies, sick of war, could stop the sides fighting then they write up a treaty breaking of the rebel held areas as new states. Their people are happy that Germany is being punished for WWI, the governments are happy that they don't have to deal with Germany, the rebels are happy that they get what they want and while Germany is not happy it blames the rebels rather than the Allies.

Good idea! Nice! ;)

The Rhineland was under allied military occupation following the signing of the Armistice in November 1918. They occupied everything west of the Rhine, plus three bridgeheads. A social Democrat government in the Rhineland along the same lines as Ebert's would be acceptable to them, but Socialist and Marxist would not.

But that's indeed true...

But the socialist governments in Berlin always tried to get rid of the occupation - why should that be different for a socialist government in the Rhineland?

Hmm, now you're confusing me, but that seems right too.

In any case, the question is how to get a stable partition over the long run. It's not sufficient to have a catholic-conservative Southern Germany, a socialist Western Germany and a protestant-fascist eastern Germany with partial backing by France and Belgium. We had a Leninist Eastern Germany and a capitalist Western Germany IOTL both heavily backed by supwerpowers and we still saw reunification. The question is how to get several states stable, economically prosperous, and different enough to never try unification.

Indeed... :rolleyes: True - you really know much about German history, don't you?

Catholic states of the south of Germany split of due to regionalism and the entente supporting them to punish germany. After a few years and the breakup of Austria Hungary and worried about alt-fascist/protestant Germany (2nr reich minus southern states, the part that go polish, Danish, Belgian and French, and a French backed independant Rhineland) rearmement and irredentism push the southern states very close to switzerland and austria. The entente accept unification of Bavaria and austria and Baden-wurtemberg with Switzerland or Austria (there was a movement for it after WWI IIRC). Meanwhile social-democrats come to power in the Rheinland State and when the popular front is elected in France get aligned with France.

Or else you could have the same scenario with the norteastern part of Germany going communist instead of fascist (strongest KPD and USPD before it was in Saxony and Brandenburg IIRC) that align with Stalin. Rhineland align with France and England, while Austria/Bavaria align with Fascist Italy

Cool idea!
 
OTL when Wallonia was separated from France after the Napoleonic Wars. Several map in the map thread.

I doubt the Napoleonic Wars would count as a "German victory". Besides, considering the timeline we are talking about, he was basically stating that CP-victory scenarios always or often balkainze France, which is something they never do.

And I`m not counting the map thread because it is governed by the rule of cool, i.e. how good the map looks, rather than what the map shows.
 
Top