What should the United States, Britain, and France, have done differently regarding Germany, and Europe, at the End of World War One?

I think you are seriously overestimating France's position in 1918/19. Them going 'nuh uh' to its debts is going to enrage the British (the only friend France has left after russia caught a bad case of communism) and piss off the Americans who aren't going to be extending an economic lifeline to france again for a long long time

France will have to try and enforce any terms it puts on Germany (likely plummeting into a civil war thanks to the terms France wants) alone, with no money in bank, a chunk of the country shattered by war, its male population gutted and exhausted, and the only other great powers of note still standing either indifferent to it or furious at it.

I'd give it a few years before France has to pick those debts back up with interest if it wants to get back a seat at the international table
Nope it's you are seriously overstimating USA and UK position, the american will hurting seriously if the French don't pay the debts even because if Paris do that, Rome will do the same, the UK is even in a worse position economically and frankly she want have German and communist in front of Dover like a lung cancer.
Does France need UK support? Sure, can London or Washington dictate their terms in such manner...only in bad fanfic because there are limit at what any goverment can accept and neither country are that powerfull to not feel the consequences or have the capacity to act on their own in Europe, so again your little fantasy of London and Washington dictate the term that Paris need to found acceptable for the ToV is that a fantasy
 
Except in that situation France has just flipped the two biggest creditors on the planet the bird, and you can only squeeze so much blood from a stone.
The biggest creditor, as Britain has just taken its financial markets out behind the barn and shot them good and dead. And thst’s assuming the Us doesn’t come around to the French perspective in 1921 when the president that made this boneheaded move gets thrown out.

France proved to be a pretty lacklustre ally come WW2 and the WW1 war debt never got paid of before the depression and WW2 came round
Britain got money out of France, because the reparations paid by Germany could be used to service those debts. Here that won’t happen. And Britain gets to still face down the prospect of servicing its US debts without that money. The idea they aren’t in a drastically worse position than OTL is silly.
 
Nope it's you are seriously overstimating USA and UK position, the american will hurting seriously if the French don't pay the debts even because if Paris do that, Rome will do the same, the UK is even in a worse position economically and frankly she want have German and communist in front of Dover like a lung cancer.
Does France need UK support? Sure, can London or Washington dictate their terms in such manner...only in bad fanfic because there are limit at what any goverment can accept and neither country are that powerfull to not feel the consequences or have the capacity to act on their own in Europe, so again your little fantasy of London and Washington dictate the term that Paris need to found acceptable for the ToV is that a fantasy
You seem to be taking this extremely personally. Relax.

Like I said before I don't agree that freezing the french out would be a smart choice or even plausible, I was just pointing out the the french reneging on their war debt because they didn't get their way about dismantling germany or whatever will do them no favours and only hurt them in the long run
 
You seem to be taking this extremely personally. Relax.

Like I said before I don't agree that freezing the french out would be a smart choice or even plausible, I was just pointing out the the french reneging on their war debt because they didn't get their way about dismantling germany or whatever will do them no favours and only hurt them in the long run
Buddy i don't take personally, i merely point that your entire premise is...not really correct, as you were pointing out how the USA and the UK can easily dictate the terms of the ToV to France and me and other simply said to you that no, they can't and if they do well they face consequences, that are not pretty for any of the part involved while you stick to the notion that they can do as they want and honestly that's a belief that's hardly realistic
 
Capital its going to have to provide for itself ANYWAY since now the British and Americans are insisting France can’t charge Germany reparations for the vast damage inflicted on its countryside by the war, and will still be insisting France pay its debts.
Except in that situation France has just flipped the two biggest creditors on the planet the bird, and you can only squeeze so much blood from a stone.
And once you've decided to wipe the slate, sure you can't borrow more, but you don't have to pay any more either.
France can pay for its debts or its reconstruction without reparations, but not both. And just because the British and Americans insist the French can't charge Germany doesn't mean they can't one way or another.
IOTL it had to pay for its own loans and Imperial Russia's. Not having to pay those frees money... and allying with the Soviets not only means they have a chance at getting some money back from Moscow, but also restores a large underdevelopped market that they had a significant presence on pre-war. For the Soviets, it means French expertise becomes far more available. Expect an earlier Front Populaire.
 
