Versailles rejected

Tyr Anazasi

Banned
Well, invading Germany with all the problems would have been a nightmare for the Entente powers. The Germans will resist and the more soldiers die the more resistance will follow in the Entente countries.

There are these possibilities of the end of such a scenario:

1. Germany will be occupied, following a nasty guerilla war. The Entente isn't able to cope with that in the long run and will retreat.

2. Only France is trying such a stunt, but is beaten back in a combination of resistance, war weariness and US pressure.

3. It is a bluff called by the Germans and no invasion happens.

NOTE: In the first possibilities there is a chance Germany becoming communistic.
 
Well, invading Germany with all the problems would have been a nightmare for the Entente powers. The Germans will resist and the more soldiers die the more resistance will follow in the Entente countries.

There are these possibilities of the end of such a scenario:

1. Germany will be occupied, following a nasty guerilla war. The Entente isn't able to cope with that in the long run and will retreat.

2. Only France is trying such a stunt, but is beaten back in a combination of resistance, war weariness and US pressure.

3. It is a bluff called by the Germans and no invasion happens.

NOTE: In the first possibilities there is a chance Germany becoming communistic.

1. Much more likely is that the revolutions in cities spread, as people realise their leaders are sacrificing them in a war they cannot possibly win. There is no chance of this turning into Iraq. And even if they do drive out the Entente, the German state has been destroyed by this. There is no recovery. There is no food, no work, no means to pay an army, and the country is collapsing into civil war. The idea this turns into some guerrilla movement is risible.

2. Not a chance. If it was a bluff they'd have accepted German requests to change the treaty terms

3. See above.
 
You are forgetting that by the end of 1918 Germany is literally starving to death. It has been under strict blockade since the war began and it doesn't have access to all the food resources of Europe to fill in the gap as it did in WW2. It is estimated that 763,000 German civilians died of starvation due to the blockade, most near the end of the war. This number will go up a lot if the war goes on another year. The blockade of Germany has even been called a war crime by modern historians.
Actually, if Germany had reduced its army, particularly by demobilising farm-workers, to a size at which both it & its civilian population could be fed there would be no starvation. However, such an army would be too small to resist the Entente powers so the German leadership made the choice of the large army.
 
Well, invading Germany with all the problems would have been a nightmare for the Entente powers. The Germans will resist and the more soldiers die the more resistance will follow in the Entente countries.

There are these possibilities of the end of such a scenario:

1. Germany will be occupied, following a nasty guerilla war. The Entente isn't able to cope with that in the long run and will retreat.

2. Only France is trying such a stunt, but is beaten back in a combination of resistance, war weariness and US pressure.

3. It is a bluff called by the Germans and no invasion happens.

NOTE: In the first possibilities there is a chance Germany becoming communistic.

The starting of the scenario hauntingly similar to the OTL events in Hungary, ended in the Hungarian SR and Horthy at the end.

The actual government rejects - or more correctly, refuse to sign the treaty - and steps down. Next governement comes, same shit, and at the end of the line, the communists get the power. Ending in a mixed national defensive/revolutionary defensive war. Entente get all kinds of problems, and at the end, prety much find a revisionist but staunch anti-communist movement/dude willing to sign the treaty.

So....

1. Occupation yes. Guerilal war unlikely. In case of communist takeover -in any form - "proper" resistance is not entirely out of the question.
(If we look at the hungarian scenario, the occupation part mainly done by the entente levies. In a germany paralell scenario, there are no such forces aviable: Checzs suddenly have their hands full with Hungary, poles already have some problmes on the east, maybe the belgians... not enough. On the other hands, in case of the HSR, the hungarian reds were avare, that they cannot attack the french occupied parts, only the romanians and the czechs. Maybe the same ruling applies in this case too.)

2. Problems, problems.

3. Lose-lose situation. The war is over, the french/british soldiers want to go home, the US ones actualyl go home and the blockade still in effect. Delicate and mutinious situation on the winner side, literal starvation on the losing side.
And an actual civil war on the east.
Nightmarish at best.
 

Perkeo

Banned
Short term rejection:
inpossible, the armistice was enough to ensure they coudn't fight on.


The TOV WAS rejected IOTL. Piece by piece, line by line was revoked or ignored.

The TOV wasn't built to last, it wasn't suitable to last. The question wasn't if it would fail, but how. And that was not because it was harsh, not because it was not enforced, but because it was BS.

What a pity Hitler came to power after the most important clauses were revoked, but before people became aware of that. If he had not, scholars would call WWI a draw:
- Germany had lost all non-German territories, but if Austria joins, the size woukd more or less stay the same
- The reparations that were actually paid were moderate, not enough to cripple the economy.
- The main war goal, the destruction of the Franco-Russian alliance, was actually accomplished. The system of alliances was much more favorable for Germany after WWI than before.
 
Top