What if Clemenceau is killed before versailes, resulting in lighter terms for Germany

Considering that none of Germany was occupied by the end of the war, I think they should have been lighter. Something like compensating France for the damage to property caused by the Germans by ceded Alsace and Lorraine to them, and maybe turn over some colonies to Belgium to compensate them.
 
What the title says. Personaly I think the Nazis wont rise, and facism wont tke muh hold.

The rise of Nazism had very little to do with the treaty, it was primarily caused by the Depression. Before 1929 the most the Nazis only got was 3% of the vote. If Versailles had led to their rise, one might logically expect them to have gotten more. And even after the depression Hitler was lucky to manage to successfully end democracy in Germany before the economy improved and his party would have become irrelevant, or some authoritarian leader pre-empted him.

Considering that none of Germany was occupied by the end of the war, I think they should have been lighter. Something like compensating France for the damage to property caused by the Germans by ceded Alsace and Lorraine to them, and maybe turn over some colonies to Belgium to compensate them.

How is Germany not being occupied at the time of the armstice relevant? The German leaders were well aware that they had lost the war, and were simply clever enough to surrender before the frontline rolled past its borders with all the fun it would entail.
 
Last edited:
No chance of Clemenceau's death resulting in lighter terms, especially after the Germans flooded the occupied coal and iron mines.

Possibly a different French leader is able gain harsher terms through a more diplomatic approach towards Lloyd George and/or Wilson.
 
No chance of Clemenceau's death resulting in lighter terms, especially after the Germans flooded the occupied coal and iron mines.

Possibly a different French leader is able gain harsher terms through a more diplomatic approach towards Lloyd George and/or Wilson.

I kind of agree with this. AFAIK Clemenceau didn't write the Versailles Treaty single handed. He simply wanted to ensure that Germany was punished and wouldn't threaten his country again.

It is unlikely that another French leader would feel more generous to Germany after everything that had happened. OTOH he may have annoyed Lloyd George and Wilson less and thereby won more support for the French position.
 

Cook

Banned
How is Germany not being occupied at the time of the armstice relevant? The German leaders were well aware that they had lost the war, and were simply clever enough to surrender before the frontline rolled past its borders with all the fun it would entail.
The German leaders may have known they’d lost the war, the German public did not (or liked to pretend otherwise) and in 1919 Hindenburg would stand in front of a government commission of enquiry and declare that the German army ‘had been stabbed in the back’ (Dolchstrosslegende). From that point on the people swallowed the myth that the German army had been betrayed by the civilian peacemakers; it fatally and permanently damaged the credibility of the democratic political parties in the Weimer Republic.
What the title says.
The question is: who replaces Clemenceau? At a guess I’d say it would have been Pichon or Lebrun, but that really is a very wild and uneducated guess. But whoever it was, I doubt French demands at the Peace Conference would change, just how much sway they would have with the other members of the Big Four.

Since the Treaty of Versailles did not significantly result in the rise of the Nazis other than being a bloody shirt for them to wave, I doubt it would make much difference anyway.
 

The German leaders may have known they’d lost the war, the German public did not (or liked to pretend otherwise) and in 1919 Hindenburg would stand in front of a government commission of enquiry and declare that the German army ‘had been stabbed in the back’ (Dolchstrosslegende). From that point on the people swallowed the myth that the German army had been betrayed by the civilian peacemakers; it fatally and permanently damaged the credibility of the democratic political parties in the Weimer Republic.

I did not mean the postwar political development of Germany. I was questioning the idea that Germany not being occupied had any direct impact on the terms of the treaty.
 

Cook

Banned
I did not mean the postwar political development of Germany. I was questioning the idea that Germany not being occupied had any direct impact on the terms of the treaty.
Ah, I see. I misunderstood the previous.
 
Top