And once you've decided to wipe the slate, sure you can't borrow more, but you don't have to pay any more either.
France can pay for its debts or its reconstruction without reparations, but not both. And just because the British and Americans insist the French can't charge Germany doesn't mean they can't one way or another.
IOTL it had to pay for its own loans and Imperial Russia's. Not having to pay those frees money... and allying with the Soviets not only means they have a chance at getting some money back from Moscow, but also restores a large underdevelopped market that they had a significant presence on pre-war. For the Soviets, it means French expertise becomes far more available. Expect an earlier Front Populaire.
Yes, if France goes communist and allies with the Soviet Union, that doesn't improve the situation in the short run and maybe not even in the long run. Now you could argue if it would prevent another world war. But it might lead to a worse situation, where due to the threat of communism the nazi's still rise, but this time with France allied to the Soviet Union they beat the nazi's, but the whole of continental Europe is communist. Or if this nazi-Germany allies with the UK, they manage to beat France and the USSR, but most of continental Europe falls under the nazis.
 
Frankly speaking with the US retreating to isolationism, the british not really interested in the continent and shortly switching to being sympathetic to Germany, and Russia gone the french were left alone facing a country that was potentially much stronger than themselves. Much higher population and a potentially stronger economy.
France would lack everything to permanently opress Germany. They need allies for that in the long run - the only one potentially interested are the soviets, and they are nearly as hard to palate to the french as the germans.

So if antagonism doesnt work maybe do your best to integrate Germany in the system in the interwar period. Appeasing Hitler was extremely stupid and idiotic. Appeasing a Streseman (or someone similar) led Germany would have been the best the former victors could have done. That diplomatic victory would have been an immense boost to the pro-democracy and wetern forces in Germany. Include Germany in an alliance in an exchange of Germany regaining its full suverenity, maybe point at the soviets as a boogeyman etc.
 
Germany was never going to be happy with any treaty saying "you lost", but yet again, they didn't need to be happy about it. They needed to be able to get resigned about it. Just don't alienate Italy, hold the wheel straight and tight on reparations and other Versailles provisions, and give Germany time to metabolize the fact that yes, they lost, just move on.
OTL was the worst of both words: a treaty that seemed incredibly harsh, and which demagogues could point at as main reason for their woes; and a treaty that was unenforced, letting those demagogues slip around its provisions with nary a fight (and thus garner credibility in the eyes of those who believed in point #1).
Avoiding Fascism rising in Italy due to the Entent fucking us over and reneging on the promises millions had died for would also be a good kicker, giving less of an inspiration to people like Hitler; but even a non-isolated Moose would be fine, as he was exceedingly anti-German up to 1936 itself.
 
@Post @Tibi088
The thing is, there were dozens of economic and political cooperations between Weimar Republic and the Soviet Union. Before anti-soviet Hitler takes charge, there's no way the Soviets would just abandon the great relations they had had with Germany. In this case, it's rather Poland the one whom France would see as the only ally France has. Besides, without the political uncertainty caused in OTL by the lack of french support, the May Coup might not take place and thus Poland remains democracy. Why is it significant? Because prior to Piłsudski's coup the main political force within Poland was National Democracy, which was staunchly anti-german and always saw Germany as a far bigger threat than Russia.

Don't get me wrong, the moment Hitler takes power, France would definitely start considering the soviet possibility. In fact, France already did so in OTL with the Franco-Soviet Treaty of Mutual Assistance from 1935. But I suppose that just like in OTL, France would see it rather as "Just in case".
 
Last edited:
@Post @Tibi088
The thing is, there were dozens of economic and political cooperations between Weimar Republic and the Soviet Union. Before anti-soviet Hitler takes charge, there's no way the Soviets would just abandon the great relations they had had with Germany. In this case, it's rather Poland the one whom France would see as the only ally France has. Besides, without the political uncertainty caused in OTL by the lack of french support, the May Coup might not take place and thus Poland remains democracy. Why is it significant? Because prior to Piłsudski's coup the main political force within Poland was National Democracy, which was staunchly anti-german and always saw Germany as a far bigger threat than Russia.

Don't get me wrong, the moment Hitler takes power, France would definitely start considering the soviet possibility. In fact, France already did so in OTL with the Franco-Soviet Treaty of Mutual Assistance from 1935. But I suppose that just like in OTL, France would see it rather as "Just in case".
A different ToV means the POD is in 1919, if the relation between France and the USSR is improved at that point and France allies with the USSR because it's let down by the UK and US, this happens before OTLs relations between the Weimar republic and the USSR are formed.
 
Invite German diplomats/statesmen to Versailles a la how Tallyrand was at Vienna. Only difference is the Allies in 1919 don't listen to Germany other than for the most superficial, trivial points. That way you disarm the propaganda tool of "We weren't even invited and had to sign this treaty at gunpoint!" rhetorical angle which gives the ToV that much more legitimacy.
 
