Our Treaty of Versailles

[benedict XVII]

My misunderstanding then, sorry Has it ever been majority German?

Not Malmédy and the surrounding villages. Though Germans did try to eradicate the use of French while the city was German, the Walloon dialect survived.

 

[benedict XVII]

OTL, the only thing the French tried to annex beyond A-L was the Saarland, and they failed. I do not see them trying to get Rhineland or separate it from Germany. What might work is :
(1) Restoring to Luxembourg its pre-1814 boundaries in the East: would have a serious chance of being accepted in plebiscite in such areas as Eupen, Sankt-Vith, Monschau, Prüm, Bitburg, more or less all the way but excluding Trier - local dialect in those areas is Letzebürger, and better not to be among the defeated. Creates a weak buffer state depriving Germany of some strategic depth to attack again through the Ardennes.
(2) Demilitarize the Rhineland.

 

[Glen]

OTL, the only thing the French tried to annex beyond A-L was the Saarland, and they failed.

True. A-L will have to go back to France, but I think they can stop there in their annexation.

I do not see them trying to get Rhineland

Agreed

or separate it from Germany.

Oh, this they would try if they thought they could get away with it. I don't think it will happen, but the French would be receptive to the idea.

What might work is :
(1) Restoring to Luxembourg its pre-1814 boundaries in the East: would have a serious chance of being accepted in plebiscite in such areas as Eupen, Sankt-Vith, Monschau, Prüm, Bitburg, more or less all the way but excluding Trier - local dialect in those areas is Letzebürger, and better not to be among the defeated. Creates a weak buffer state depriving Germany of some strategic depth to attack again through the Ardennes.

Seems fair and workable. I don't think it will make any difference either way in the future events of the world, but it would be kinda fun.

(2) Demilitarize the Rhineland.

I think this could be ordered. The only problem is with the future. It humiliates the Germans if they have to demilitarize their territory but their neighbors do not, and with there being no will to enforce it in future, this will just become a propaganda coup for any German demogogue that arises.

Better would be to demilitarize the border the same amount on both sides, or maybe slightly less on the winning side (that way the issue of the day will be equality of demilitarization, rather than remilitarization).

However, in the end demilitarization makes little practical sense, since wars usually have a build up period, and the border can be remilitarized rather quickly in that event. Maybe best to not go there at all.

 

[benedict XVII]

Seems fair and workable. I don't think it will make any difference either way in the future events of the world, but it would be kinda fun.

Would make the logistics of a future attack a tad bit more complicated for the Germans, they may lose up to a full day because of that.

I think this could be ordered. The only problem is with the future. It humiliates the Germans if they have to demilitarize their territory but their neighbors do not, and with there being no will to enforce it in future, this will just become a propaganda coup for any German demogogue that arises.

Better would be to demilitarize the border the same amount on both sides, or maybe slightly less on the winning side (that way the issue of the day will be equality of demilitarization, rather than remilitarization).

However, in the end demilitarization makes little practical sense, since wars usually have a build up period, and the border can be remilitarized rather quickly in that event. Maybe best to not go there at all.

I don't see how you are going to sell any sort of treaty to the French without ensuring their safety on the Rhine. They had pretty good reasons to complain after all. I don't really see them accepting any sort of demilitarizatin on their side in this respect. It seems to me the humiliation was much more felt through the occupation of the Rhur than from the demilitarization itself. Have some reasonable war damages set (balanced with US forgiving a large chunk of Allied debt), and you remove a big bone of contention, the dramatic humiliation of overinflation, and the need for the occupation of the Rhur in 1922-23 by the French and Belgians.

You may argue "Greater Luxembourg" would be demilitarized and hence be the quid pro quo for the demilitarization of the Rhineland. What do you think?

 

[Glen]

Hmmm, the Socialists took over Bavaria in November 1918, and declared it a Republic. They even managed to have elections in February 1919. The Socialist goverment head, Eisner, is said to have been defeated in the election, but it is not stated WHO defeated him in the election. He was assassinated shortly thereafter and then some rather unstable USPD people were in charge, followed by a communist takeover in April. The Freikorps came marching in in May 1919, and took Bavaria back for the Weimar Republic, essentially.

If the Paris Peace conference dealt with Bavaria early, might they have concluded a separate treaty with Eisner, recognizing the Bavarian nation and forbidding Weimar from interceding?

