Our Treaty of Versailles
- Thread starter Glen
- Start date
Imajin said:
They will re-unite as soon as they can. You should throw in a bunch opportunities for internal disputes. Some suggestions:
1. Enclaves, bridgeheads across major rivers, corridors, rights of way, sensitive demilitarized zones
2. State religions with sizable religious minorities
3. Dual heads of state
4. Rehabilitation of NiederDeutsch in Southern Germany
5. Different levels of war reparations to be paid by the various entities - in general make sure local history as taught in school makes everybody blame their neighbors from something wrong
6. Throw in some city-states with privileged tax regimes
7. Impose different standards (e.g., rail gauges, voltage, etc.)
8. Etc.
IMHO, it is not Versailles which is at the origin of WWII, but the fact that it was not properly enforced. Especially with the remilitarization of the Rhur in 1936. A limited intervention would have completed toppled the Nazi's then.
Glen Finney said:What you been smokin', mon?
We're still living with the nefarious consequences of the German occupation in this respect. It's sickening.
Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy
Banned
Imajin said:
The ethnic map's f**ked up, but feel free to move the border to the Apuseni Mountains. As for independence ... there were Romanian troops in Budapest in 1919. You can't go around the fact that this war has angry winners and defenseless losers (Turkey excepted). If my people had had their way, the frontier would be on the Tisa. What can I say, they've always been nuts.
many problems. ( at this point its probably too late to turn the clock on German Nationalism, not to mention that this pretty much gives Russia free rein in Eastern and probably Central Europe; no matter how big you make it, Poland won’t be able to take the Place of Germany when it comes to standing up to Russia in this period)Imajin said:
Ah, ok.Imajin said:Well, I don't really think splitting Germany would be a good idea, I was just taking the chance to make a map
(in that case, I recommend separating Brandenburg from Prussia; after all, didn’t Brandenburg-Prussia get us into this mess?
)I'd give Berlin to Prussia, Macedonia to Serbia (remember which side Serbia was on, I think we're assuming an allied victory), create a rump Czech state (I(I like the idea of giving Sudeten to Austria, though... can we restore the Hapsburg too?) and a rump Slovak state...
And Finland should have it's OTL Borders!
And Finland should have it's OTL Borders!
I think that it would be best to keep Brandenburg in Germany proper, so as not to inflame German Nationalism as much. Probably would be a good idea to move the Capital some where else, thou…
Glen
Moderator
Couple thoughts.
First, by the time the Paris Peace Conference began, there had already been a lot of revolutions and claims of independent nations in the former Central Powers, so that will need to be kept in mind. An interesting tidbit, for example, is that Czechoslovakia was an attendee of the conference. This all is important to consider since the Entente is fairly exhausted as well, so their ability to enforce new changes to the political scene will not be as great as they might pretend to.
Second, for this Versailles to succeed more than OTL, I think we need to work up two divergent ideas, one that is generous to the collapsed former Central Powers, seeking to stabilize the region primarily, whereas the other would be to destroy utterly their ability to wage war or rise again to threaten the Entente. We must not compromise between the two, but choose one.
Personally, I lean towards lenience and stabilization. They've already torn themselves up in their collapse, and the effort of enforcing a harsher settlement could well fail, much as Entente efforts in Russia did.
First, by the time the Paris Peace Conference began, there had already been a lot of revolutions and claims of independent nations in the former Central Powers, so that will need to be kept in mind. An interesting tidbit, for example, is that Czechoslovakia was an attendee of the conference. This all is important to consider since the Entente is fairly exhausted as well, so their ability to enforce new changes to the political scene will not be as great as they might pretend to.
Second, for this Versailles to succeed more than OTL, I think we need to work up two divergent ideas, one that is generous to the collapsed former Central Powers, seeking to stabilize the region primarily, whereas the other would be to destroy utterly their ability to wage war or rise again to threaten the Entente. We must not compromise between the two, but choose one.
Personally, I lean towards lenience and stabilization. They've already torn themselves up in their collapse, and the effort of enforcing a harsher settlement could well fail, much as Entente efforts in Russia did.
MerryPrankster said:
If It's in the plebiscite, it will be rejected. Even in Alsace proper ( let's not even speak about Lorraine ), the vote to go back to France will be above 70% ( supposing none of the Alsacians who left are allowed to Vote, all the Germans who came are allowed to vote and vote for this - OTL, less than 1/3 chose to leave after 1918 - and 25% of the remainder vote against France - overestimated, IMHO ); maybe even above 90% ( reverse previous hypotheses )
Glen
Moderator
By the beginning of our Conference, Austria-Hungary had already broken up into Czechoslovakia, Austria, Hungary, and the State of Slovenes, Croats, and Serbs (which was already joined to Serbia and Montenegro to form the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes).
There was the Bavarian Socialist Republic at that time (though it would fall just prior to the Versailles Treaty).
Czechoslovakia had gained a lot of supporters in the Entente, so I doubt we see it dismembered; at best we see a pleblicite in the Sudetenland, which would go to Austria if it were held. Problem with that being, it would strip the best defensive border and a lot of manufacturing from Czechoslovakia. Then again, it would also take away a significant portion of their ethnic strife with the Germans.
