Reparations tied to German defense budgets.

[Naval Aviation Fan]

Hi all, so in this thread, we are looking at a no disarmament of Germany post WWI peace, in which the Germans are forced to pay on a one for one basis, as much as they are spending on their military. The bigger the German military, the more reparations they must pay, the smaller the German military, the less they must pay.

This gives us a very different slant on the post WWI German military and it's downsizing, as now the Germany have to decide for themselves to either pay huge reparations if they want to keep up their military forces, or they can voluntarily choose to downsize them, while they are paying off their reparations, and then rebuild them once the reparations are paid off. No loss of prestige like in OTL, no forced disarmament, just a choice made by the Germans as to how much they want to have to pay, based upon what they decide to keep as a military budget.

The whole point of this is to explore alternatives to historical ToV and all the other nonsense that was done by the Entente after WWI, and should be taken as such.

 

[Naval Aviation Fan]

Based upon this thread, I made three new threads to discuss alternative ideas. Here is a cut and pasted post from that thead.

I've started three new threads, to start some focused discussion of/on alternatives to what we historically got at the end of WWI. Here are the three threads.
1) Reparations tied to German defense budgets.
2) Border Fortification as reparations, rather than disarmament?
3) German Empire in post WWI.

 

[Dorknought]

If you can stabilise Europe then everyone can disarm.

 

[Avrorrange]

How do you stop the Germans from training a bunch of paramilitary that are not officially military like OTL and then say that they don’t need to pay reparations for them?

 

[Dorknought]

The imposed gift of Versailles: the fiscal effects of restricting the size of Germany's armed forces, 1924-9
Pre-war German military spending was something like 4% GDP but this is replaced with negligible defense spending and reparations of 2.5% GDP.

 

[michael1]

How do you stop the Germans from training a bunch of paramilitary that are not officially military like OTL and then say that they don’t need to pay reparations for them?

This is exactly the problem. In OTL German cheating on the disarmament clauses was "off budget" and not labelled as defence spending (tough to claim you were fulfilling the treaty otherwise). This is just an opportunity to set reparations to near zero (e.g. civilian airfields and pilot training, very large "tractors", lots of mail planes...)

 

[Dorknought]

lots of mail planes...)

...enjoy the sound of Jericho Trumpets as you await your mail.

 

[Crazyduck156]

If no disarmament whats stopping Germany from just going "ha no" within a few years?

 

[Naval Aviation Fan]

Tried this a few hours ago, but the forum ate my post repeatedly, so once again...

If you can stabilise Europe then everyone can disarm.

Ywp.

How do you stop the Germans from training a bunch of paramilitary that are not officially military like OTL and then say that they don’t need to pay reparations for them?

By not disarming their actual military in the first place, no loss of the Germans to have as big a military as they want, and since I don't know if this is going to go down before the high seas Fleet is scuttled, I'll just assume that it is after that event takes place, just to avoid talking about that here in this thread. So the Germans retain their rights to a navy and Army of whatever size they want, but they are saved from total disarmament with the debt to be repaid on Germany's Honor.

The imposed gift of Versailles: the fiscal effects of restricting the size of Germany's armed forces, 1924-9
Pre-war German military spending was something like 4% GDP but this is replaced with negligible defense spending and reparations of 2.5% GDP.

That is great to know! Without looking at that link yet, and with the assumption that the High Seas Fleet has indeed been scuttled, but that the Germans are going to be having to pay their reparations as a matter of German Honor, plus some demilitarized zone and possibly occupation zones, along Germany's borders with France and Belgium, how would you rate the costs of doing the reparations as compared to the wartime costs that they were expanding since 1914? Would short term occupation zones (of the demilitarized zones) provide the needed guarantee of repayment in the early days, to make sure that the Germans know that they have a debt to pay, and are honor bound for it's repayment?

How much money can the post war German economy afford for the rebuilding of war torn lands within France and Belgium? And then, how long would building a complete Maginot Line all the way to the coast take and cost? The Germans go from having 11,000,000 men under arms during the course of the war, and not being able to make the German economy turn a profit during that time, how quickly would the survivors be getting back to work within Germany? With all the ships that were scuttled, the costs of the remaining ships shouldn't be as high, and with the return to peacetime status, there should be much reduced expenditures and therefore savings compared to the wartime rate.