What do you think?

 

[Glen]

Would make the logistics of a future attack a tad bit more complicated for the Germans, they may lose up to a full day because of that.

LOL! True. Which in the end would come to nothing.

I don't see how you are going to sell any sort of treaty to the French without ensuring their safety on the Rhine. They had pretty good reasons to complain after all.

The problem is, demilitarization obviously won't guarantee their safety on the Rhine in future. But they don't know that, so it may just have to be done.

I don't really see them accepting any sort of demilitarizatin on their side in this respect.

Probably not, though it will be out of pride than practicality.

It seems to me the humiliation was much more felt through the occupation of the Rhur than from the demilitarization itself. Have some reasonable war damages set (balanced with US forgiving a large chunk of Allied debt), and you remove a big bone of contention, the dramatic humiliation of overinflation, and the need for the occupation of the Rhur in 1922-23 by the French and Belgians.

All true, but the remilitarization of the Rhineland was a piece of the puzzle, and you are simply not going to get the US to forgive allied debt. Renegotiating to make the rates of repayment very gentle, sure, but this is not the age of debt forgiveness as far as I know.[/QUOTE]

You may argue "Greater Luxembourg" would be demilitarized and hence be the quid pro quo for the demilitarization of the Rhineland. What do you think?

Luxembourg will reject that outright, I think, and the Paris Peace Conference won't get them to do otherwise.

 

[LordKalvan]

Oh, I hear what you are saying. But if we can get a strongly regionalist section to break off, as opposed to just carving up Germany willy nilly, it may not be as big an issue.

I don't know if we want to really do this or not. I'm just raising it as an option.

The only region which might be "convinced" to break away would be Bavaria; the inducement could be a better deal on war reparations, or the lure of a Catholic German federation (which would be lead by Bavaria, and include Austria). Or maybe both.

If the French were smart enough, they would accept a referendum in the Rhineland and Alsace-Lorraine. In the latter one, they would be quite likely to win; in any case, I've never heard of a referendum going against the occupying power Maybe I'm too cynical.

The problem that the Entente is facing is a strategical one: the more Germanies there are, the better; OTOH, there is the Russian bear to take care of, if not in the immediate, certainly in a generation time. This means that the "Germanies" must be weak enough not to make trouble westward, but at the same time they must represent a reasonable bulwark against Russian expansionism (in particular if Russia becomes a communist nation: in 1919, this is not yet carved in stone: IMHO, the more time passes, the better the chances are for the Reds to win).

 

[benedict XVII]

LOL! True. Which in the end would come to nothing.

Beg to disagree. One more day for the French to get ready on the Meuse could have made a big difference in May 1940.

The problem is, demilitarization obviously won't guarantee their safety on the Rhine in future. But they don't know that, so it may just have to be done.

Probably not, though it will be out of pride than practicality.

Do not fully agree. Demilitarization of the Rhineland had to be coupled with resolve to maintain it. The French lacked enough of it in 1936 (with the Brits making sure to destroy whatever they had left of it), but WWII could have been completely avoided thanks to demilitarization.

All true, but the remilitarization of the Rhineland was a piece of the puzzle, and you are simply not going to get the US to forgive allied debt. Renegotiating to make the rates of repayment very gentle, sure, but this is not the age of debt forgiveness as far as I know.

Then we have a very serious issue to come up with any sort of treaty that will guarantee peace... Much more critical than knowing what will happen to the Sub-sylvanian minority in Polish-held Syldavic town of Szabostadt.

Luxembourg will reject that outright, I think, and the Paris Peace Conference won't get them to do otherwise.

Not sure, they did not have any army to speak of anyway and weren't showing any resolve to defend themselves. You give them a larger territory, but enforcing upon them an unarmed neutrality guaranteed by their neighbors. I'm quite confident they would take the deal. Especially if you explain to them the alternative is being reintegrated into Belgium, as was discussed OTL. Many Luxembourgers would never have dreamt their country would still exist after the war... National conscience was still fairly limited, with Luxemourg having had its own head of state only since 1892 (and yet, residing in Germany most of the time until 1910...) and got built up only mostly under the reign of Grand-Duchess Charlotte in the 1920's-'30's and during Nazi occupation. ALso, Grand-Duchess Adelaïde had had a rather ambiguous attitude during the WWI occupation by the Germans.