The Entente seemed rather intent against allowing any union between Austria and Germany, but perhaps they could be convinced into one between Bavaria and Austria?
I'm now wondering how good an idea it is to strip the nascent Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes (ie Yugoslavia) of their coast to satisfy Italy. The Entente could force it, of course, but it would be just that, done with force.
There was the Bavarian Socialist Republic at that time (though it would fall just prior to the Versailles Treaty).
Czechoslovakia had gained a lot of supporters in the Entente, so I doubt we see it dismembered; at best we see a pleblicite in the Sudetenland, which would go to Austria if it were held. Problem with that being, it would strip the best defensive border and a lot of manufacturing from Czechoslovakia. Then again, it would also take away a significant portion of their ethnic strife with the Germans.
The Entente seemed rather intent against allowing any union between Austria and Germany, but perhaps they could be convinced into one between Bavaria and Austria?
I'm now wondering how good an idea it is to strip the nascent Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes (ie Yugoslavia) of their coast to satisfy Italy. The Entente could force it, of course, but it would be just that, done with force.
Personally I'd like to disenfrancise ethicity from the nw formed eastern European countries. But this would also include disenfrancising them from their history as fiefs of Austria.
Also remeber that Ukraine was a result of B-L not Ver. so we can't touch post war Russia with this treaty. Bulgaria is a different story though and The Ottomans at a later point.
Therefore let us ban the terms Czechoslavakia, or Crotia, and call them by their orginial roman names. Call Croatia, Illyria and so on...
Being a good American I'd say we allow Serbia sea access.
Also remeber that Ukraine was a result of B-L not Ver. so we can't touch post war Russia with this treaty. Bulgaria is a different story though and The Ottomans at a later point.
Therefore let us ban the terms Czechoslavakia, or Crotia, and call them by their orginial roman names. Call Croatia, Illyria and so on...
Being a good American I'd say we allow Serbia sea access.
Glen
Moderator
MerryPrankster said:
That had already happened.
Interesting thought, though you're going to cause a civil war trying to do it along class lines.
Actually, I believe those were given to the President. The problem of course wasn't those powers so much as not having good succession laws in the event of the death of the President...and of course electing a president who didn't want the Republic to exist (Hindenberg).
And who will be determining this, and how? You're having the Paris Conference take on a lot of the domestic issues of the Weimar Republic, but I don't quite see how they are going to pull it off short of a full scale occupation, which the Entente is too exhausted to do I suspect.
See comment above. I suppose you can make them move their capital, but its going to just come across as petty meddling. I can see the Brownie points some demagogue would earn just from returning the capital to Berlin, and I don't see anyone going to war over it.
Maybe. The Silesia pleblicites didn't work out so well, though. Maybe if you can get them more equitably managed and enforced.
I say they should hire the Swiss as peacekeepers and to run the pleblicites!
Maybe allow pleblicites if the government of Austria so chooses (since that's a whole nation you're talking about). But you're going to have to impose the Sudetenland pleblicite on the Czechoslovaks.
I believe that was already the situation more or less. Of course, a lot of Revisionists will come along wanting the Hungarian areas in other nations...and some of those historical but non-Hungarian bits.
Wasn't a horror until the 1990s. In fact, in 1918-9 these peoples CHOSE to be associated, as best I can discern. And Yugoslavia was actually an attendee at the conference, so I imagine they'd complain quite strongly.
Arrow's Theorem - It is impossible to meet all definitions of fairness simultaneously all the time.
Which means you have to choose how you wish to be unfair most of the time. If I can't be completely fair, I try to be effective at least.
We have to figure out what form of unfairness will have the best results for Europe's future here.
Well, maybe. Have to figure out how to get the British, French, Hashamites, Sauds, etc to go along with that, though.
More later...
Glen,
The Hashemites were Britain's allies during the war, while IIRC the Saudis didn't do all that much--invite the Sauds to a feast and poison them en masse. Or if that's too nasty, arrest them and deport them to Europe somewhere. Lure the Ikhwan into a trap of some kind too.
The Brits and French can have trading privileges, or perhaps a Hong Kong-like free port or two. Heck, maybe an independent Lebanon for the Maronites might appease the French.
On the matter of having the Junkers and the deposed Kaiser pay for damages, wasn't there already a civil war (freikorps vs. Communists)? Intervention to force a settlement could also involve removing a great many German judges.
I guess I got President and Chancellor confused.
The moving of the capital is a means of getting a new political class into power. If you can leave the capital at Berlin and simply have Hanoverians and other more-democratic Germans staff it, then by all means.
How easy a time did the Czechoslovak gov't have with the Sudetenlanders just after A-H fell apart? Are things fluid enough to pull a fait accompli with them?
Have a plebiscite in Austria then. Continued existence as Austria, union with Germany, etc.
And if you want to be less democratic about it, cramming Austria into Germany proper would include enough Catholics to electorally defang the Prussian militarists (who IIRC were Protestant, at least nominally) for all eternity. Trojan Horse.
