How To Prevent The Narrative of Versailles Being Too Harsh From Spreading In Anglophone Countries?

[AltoRegnant]

Inspired by this thread: https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...y-of-lockstep-cooperation-with-france.525801/

OTL, during the interwar period, Germany naturally felt betrayed and humiliated by the treaty of Versailles. this at least makes sense given the 4 years of war only to lose while the enemy wasn't even at the border but still within their own nation. I may not agree with it, but I see the logic. something I don't see is how this narrative that Versailles was unjust and unfair also became prominent in the anglosphere during the same period. It wasn't even 1925 before Germany was trying to cheese it and sneak away from it, after all. Not only that, but it was very well known that France could not stop a rearmed Germany, while a rearmed Germany could stop France (see: 1871 and the fact it took four years of war from three world powers to stop Germany from taking Paris during ww1.) - and the territory Germany lost wasn't exactly territory that enabled that, due to still having the Rhineland and silesia. The reparations could only be counted on to weaken the Reich if Germany was willing to pay, or if the entente was willing to force it, which the Ruhr crisis showed was not the case.

So. I want to know how this idea became so widespread and accepted in places like Britain and America. Was it just german propaganda? Feelings stored up by german immigrants? A disconnect between wanting to weaken enemies to prevent war while wanting to prevent potential causes of it? Was it just Wilsonian influence and ideology in the states?

Secondarily, what happens if it never takes hold? Hitler's move in the rhine wasn't the first act of appeasement- that would be France and Britain letting him announce a rebuilt Luftwaffe and the creation of the Kriegsmarine. But even this wasn't the first time that london decided to undermine the treaty- to my knowledge it was during the Ruhr Crisis, where Germany missed coal and lumber payments (based on their own estimations of capacity) that led to France and Belgium occupying the rhine in order to extract the payment. Britain was a large part of why they were eventually forced out and had to reduce the payments. this greatly soured anglo-french relations until Hitler demilitarized the Rhineland.

Now, granted, lockstep with France might not be on the cards, since Britain doesn't want either of them to dominate the continent enough to be a threat, but the British also drastically miscalculated the balance of power between France and Germany in part because of this narrative and it shot them in the foot, so I'm curious as to why this happened

 

[naraic]

Get rid of category c reparations. Roll a portion of it into category a and b or something.

They didn't have to be paid unless the German economy could afford to pay it. It was almost two thirds of the total reparations. It was very wishy washy and was never paid towards at all before ww2. Category C was never going to be paid.

Yet the figure of total reparations was used to say how harsh the treaty was.

Also put an end date on the military clauses or link them to reparations being paid off. Make it so that when Germany wants to rearm they are told, well you know how you get to do that.

Finally don't allow central power minors off the hook. If Turkey, Austria, Hungary and Bulgaria get to walk away from treaty obligations and reparations how can Germany be held to them.

 

[Teutoberg Forest]

Communism happened. All of a sudden the primary boogeyman for the western powers, or at least Britain, switched from a monarchist Germany to a communist state which was both quantitatively stronger than Germany and far more aggressively anti-imperialist and anti-capitalist in order. British decision makers were essentially forced to do everything in their power to prevent a communist Germany, or at least one in league with the Soviets, which necessitated them turning a blind eye to Germany's attempts to skirt the treaty.

 

[marathag]

Don't put terms in a treaty that can only be enforced by all parties, for over multiple decades.

Myself, wouldn't have had the limits on their Armed Forces.

Let them fund what they wanted, AFTER that years Reparation payments.

And since you want them to pay, that got harder by the confiscation of Patents and assets of International German Corporations.

Chose one
A. Keep Germany Down
B. Get Germany to pay those Debts

 

[Dagoth Ur]

Well it *was* too harsh, it even led directly to round two. The British were viewing the whole thing pretty dispassionately, so they saw it was too harsh. All they really cared about was making sure Germany didn't have any colonies, unlike the French who wanted to humiliate Germany for exposing France's inferiority in 1871 and from 1914 to 1918. Make the terms of the treaty less harsh, and it won't be viewed as too harsh by the British, or even the Germans possibly.