 

[Glen]

Beg to disagree. One more day for the French to get ready on the Meuse could have made a big difference in May 1940.

Maybe, but in the end I doubt it.

Do not fully agree. Demilitarization of the Rhineland had to be coupled with resolve to maintain it. The French lacked enough of it in 1936 (with the Brits making sure to destroy whatever they had left of it), but WWII could have been completely avoided thanks to demilitarization.

I disagree. It would have been different, maybe majorly different, with an ENFORCED demilitarized zone. However, the act of enforcement is probably more important than the demilitarization itself. It would show the Allies had the will to stand up to Hitler, and he wouldn't have been as confident in moving forward.

The problem as I see it is that the demilitarization of the Rhineland does nothing to increase Allied RESOLVE in future, and without that, it becomes more of a liability than an asset.

However, having said all that, I think we will see it. Maybe instead of having a permanent demilitarization, have a 25 year one? That way it would seem less impressive should it be rescinded early.

Then we have a very serious issue to come up with any sort of treaty that will guarantee peace... Much more critical than knowing what will happen to the Sub-sylvanian minority in Polish-held Syldavic town of Szabostadt.

Overall, I tend to agree. The terms of the peace were probably more important in the long run than the borders of the successors to the Central Powers.

Not sure, they did not have any army to speak of anyway and weren't showing any resolve to defend themselves. You give them a larger territory, but enforcing upon them an unarmed neutrality guaranteed by their neighbors. I'm quite confident they would take the deal. Especially if you explain to them the alternative is being reintegrated into Belgium, as was discussed OTL.

I am not nearly as confident as you. They were guaranteed their neutrality already by treaty, and fat lot of good it did them. No, once you open that door, they will take the added territory (and who will tell them no, that needs to go to THE GERMANS...) and say we will also keep our small army, for their independent dignity if nothing else, I suspect. And really, do you think the Germans will be mollified by the demilitarization of Luxembourg in return for the demilitarization of the Rhineland?

And what happens to that one more day that might be important if you demilitarize Luxembourg? I think it goes up in smoke.

I like the idea of giving the extra bits back to Luxembourg, and I agree that the demilitarization of the Rhineland probably has to happen, and the French will not agree to do any demilitarization of their own. However, I also like the idea of making the demilitarization only last 25 years.

 

[Othniel]

Why not give Italy some of Germany's colonies instead of compensating on the continet??

 

[Glen]

The only region which might be "convinced" to break away would be Bavaria; the inducement could be a better deal on war reparations, or the lure of a Catholic German federation (which would be lead by Bavaria, and include Austria). Or maybe both.

Apparently they already did that by January 1919. It doesn't last OTL, but the Entente might be able to bolster it if they acted quickly enough to recognize it, especially if they forbade Weimar from interfering in its internal affairs. However, I really think we need to get some Entente troops there (even a token force might do) for 'stability'.

If the French were smart enough, they would accept a referendum in the Rhineland and Alsace-Lorraine. In the latter one, they would be quite likely to win; in any case, I've never heard of a referendum going against the occupying power Maybe I'm too cynical.

I'm kinda with you there, just don't think it will fly. Maybe I'm wrong.

The problem that the Entente is facing is a strategical one: the more Germanies there are, the better; OTOH, there is the Russian bear to take care of, if not in the immediate, certainly in a generation time. This means that the "Germanies" must be weak enough not to make trouble westward, but at the same time they must represent a reasonable bulwark against Russian expansionism (in particular if Russia becomes a communist nation: in 1919, this is not yet carved in stone: IMHO, the more time passes, the better the chances are for the Reds to win).

Actually, what they need are strong Eastern European countries, not necessarily Germanies. They need Finland, the Baltics, Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Romania to be strong against the Communists. And if possible, they need to preserve Byelarus and Ukraine against the Red Army as well.

I think the idea of sending the 'extra' Central Powers troops to Byelarus and the Ukraine, even Russia, to help fight the communists might be a way to do this.

 

[Glen]

Why not give Italy some of Germany's colonies instead of compensating on the continet??

Because they have a strong interest in a more defensible border with Austria and more control over the Adriatic. African colonies are nice, but are not going to address these issues.

 

[Othniel]

Because they have a strong interest in a more defensible border with Austria and more control over the Adriatic. African colonies are nice, but are not going to address these issues.