This is exactly the problem. In OTL German cheating on the disarmament clauses was "off budget" and not labelled as defence spending (tough to claim you were fulfilling the treaty otherwise). This is just an opportunity to set reparations to near zero (e.g. civilian airfields and pilot training, very large "tractors", lots of mail planes...)

Yes, and that was with them having been forcibly disarmed, whereas in this ATL, they retain their rights to a military of whatever size and composition as they choose, and so do not have to use such tricks to 'stick it to' the Entente.

If no disarmament what is stopping Germany from just going "ha no" within a few years?

Their Honor.

That and the demilitarized zone on their borders with France and Belgium, and the Occupation troops in those same zones until the war ravaged areas are rebuilt (I don't have any idea how much this is going to cost, nor how long it is going to take), but the terms that France wanted to impose, and the US showing a spine at blocking that, by getting the UK to relent on the blockade, as a sign of good faith while proper negotiation are ongoing.

On the matters of Demilitarization and Occupation zones, as well as the fate of A/L, how many troops, and from which nations, I think would need a dedicated thread of it's own for that discussion. France would of course want as many of her troops, standing on German soil as possible, and likely for as long as possible, and all three other nations would be aware of this, so that is a whole set of problems that would need to be worked out.

 

[Avrorrange]

Tried this a few hours ago, but the forum ate my post repeatedly, so once again...

Ywp.

By not disarming their actual military in the first place, no loss of the Germans to have as big a military as they want, and since I don't know if this is going to go down before the high seas Fleet is scuttled, I'll just assume that it is after that event takes place, just to avoid talking about that here in this thread. So the Germans retain their rights to a navy and Army of whatever size they want, but they are saved from total disarmament with the debt to be repaid on Germany's Honor.

That is great to know! Without looking at that link yet, and with the assumption that the High Seas Fleet has indeed been scuttled, but that the Germans are going to be having to pay their reparations as a matter of German Honor, plus some demilitarized zone and possibly occupation zones, along Germany's borders with France and Belgium, how would you rate the costs of doing the reparations as compared to the wartime costs that they were expanding since 1914? Would short term occupation zones (of the demilitarized zones) provide the needed guarantee of repayment in the early days, to make sure that the Germans know that they have a debt to pay, and are honor bound for it's repayment?

How much money can the post war German economy afford for the rebuilding of war torn lands within France and Belgium? And then, how long would building a complete Maginot Line all the way to the coast take and cost? The Germans go from having 11,000,000 men under arms during the course of the war, and not being able to make the German economy turn a profit during that time, how quickly would the survivors be getting back to work within Germany? With all the ships that were scuttled, the costs of the remaining ships shouldn't be as high, and with the return to peacetime status, there should be much reduced expenditures and therefore savings compared to the wartime rate.

Yes, and that was with them having been forcibly disarmed, whereas in this ATL, they retain their rights to a military of whatever size and composition as they choose, and so do not have to use such tricks to 'stick it to' the Entente.

Their Honor.

That and the demilitarized zone on their borders with France and Belgium, and the Occupation troops in those same zones until the war ravaged areas are rebuilt (I don't have any idea how much this is going to cost, nor how long it is going to take), but the terms that France wanted to impose, and the US showing a spine at blocking that, by getting the UK to relent on the blockade, as a sign of good faith while proper negotiation are ongoing.

On the matters of Demilitarization and Occupation zones, as well as the fate of A/L, how many troops, and from which nations, I think would need a dedicated thread of it's own for that discussion. France would of course want as many of her troops, standing on German soil as possible, and likely for as long as possible, and all three other nations would be aware of this, so that is a whole set of problems that would need to be worked out.

What is stopping them from ‘disarming’ their military themselves and transforming their military units into ‘well-trained police’? The only components where they can’t transform into paramilitary and hide is the navy. They can more or less falsify the rest of the force. The idea that they wouldn’t use such tricks to ‘stick it to ‘ the Entente is very naive.

 

[Naval Aviation Fan]

What is stopping them from ‘disarming’ their military themselves and transforming their military units into ‘well-trained police’? The only components where they can’t transform into paramilitary and hide is the navy. They can more or less falsify the rest of the force. The idea that they wouldn’t use such tricks to ‘stick it to ‘ the Entente is very naive.

I think that you are incorrect, but that is just my opinion, which may be right or it may be wrong, and clearly differs from your own, but either way, can we not indulge our hobbies, and discuss this concept?