@Post @Tibi088
The thing is, there were dozens of economic and political cooperations between Weimar Republic and the Soviet Union. Before anti-soviet Hitler takes charge, there's no way the Soviets would just abandon the great relations they had had with Germany. In this case, it's rather Poland the one whom France would see as the only ally France has. Besides, without the political uncertainty caused in OTL by the lack of french support, the May Coup might not take place and thus Poland remains democracy. Why is it significant? Because prior to Piłsudski's coup the main political force within Poland was National Democracy, which was staunchly anti-german and always saw Germany as a far bigger threat than Russia.

Don't get me wrong, the moment Hitler takes power, France would definitely start considering the soviet possibility. In fact, France already did so in OTL with the Franco-Soviet Treaty of Mutual Assistance from 1935. But I suppose that just like in OTL, France would see it rather as "Just in case".
The problem is that Poland is not enough of a counter weight to Germany.
 
Germany was never going to be happy with any treaty saying "you lost", but yet again, they didn't need to be happy about it. They needed to be able to get resigned about it.

You are on the right track, but you are not talking about getting rid of all the other unneeded & unjust, just plain stupid terms that were imposed upon Germany post WWI, whether or not they were officially included in the ToV. Start off with no disarmament of Germany as the initial talking point, and then you can reach a peace treaty that can lead to a lasting peace, not one that is doomed from the start because all it was was for the British and French empires to keep on keeping on, perched atop their precarious colonies of conquered peoples, and hoping to ride their backs just a few more decades, before the whole unstable mess of empire came crumbling down around them, as happened historically. If the British and French empires are insisting on Germany losing her "Place in the Sun" and thus ALL of her colonies, while they themselves keep their own conquered colonies, and the power, prestige, and wealth that they are getting from them, that alone should be the extent of what they can achieve from WWI, and they should have been made to admit to the war crime of blockading foodstuffs as a crime against humanity, and one that WILL NOT be tolerated again.
 
A different ToV means the POD is in 1919, if the relation between France and the USSR is improved at that point and France allies with the USSR because it's let down by the UK and US, this happens before OTLs relations between the Weimar republic and the USSR are formed.
If the Soviets are about to fight Germany, they firstly have to go through Poland, and the entrance of the red army to Poland means the inevitable sovietization of Poland. There's just no way Poland would accept that. In this case, I suppose Poland would accept the territorial concessions to Germany for the sake of alliance with Germany against the Soviet Union. This would be pre-nazi Germany afterall, therefore there would be no fear among the Poles about the genocidal antislavic tendencies from Germany. The potential for such german-polish agreement would be possible, because at this point Piłsudski hasn't given up the position of the Chief of State yet.
 
Last edited:
Fortunately, the myth of ToV being too repressive has long since fallen, right?
Absolutely, because if was never a myth in the first place, but rather cold, hard fact. And to clarify, I am lumping in everything done to Germany post WWI into the wrong headed junk that gets referred to under the blanket clause of the ToV, whether or not these things were in the ToV or some other measure, as I have previously mentioned up thread..
Wow condescending much or you are that arrogant by nature to think a whole nation are misguided children?
I think I'll answer you in kind, just so we can understand each other, right? So no offense, but....

"Wow condescending much or you are that arrogant..." If you use that kinda language, you don't get to complain when folks point out what you are doing, and then take you to task for it, right? So, you read my response to another poster and wrote "...a whole nation are misguided children". The French dude, that wanted to act like France was still the baddest thing Europe had ever seen, wasn't interested in a "Just and Lasting Peace", but rather a screwed up 'so-called' peace that would try to dictate that Germany needed to be broken, so that this delusional French pipe dream could be made into a reality post war. This is the truth about what the ToV et al was all about, and to continue to attempt to deny that, and claim some drivel about Germany getting off lightly, is untrue, delusional, and offensive.

So,pardon me, if you misunderstood (if you did) my intention, of calling Foch like onto a "head strong but very stubborn and misguided child." He clearly was, and the fact that history allowed him to have his way, which led directly to WWII, is clearly a mistake, and something other than Appeasing French wounded pride is needed to make a better peace.

In post #224 I listed a few, brief points about some of what was wrong with the postwar treatment of Germany (this is far from a complete, exhausting list of such, but rather just a few brief points), and I welcome you to pick such a point and try to debunk it, or perhaps, going point by point, go over all 10? I also call on anyone that would like to point out some of the many things I left off that list, to post those things in this thread.
 