They got Triste and South Tyrol in OTL, besides Dalamatia, what else could they want?

 

[Glen]

They got Triste and South Tyrol in OTL, besides Dalamatia, what else could they want?

Dalmatia, and control over Albania (I think the Italian prince on the Albanian throne would have satisfied them AND been acceptable to the Albanians)...really, that's about it. Oh, and Istria, which they eventually got OTL IIRC,but had to sorta take...

 

[Othniel]

Ok how about East Africa or Togoland instead of the gains they attempted to get from the Ottoman Empire, In OTL they excepted to get a portion of Western Antollia.

 

[benedict XVII]

I disagree. It would have been different, maybe majorly different, with an ENFORCED demilitarized zone. However, the act of enforcement is probably more important than the demilitarization itself. It would show the Allies had the will to stand up to Hitler, and he wouldn't have been as confident in moving forward.

The problem as I see it is that the demilitarization of the Rhineland does nothing to increase Allied RESOLVE in future, and without that, it becomes more of a liability than an asset.

However, having said all that, I think we will see it.

I think we violently agree: demilitarization works better with the will to enforce it...

I am not nearly as confident as you. They were guaranteed their neutrality already by treaty, and fat lot of good it did them. No, once you open that door, they will take the added territory (and who will tell them no, that needs to go to THE GERMANS...) and say we will also keep our small army, for their independent dignity if nothing else, I suspect.

But the Luxembourgers would have been 300,000 at the most under that scenario. They knew perfectly well their independence could depend only on their neighbors' willingness to respect and enforce treaties. With such a small population, even a hedehog strategy is completely futile. The treaty could perfectly foresee that they can have one or two regiments for enforcement of law and order, customs, ans guarding the Grand-Ducal Palace...

And really, do you think the Germans will be mollified by the demilitarization of Luxembourg in return for the demilitarization of the Rhineland?

It is at least a face-saving item. You could also include that France could be entitled to enter Greater Luxembourg and deploy its armies there if Germany remilitarizes the Rhineland.

And what happens to that one more day that might be important if you demilitarize Luxembourg? I think it goes up in smoke.

It takes about one day for infantry to travel 25 more miles... Besides, it could have left enough time for the Luxembourgers to damage bridges on the Sûre and the key train stations of Luxembourg-city, Bettembourg and Diekirch. The French could also take care of the former two and the Belgians of the last one.

I like the idea of giving the extra bits back to Luxembourg, and I agree that the demilitarization of the Rhineland probably has to happen, and the French will not agree to do any demilitarization of their own. However, I also like the idea of making the demilitarization only last 25 years.

The French won't allow an unconditional remilitarization after 25 years. Maybe you can extract a promise to renegotiate by then.

So, what do we do about reparations and war debt?

 

[Glen]

Ok how about East Africa or Togoland instead of the gains they attempted to get from the Ottoman Empire, In OTL they excepted to get a portion of Western Antollia.

That might work, especially if you are generally reducing the claims in Anatolia to more managable size for all of the Entente, not just Italy.

 

[benedict XVII]

That might work, especially if you are generally reducing the claims in Anatolia to more managable size for all of the Entente, not just Italy.

The Brits worked quite hard to leave as small a piece of German East Africa to the Belgians as they could, in spite of the heavy Belgian war contribution over there. It was seen as critical as bringing the missing link from Cairo to Capetown... Italians in Tanganyika would have also made Italy too powerful in East Africa and potentially endangered the position of Kenya

OTOH, Togo or maybe even Cameroon...

 

[benedict XVII]

@Glenn: by the way don't forget Luxembourg was in complete constitutional turmoil in 1918-19, with attempted Socialist revolution and contestation of Grand-Duchess Adelaïde which eventually led to her exile and replacement by Grand-Duchess Charlotte. I don't think they would have been able to articulate anything consistent at the Peace Conference. Besides, national feeling was still very moot at the time.

 

[Glen]

The Brits worked quite hard to leave as small a piece of German East Africa to the Belgians as they could, in spite of the heavy Belgian war contribution over there. It was seen as critical as bringing the missing link from Cairo to Capetown... Italians in Tanganyika would have also made Italy too powerful in East Africa and potentially endangered the position of Kenya

OTOH, Togo or maybe even Cameroon...

Agree with all the above.