 

[AltoRegnant]

Well it *was* too harsh, it even led directly to round two. The British were viewing the whole thing pretty dispassionately, so they saw it was too harsh. All they really cared about was making sure Germany didn't have any colonies, unlike the French who wanted to humiliate Germany for exposing France's inferiority in 1871 and from 1914 to 1918. Make the terms of the treaty less harsh, and it won't be viewed as too harsh by the British, or even the Germans possibly.

the thing is though, the treaty was harsh in a very specific way that required too much enforcement from the allied powers, and that they weren't willing to do so- because they thought it was too harsh and they were broke- is what enabled Germany to act on its anger and thus start round two. And frankly, the reason the Germans were able to launch round two was that the territory they lost was more politically important than it was strategically important-
Danzig and the corridor were flashpoints due to cutting Germany in half but didn't really change their presence in the baltic.

Alsace-Lorraine was a mark of beating france, that's all it did for them (especially because they hated being german)

Shelsvig was similar to Alsace-Lorraine in this regard, though i think they liked being part of the empire

other mainland losses were very minor and hard to gauge.

the colonies are up for debate though

plus, the geramn people largely accepted the peace (minus the corridor) up until the depression tanked the economy again so I'm not sure about the "directly led to ww2" idea

 

[Dorknought]

So. I want to know how this idea became so widespread and accepted in places like Britain and America.

Have Keynes not write 'The Economic Consequences of the Peace'.

The problems with the Versailles Treaty was that the framework was incomplete. The League of Nations didn't have the US, Russia nor Germany as members. Apart from disarming Germany and the Washington Naval Treaty there was no comparable European mainland disarmament.

It was very important to suppress Prussian/German Militarism and restricting the armed forces was a way of disrupting the culture and it's spread. Problem was that Germans viewed the military as a big part of their culture. You'd not have WW2 with a German army of just 100,000 men and no airforce.

The British and Americans couldn't see that France was concerned with Collective Security, 'you have a big army and Germany has a little army, what's the problem? - we don't need to tie ourselves to you in an alliance' ignored many fundamental issues.

 

[Mikestone8]

Make the war end two years earlier.

British casualties, in particular, will be a lot less than OTL, so Brits will be that much more willing to consider using force to uphold the treaty. OTL, the will to enforce soon faded, and seeing the treaty as unjust provided a legitimate excuse for *not* enforcing it..

 

[ThatRomanFanatic]

Don’t put in the limitations of the armed forces and the reparations

 

[Dorknought]

Make the war end two years earlier.

Or 2 years later...

 

[Dorknought]

Don’t put in the limitations of the armed forces and the reparations

Um, you need both to cover the cost of destruction in France and Belgium and to stop it from happening again.

 

[Mikestone8]

Or 2 years later...

That would make the war-weariness even worse, hence will to enforce even weaker.

Um, you need both - - - to stop it from happening again.

It was sure successful on that score.

 

[Dorknought]

It was sure successful on that score.

An Austrian gets shot -> WW1
An Austrian doesn't get shot -> WW2

 

[TDM]

That would make the war-weariness even worse, hence will to enforce even weaker.

People are much more forgiving of war they are clearly winning. It also might take the wind out of the sails of the stabbed in the back myth.

As an aside the war weariness of WW1 is kind of misunderstood. It easy to think it was all war poetry and despair at man's inhumanity to man and hatred of war overall. But in reality the issues was seldom with sending men to fight and even die (or even being those men) it was sending men to fight and die in what was seen as useless stalemate which is what the western front looked like for a chunk of time.

There's a lot of mythology about WW1 that permeates, I think a decisive win on the ground would actaully change a lot of how the War was seen not just by the losers (which is what we often concentrate on) but also by the victors.

It was sure successful on that score.

Well they didn't end end up keeping up with either part, so

is it that the TOV was too harsh or is it that the TOV was not enforced

However there is the practical point that others have raised treaty you not going to enforce because no one is interested in doing so is not a great treaty you could also probably argue the a therefore a treaty that will require such commitment to enforce isn't great unless you nail down that commitment.

As mentioned earlier in theory the LN would have been the tool for this job, but the LN was weakened very early on. However I also think the LN is now seen almost in comparison to the UN and the LN was never going to be that (in fact the UN was partially structured with the reality of the LN in mind).