The Hashemites were Britain's allies during the war, while IIRC the Saudis didn't do all that much--invite the Sauds to a feast and poison them en masse. Or if that's too nasty, arrest them and deport them to Europe somewhere. Lure the Ikhwan into a trap of some kind too.
The Brits and French can have trading privileges, or perhaps a Hong Kong-like free port or two. Heck, maybe an independent Lebanon for the Maronites might appease the French.
On the matter of having the Junkers and the deposed Kaiser pay for damages, wasn't there already a civil war (freikorps vs. Communists)? Intervention to force a settlement could also involve removing a great many German judges.
I guess I got President and Chancellor confused.
The moving of the capital is a means of getting a new political class into power. If you can leave the capital at Berlin and simply have Hanoverians and other more-democratic Germans staff it, then by all means.
How easy a time did the Czechoslovak gov't have with the Sudetenlanders just after A-H fell apart? Are things fluid enough to pull a fait accompli with them?
Have a plebiscite in Austria then. Continued existence as Austria, union with Germany, etc.
And if you want to be less democratic about it, cramming Austria into Germany proper would include enough Catholics to electorally defang the Prussian militarists (who IIRC were Protestant, at least nominally) for all eternity. Trojan Horse.
Avoiding the societal collapse in Germany still requires a solution to the debt issue. Unless someone can somehow explain the Allies not seeking any reparations or compensation for German crimes AND paying Germany's own debts the German economy is going to collapse a few years after WWI.
I suppose if we have someone shoot that lunatic Ludendorf before he can destroy the French coal mines then the Saar stays in German hands but in fact there was a strong desire in France to try cracking up Germany post-war.
Hmm, how about if Austria and Bavaria(and the rest of southern Germany) is united under the Bavarian monarchy while a major propaganda campaign against the Protestants who bled poor Catholic Bavaria white is launched?
the German economy is going to collapse a few years after WWI.I suppose if we have someone shoot that lunatic Ludendorf before he can destroy the French coal mines then the Saar stays in German hands but in fact there was a strong desire in France to try cracking up Germany post-war.
Hmm, how about if Austria and Bavaria(and the rest of southern Germany) is united under the Bavarian monarchy while a major propaganda campaign against the Protestants who bled poor Catholic Bavaria white is launched?
Better yet, how about a two-pronged assault?
1) Wilson's lunatic decision to force out the Kaiser does not take place and
2) Terms even harsher than Versailles are proposed.
After the crying and screaming in Germany dies down a bit the Allies announce that a republic might be able to improve the terms slightly.
NOW the Kaiser is expelled.
Major revisions are made in the treaty, including some which were actually planned by the allies all along. The new Weimar Republic has saved Germany much grief and becomes more popular and stable.
Possible changes:
The Saar Basin is specifically to be held by France only until the French mines are repaired(with a time limit in the event of French procratination). The Germans are certain this vast coal field WILL return and are reminded that this only took place because of Ludendorf's destruction of occupied French coal mines in the last weeks of the war.
German naval tonnage is set as an amount, not a series of ridiculously small ships. If Germany wants a single Tirpitz instead of 6 pocket battleships, fine.
Modest German rearmament to be permitted starting five years after the treaty is signed, with further negotiations ten years after that. Perhaps 20,000 a year with appropriate armaments? This leaves Germany with 300,000 men in 1934. Likewise concessions on tanks and subs, if only to stop German specialists from starting U-boat concessions in a dozen other nations.
A single German colony to be returned(East Africa?) for the sake of prestige.
And so forth.
Unfortunately the economic crunch is going to happen regardless.
1) Wilson's lunatic decision to force out the Kaiser does not take place and
2) Terms even harsher than Versailles are proposed.
After the crying and screaming in Germany dies down a bit the Allies announce that a republic might be able to improve the terms slightly.
NOW the Kaiser is expelled.
Major revisions are made in the treaty, including some which were actually planned by the allies all along. The new Weimar Republic has saved Germany much grief and becomes more popular and stable.
Possible changes:
The Saar Basin is specifically to be held by France only until the French mines are repaired(with a time limit in the event of French procratination). The Germans are certain this vast coal field WILL return and are reminded that this only took place because of Ludendorf's destruction of occupied French coal mines in the last weeks of the war.
German naval tonnage is set as an amount, not a series of ridiculously small ships. If Germany wants a single Tirpitz instead of 6 pocket battleships, fine.
Modest German rearmament to be permitted starting five years after the treaty is signed, with further negotiations ten years after that. Perhaps 20,000 a year with appropriate armaments? This leaves Germany with 300,000 men in 1934. Likewise concessions on tanks and subs, if only to stop German specialists from starting U-boat concessions in a dozen other nations.
A single German colony to be returned(East Africa?) for the sake of prestige.
And so forth.
Unfortunately the economic crunch is going to happen regardless.
NomadicSky
Banned
How about German divison like this
you can change the other borders around outside of the German states as you see fit
I think that Prussia and German should be allowed to keep some of their colonies
you can change the other borders around outside of the German states as you see fit
I think that Prussia and German should be allowed to keep some of their colonies
Last edited: