More realistic better Versailles

Is this better than OTL's Versailles treaty?


  • Total voters
    34
This is my second attempt at this. It would require Russia's Civil war to be slightly more chaotic, allowing for the Caucasian states as well as White Ruthenia and the Ukraine to gain independence, and a less decisive Turkish victory in the Turkish War of "Independence".

Differences from OTL
1. Germany and Austria are allowed to unite. Austria retains South Tyrol and Germany retains Danzig.

2. Greece doesn't attempt to hold the Smyrna region or any of Asia Minor, which gives them more troops to successfully defend Eastern Thrace and take Constantinople. They also get Imbros, Tenedos and the small corner of Northern Epirus south of the 40th parallel. Britain and Italy eventually sell them the Dodecanese and Cyprus. Population transfers between Greece and Turkey happen similarly to OTL, but with these boundaries instead.

3. Ireland gets to keep Tyrone and Fermanagh, those counties had a Catholic majority in 1921. Great Britain still gets Antrim, Down, Derry, and Armagh though.

4. Armenia gets to keep Kars Province, and is able to annex Javakheti, Nagorno-Karabakh, and Nakhchivan. It is able to gain indepenence from the Soviet Union, as are Georgia and Azerbaijan.

5. White Ruthenia and the Ukraine gain independence, supported by the Allies, who view them as valuable buffers for Poland against the Soviet Union.

Is this realistic?

Is this better than OTL's Versailles?

Is it better than my last attempt?

(Map based on map from omniatlas.com)
 
I don't see quite how Armenia gets to keep Kars w/o substantially greater Allied intervention than OTL. Ditto for Ukraine and Belarus.

Small nitpick. Except for 1 (with which I agree) none of these matters was or would have been part of the Versailles treaty (they do not relate to the peace with Germany), and 3 was not before the Peace Conference at all.
 
Last edited:
2. What do you mean by “doesn’t attempt”? They decide that on their own or is this stipulated in one the treaties?
4. “Armenia [...] is able to gain indepenence from the Soviet Union”. How? Does the Entente intervene on their behalf?
5. Who sends and pays for the soldiers needed to achieve that?
 
This I think would have been slightly better. However its unrealistic as I dont see the victors accepting this. Everything else aside there is no way Germany after loosing the war ends up bigger and possibly more populous than before it.
 

Sulemain

Banned
I still think it is overly generous to Ireland and Germany, but it's better then your last attempt.
 
The problem with 1, is that while Italy can agree in not getting South Tyrol in exchange to a demilitarizated zone and some financial assets (it's almost happened in OTL), this can get a go only if Germany and Austria are separate; if they are united any italian goverment will press with all the possible force to get South Tyrol as it will give to Italy one of the best natural defense line of the entire continent (basically even with just some moderate fortification, any attack through there will make look a full frontal assault to the Maginot Line like a walk inthe park)
 

Coulsdon Eagle

Monthly Donor
Ireland was not covered by the Treaty of Versailles, and there were 5 British Empire Armies and the Grand Fleet to get past before anyone can enforce such terms on the victorious British.
 
Why is Ireland getting anything? Why are they mentioned at all? They were part of the UK, anything to do with Ireland would be in house negotiations.

Remember the point was to decisively punish/weaken Germany, allowing them to annex Austria doesn't really do that. Keeping Germany happy wasnt that high a priority.
 
Last edited:
This might avoid a German started WW2, however it's inevitable that nationalist authoritarians would seize power in Germany. Perhaps WW2 would begin with the USSR invading the Ukraine.
 
So, yet again, Italy gets less than the OTL treaty that gave rise to Mussolini still. Italy is going fascist faster than you can say "vittoria mutilata", and is likely more aggressive than OTL.
 
Point 1) is a non starter for France and point 2) is for Great Britain. Its certainly better then the least one you made but it has a bunch of problems as it is.
 
The idea of the author is obviously to create a JUST and sustainable treaty not to create, what was in the interest of entente powers.
 
The idea of the author is obviously to create a JUST and sustainable treaty not to create, what was in the interest of entente powers.


But are the two aims compatible?

If the peace is wholly just, then nobody will be satisfied with it. So it won't be sustainable.
 
Top