I believe that the Germans wouldn't cut down their own military by using such demeaning subterfuge, not when they are not forced to disarm in the first place. I think that you are right with regard to their navy, and that would also give us something to discuss, the new German, post WWI navy, and knowing that everything they spend replacing their ships, is going to cost their reparations payments to climb as well.

Also, please give your own thoughts on the concept of demilitarized zones within Germany, and cannot be fortified until the rebuilding of war torn areas of France and Belgium has been completed, as well as the fortifications required of them by this ATL peace?

 

[michael1]

...

Yes, and that was with them having been forcibly disarmed, whereas in this ATL, they retain their rights to a military of whatever size and composition as they choose, and so do not have to use such tricks to 'stick it to' the Entente.
...

Not for the first time we're going to have to disagree here. They weren't "forcibly disarmed", they were forced to sign a piece of paper promising not to do certain things. Then when they were repeatedly found (by the allied inspection committee) to have breached their promise no penalties were imposed, until eventually the committee was withdrawn as it was all just too embarrassing for the UK and France.

What you are proposing is actual penalties for arming and no mechanism for detecting breaches of the treaty (now deciding whether expenditure is military), so compared to OTL there is more incentive for the Germans to engage in deception, as compared to OTL, there are actual penalties for telling the truth and no way of detecting if they are telling the truth.

PS When I say no penalties in OTL, there was of course the threat of Anglo French invasion, but this was never very likely unless the rearmament was massive, and if Germany is doing this then it is unlikely to pay any fine such as you are proposing in any case.

 

[Naval Aviation Fan]

Not for the first time we're going to have to disagree here. They weren't "forcibly disarmed", they were forced to sign a piece of paper promising not to do certain things. Then when they were repeatedly found (by the allied inspection committee) to have breached their promise no penalties were imposed, until eventually the committee was withdrawn as it was all just too embarrassing for the UK and France.

It would be interesting for you to try to sell that to any history students that were coming out of class where they first learned about WWI and the post war terms imposed upon the Germans. I have to wonder in what nations that would fly, and where it wouldn't.

What you are proposing is actual penalties for arming and no mechanism for detecting breaches of the treaty (now deciding whether expenditure is military), so compared to OTL there is more incentive for the Germans to engage in deception, as compared to OTL, there are actual penalties for telling the truth and no way of detecting if they are telling the truth.

I like the Law & Order tv series, so I'll respond like this:
"Objection your Honor, Facts not in Evidence"
Because I have not yet stated ideas on how this would be done (because no one has brought this up until now), is NOT the same as me saying not to have any such checks and balances, and without me saying "no checks and balances would be needed nor implemented", this invalidates your argument, as no such statements have been made, and entered into Evidence.

PS When I say no penalties in OTL, there was of course the threat of Anglo French invasion, but this was never very likely unless the rearmament was massive, and if Germany is doing this then it is unlikely to pay any fine such as you are proposing in any case.

You mean, "they weren't forced, except for that", which clearly and totally smashes your opening remarks, right?

 

[Crazyduck156]

Their Honor.

The outraged laughter from the Belgians at this suggestion would register on a seismograph

 

[HexWargamer]

Not going to work, any more than any other simplistic approach to Reparations without concrete incentive/enforcement will work.
Leaving aside the problem of accounting (who's going to Berlin to inspect the books of the German military budget?) - but unless you enforce them the Germans simply won't pay (except by prining the money & we all know where that goes)

I would suggest occupy Rhineland/Ruhr from 1919 and withdraw gradually but only as the Reparation payments are made .. whilst advancing and occupying further land when payments are not made ... i.e. NOT an unenforceable empty threat of 'we will invade if you are one coin short or 1 day late ', but 'we will retire N miles for each payment made on time, or advance N miles for each X million you are short '...

 

[Naval Aviation Fan]

I would suggest occupy Rhineland/Ruhr from 1919 and withdraw gradually but only as the Reparation payments are made .. whilst advancing and occupying further land when payments are not made ... i.e. NOT an unenforceable empty threat of 'we will invade if you are one coin short or 1 day late ', but 'we will retire N miles for each payment made on time, or advance N miles for each X million you are short '...

^^
This.

I didn't quote the first part of your post, for obvious reasons, but then you went and did something good, you went on to provide a good point of discussion, and a good example of carrot and stick approach to how to make sure that there were going to be payments made

I like the idea of more or less occupation, based upon where they are reparations wise.