There is always discussion at what point a conquest is seen as legitimate, but this would be the shortest time I have ever heard of.

In any case, when peace was made in 1814 the French no longer controlled Belgium or the Rhineland. Indeed, the allies were watering their horses in the Seine and Wellington was knocking on the gates of Toulouse. They had taken Belgium and the Rhineland by conquest, just as the French had taken them well within living memory. Indeed they had taken a good deal more than that, yet *returned* all their conquests as far as the border of the old kingdom. Indeed, Louis XVIII even ruled slightly *more* territory than had his elder brother.

Overseas, GB now held all of t he French West Indies (bar Haiti of course) yet returned all save two small islands.
 
Last edited:
I consider that the removal of the Rhineland and Belgium makes Versailles significantly more lenient than the peace of Vienna. The equivalent would have been creating a Rhenish Republic and then put Poland's western border on the Oder-Neisse.

That parallel would only be valid had Germany acquired the Rhineland and the Oder-Neisse territories by conquest no earlier than say 1895, and there were millions still living who had been born subjects of somewhere else.
Fortunately, the myth of ToV being too repressive has long since fallen, right?
Doesn't matter either way.

The problem was not German feelings about the ToV, but how the Entente powers felt once the wartime passions had had a decade or two to fade. Fat chance of convincing Germany that the treaty was fair, when many even of their own people had come to feel that it wasn't.
 
Last edited:
Scolding a person with PTSD that they shouldn't lash out is somewhat callous and probably unwise. Telling millions of them.....

The Treaty of Versailles was a product of the human condition. It should be viewed through the lens of the time. The sheer trauma is being vastly under-played here. Every town I've ever lived in had a cenotaph or other war memorial dating from immediately post-WWI. Every one. It affected the very fabric of nations. Countless millions of lives. The treaty might well have been a product of vainglory and wounded pride. Far more than that though, it was a product of fear of any repetition and of anger. A lot of anger.

Dismiss the emotion and of course the decisions arrived at can only ever appear to be erroneous. Empathize a little and you will have a far more fundamental understanding. If French anger at Germany circa 1918 is unjustified, then no-one can ever really claim the right to be angry again!

It's easy to claim objectivity at this far remove in our comfy chairs but a supposedly unemotional, ....antiseptic view of history can only be an inaccurate one. The Treaty of Versailles is far more than just a matter of maps and ink.

I won't dispute that the Treaty of Versailles was ill-judged. I also can't really see how there could have been any drastically different outcome if WWI plays out as historically. You would need to change the actors or change the act.

I will no doubt court controversy by saying this but the repercussions from the Treaty of Versailles have been overstated. The treaty didn't cause WWII, the Germans did. If WWII was simply a matter of getting even against the Entente and reclaiming lands lost, one wonders what the Germans' excuse for being in Bergen or Tobruk was....
 
Last edited:
While I like learning things about history, and am trying to get folks to take a good, long, honest look that how really bad ToV was (and really, not just ToV but all the other things that were done to Germany post WWI), so that we can all see just how wrong headed things were, so we can come up with a better peace treaty, and thus a better peace post war.

I may be wrong, but I thought that was the point of this thread, to look at different ways the peace could have been forged. That being said, I would ask why you are painting the ToV as being a lesser evil than some other treaty from like ~100 years before the time period in question?

Don't get me wrong, this stuff is indeed interesting (and yet another thing about which I know nothing), but could I ask your opinion about a comparison of two contemporary treaties instead, namely the ToV compared to B/L? These two treaties were very close together in the timeline, and both came out of WWI and it's aftermath.

For that matter, can anyone tell me (with links) all the different things done against Germany post WWI, that may not have been part of the ToV, but which were part of the whole package nonetheless?.

For me, everything that was done to Germany needs to be lumped into the ToV, so we can all see the total mess of things made by (Primarily) France, but also by Britain as well. Some things I want folks to consider:

1) The Germans were not allowed a seat at the table while the terms were being negotiated, rather, they were simply informed that they had to 'take it or leave it', and the war and blockade would continue until they did. This alone should get folks to understand that the ToV was never designed nor intended to create a "Just and lasting Peace", but rather to impose harsh terms on, and to weaken Germany. This will of course lead to a new war, it can do naught else.