Which leads to one last point right or wrong we often see teh TOV and WW1 in teh context of WW2, and that is not how we should judge the decision being made in 1919 and onwards because it is a inherently retroactive historical argument and there is a similar temptation to retroactively call those who criticised it at the time as prophets of what must invariably happen.





EDIT to actaully tie this back to the OP, I actually think the broader perception of the TOV in the anglosphere is as much to do with the wider perception of WW1 itself in the interwar years (and comparative perception of WW2 in the post WW2 period), than the actual provisions

 

[kholieken]

Well it *was* too harsh, it even led directly to round two.

It comparable with Treaty ending Franco-Prussian War. It only "too harsh" because Germany whining and didn't accept defeat, while Third Republic accept and pay reparations. Differences not on treaty harshness, but because German soil not under invasion, Germans had delusion that they are winning.

 

[vizzer]

One of the terms shot have been an Entente victory parade through Berlin just to rub in who won & who lost.
Just the sight of well fed, equipped & supplied troops should contrast with the state of the German forces.

 

[Dorknought]

The forces pushing up from the south would get to Berlin quicker than those on the Western Front but a 'Ruhr Pocket' in April 1919 instead of Apr 1945 would help bring the message home. Unfortunately the 1919 Plans may have involved wider use of chemical warfare by the Entente instead of the thousands of tanks that were not built yet.

One of the terms shot have been an Entente victory parade through Berlin just to rub in who won & who lost.
Just the sight of well fed, equipped & supplied troops should contrast with the state of the German forces.

Agreed, the Germans had their Victory Parade through Berlin.

 

[Dagoth Ur]

It comparable with Treaty ending Franco-Prussian War. It only "too harsh" because Germany whining and didn't accept defeat, while Third Republic accept and pay reparations. Differences not on treaty harshness, but because German soil not under invasion, Germans had delusion that they are winning.

Big differences in what occurred. Germany didn't interfere with the French government or fighting between factions, they just wanted reparations. And then they occupied part of France for shorter than was originally planned, and lowered reparations voluntarily. In contrast France made Versailles pathologically harsh to the point the Americans could not even ratify it, passing their own independent resolution to officially cease hostilities. France's peace dismantled Germany's government, gave France free reign to abuse German civilians in the Rhineland for 15 years, and basically kicked Germany while it was down. Then they consistently bleated at the British and Americans to enforce the treaty when reparations eventually went into arrears and other terms were violated, since they had neither the strength nor the courage to enforce the treaty themselves.

 

[TDM]

Big differences in what occurred. Germany didn't interfere with the French government or fighting between factions, they just wanted reparations. And then they occupied part of France for shorter than was originally planned, and lowered reparations voluntarily. In contrast France made Versailles pathologically harsh to the point the Americans could not even ratify it, passing their own independent resolution to officially cease hostilities. France's peace dismantled Germany's government, gave France free reign to abuse German civilians in the Rhineland for 15 years, and basically kicked Germany while it was down. Then they consistently bleated at the British and Americans to enforce the treaty when reparations eventually went into arrears and other terms were violated, since they had neither the strength nor the courage to enforce the treaty themselves.

The occupation of France was shorter because the French paid the reparations in shorter than the planned time.

When did Germany reduce the reparations the France had to pay in the Treaty of Frankfurt, It stayed at 5bn franks? (German reparations were reduced post WW1 IIRC)

When was the German government dismantled by the French peace (are you referring to Scheidemann resigning)?

What clause in the TOV allowed the France to abuse German civilian in the Ruhr? Yes I'm sure it happened but it wasn't a direct policy and I'm equally sure there were German soldiers abusing French civilian in 1871-2, just as there was in many other occupations i.e your point seems relevant to military occupation in general rather then the TOV specifically.

 

[marathag]

It comparable with Treaty ending Franco-Prussian War. It only "too harsh" because Germany whining and didn't accept defeat, while Third Republic accept and pay reparations.

Except the French had very clearly lost in 1871, and they didn't lose any overseas colonies, no limits on rebuilding their military, Land and Sea, and French Patents and Business assets were not confiscated.

And even with 1871 Peace, Revanchism was very real.
Why would the German People feel any different than the French?