I like to think that any post war occupation of German territory would NOT be allowed by French troops, or at least not "unsupervised" French troops, and in no case allow French troops on the Franco-German border, to make it possible to limit unprofessional conduct.

 

[Naval Aviation Fan]

The outraged laughter from the Belgians at this suggestion would register on a seismograph

I take it you are under the impression that the Germans were ALL dishonorable lowlife scum of the earth, then. So telling the propaganda and demonizing, even 100 years and more after the fact.

Well, at least I'm seeing that your reading the thread, at least, so that's something, I guess.

Even better would be, if you could talk a bit about the threads topic, but hey.

It also just now occured that folks might not be reading all three threads, and have a clear idea of what I have in mind, and why?

How many folks think that when I said that bit about their Honor, thought that that was the only "check and balance" that I had in mind?

 

[ArtosStark]

I take it you are under the impression that the Germans were ALL dishonorable lowlife scum of the earth, then. So telling the propaganda and demonizing, even 100 years and more after the fact.

Germans don’t have to all be dishonourable lowlifes for a proposal to enforce a treaty based on the honour system to be rendered ridiculous. My kids are not dishonourable lowlife scum of the earth (mostly not anyway) but I don’t use the honour system when keeping them out of the cookie jar.

International treaties are very rarely, if ever, enforced based on a nations honour, because you cannot judge how much a nation values its honour, or what they consider to be dishonourable. Such things can be flexible even in an individual. It’s impossible to measure in a group as large as a nation. One leader may view a treaty that holds the nations honour at stake as sacrosanct and the next may consider it a non-issue.

And, even if such a nebulous system was in place for international agreements, trusting that a nation will honour an agreement to not to invade a place that they just invaded after earlier agreeing not to is just pushing the definition of insanity. If my kids take a cookie when they promised not to I don’t then expect that the mere discomfort of disobeying will stay their hand from stealing another.

Whatever German honour is actually worth at the end of WW1, it is not a currency that the Entente would be willing to accept as collateral.

 

[Crazyduck156]

I take it you are under the impression that the Germans were ALL dishonorable lowlife scum of the earth, then. So telling the propaganda and demonizing, even 100 years and more after the fact.

Well, at least I'm seeing that your reading the thread, at least, so that's something, I guess.

Even better would be, if you could talk a bit about the threads topic, but hey.

It also just now occured that folks might not be reading all three threads, and have a clear idea of what I have in mind, and why?

How many folks think that when I said that bit about their Honor, thought that that was the only "check and balance" that I had in mind?

Ignore how ridiculously strong you are coming on and the pulling of some wild assumptions from where the sun doesn't shine, I'd love to see how you intend to convince Belgium of German honour.

"Sorry but that invasion, raping and pillaging is just propaganda and demonising. You should be more tolerant of the germans and trust they will pay the reparations. The massive army we left them with will just be there to guard the gold shipments."

 

[Naval Aviation Fan]

[spoiler
]Germans don’t have to all be dishonourable lowlifes for a proposal to enforce a treaty based on the honour system to be rendered ridiculous. My kids are not dishonourable lowlife scum of the earth (mostly not anyway) but I don’t use the honour system when keeping them out of the cookie jar.

International treaties are very rarely, if ever, enforced based on a nations honour, because you cannot judge how much a nation values its honour, or what they consider to be dishonourable. Such things can be flexible even in an individual. It’s impossible to measure in a group as large as a nation. One leader may view a treaty that holds the nations honour at stake as sacrosanct and the next may consider it a non-issue.

And, even if such a nebulous system was in place for international agreements, trusting that a nation will honour an agreement to not to invade a place that they just invaded after earlier agreeing not to is just pushing the definition of insanity. If my kids take a cookie when they promised not to I don’t then expect that the mere discomfort of disobeying will stay their hand from stealing another.

Whatever German honour is actually worth at the end of WW1, it is not a currency that the Entente would be willing to accept as collateral.
[/spoiler]

I like the input, but this seems more of a reply to a misquote somebody made upthread, where they took a portion of a single post, in one thread of four, and gave that impression, that "German Honor" was somehow the only factor that was going to be involved, and that no kinds of checks a balances were going to figure in to this.

I think if you read the (4) threads, you'll realise that isn't actually what I'm on about. That, or it is such a horrible mismash, that no one can be expected to be able to follow along.

I need to get some protein, and a nap. Anyone else having the forum lagging on them?