2) The blockade of foodstuffs to Germany was never allowed to be brought up, despite the many things wrong with it, like interfering with neutral rights, and that it constituted a crime against humanity that historically has never been acknowledged nor compensated for (or punished/condemned) properly as such.

3) The use of non-combatants to fire upon, attempt to ram, or broadcasting the location of German submarines attempting to stop and inspect Entente shipping constituted turning them into de facto naval auxiliaries (and thereby combatants), and thus exempt from the protections of non-combatant vessels with regard to sinking without warning.

4) The loss of the German Empire's colonies. The complete loss of all colonies, and the hugh slap in the face that this is, cannot be overemphasized. This alone is a huge humiliation and loss of prestige, power, and international standing, and a very bitter pill for the German people to have to swallow, let alone have it being imposed without any negotiations at all.

5) The ridiculous 100,000 man army size. Germany fielded what, 11,000,000 men in the course of WWI, compared to Frances 7,500,000 men and the British 6,000,000 men? This is also a worthless part of the imposed terms, and meant to shame Germany, and keep her to weak to fight back against any future nonsense. This has no place even being discussed in a treaty that is supposed to make a "Just and lasting Peace", and this can only antagonize the whole of the German population.

6) The chopping down of the German navy to ships with no more than 10,000 tons displacement, nor guns larger than 11", let alone the numbers and makeup overall. Anything of this kind should have been done at the WNC, and been mutually agreed upon by all parties. The fact that this was instead imposed as a condition for the farcical 'peace' treaty and lifting of the blockade is just further proof of the wrongheadedness of the Entente powers at the time.

7) Stealing all the German patents! I guess this is not widely known/thought of, but after WWI, the Entente basically helped themselves to all the proprietary technologies that the German nation held pre-war. Outright theft, and limiting the profits to the German economy when that economy is the one that is supposed to foot the bill for rebuilding war ravaged areas, and the Reparations themselves, this is madness.

8) Forbidding the Germans, post war, from selling their manufactured goods in Britain and France, also weakens the German economy, and likewise that economies ability to pay.

9) No German submarines! In perpetuity, and without any recognition of the causes for USW being the fault of the British, let along anything being put in place to prevent such a crime against humanity such as blockading foodstuffs, from ever being attempted again (obviously, the submarines were the only option for Germany to try to return the favor to the British people), and thus should have been not only allowed, but required to be recognized as "fair play" in a world where starving a nation's people is overlooked and swept under the rug, No international guarantee that foodstuffs will never again be interfered with, like every nation on Earth immediately declares war on such a nation that ever tries this strategy kind of guarantee, no restrictions on any nation targeted by such can be allowed, and they have every right to sink such a blockading nations merchantmen without notice.

10) No German airforce! In perpetuity, and without any reciprocal restrictions on other nations. Not conductive to a "Just and Lasting Peace", and yet another example of how not to make a peace that you want to last, and yet another reason for another war.

Before I take a nap, I would like to ask folks, say that we can all agree that cutting the Germans navy down was both wrong and stupid, what would their ratio have looked like at the WNC/WNT? Historically, we had the 5 : 5 : 3 : 1.75 : 1.75 ratios, but where would/should the Germans have been fitted in? 5:5:3:3? but the Germans were ahead of the Japanese industrially, so perhaps 5:5:4:3 would have been a better ratio? think about this, and let me know what you think.

I'm already feeling tired, so even though I haven't gotten to the really rotten stuff that underlies all of this, I need a nap before going there, let alone trying to discuss ways to fix all these things.
The problem with all this is Germany in 1919 found itself in the unenviable position of:

1). Having started* and then lost the worst, most destructive most expensive conflict in history

2). Functionally the only central power that still basically existed in it's 1914 form at that point (not that AH didn't get pinged in treaties)

3). still in an era were victory treaties were widely accepted to mean the winner took their cost of the war out of the losers pockets (look at Brest-Litovsk in 1917 Germany certainly believed that)

4). wasn't actaully invaded let alone conquered so still very much posed a potential threat in 1919 onwards, and there was no guarantee to get millions of Brits, Empire, and US troop back in front of them.

5). the war had largely not been fought on German territory but rather on entente territory so had frankly not suffered that much damage

6). given how bad, how destructive, how expensive the conflict had been there was very much a demand that it could never happen again which meant in 1919 ensuing Germany could never do it again.


So with the above in mind the ToV was not overly harsh, if anything they probably got off lightly



* and you can argue about that if you like but frankly see umpteen past threads on that, and it's irrelevant as the entente powers certainly considered it to be true in 1919
 
Last edited:
Top