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

[AltoRegnant]

If we limit ourselves to just the territorial concessions (in German national territory), then you may have a valid point, unfortunately France went far beyond that, what with the wholesale confiscation of all the German overseas Empire,

Okay, how is france taking colonies worse than taking european land? Now youve officially lost me. Especially since its not like the empire was big or did much good for germany.

and most infuriating of all, trying to dictate terms regarding internal German laws, and dictating German military disarmament, leaving their military a shadow of their pre-war self. All of this, and more besides, is what France did, and all of that is why the Nazi's were able to play upon the (righteous) rage of the German people at what had been done to them.

For the record, the German revolution was before the request for the ceasefire and

Not sure about this one, reparations are one thing, taking a bite out of another nation's people, rather than their overseas colonies, or liberating conquered nations from their conquerors is something else. So, yes, we can go back and forth about the people that that lived in A/L when the French annexed them in (drat, all my google searches only go back to the 1870-1871 war with nothing before that --- not going to all that trouble right now --- to be revisited later), not sure, but France took the place from someone else at some point, and the folks who ruled the region then were not the folks that lived there, nor were those folk French. Already looked at a modern map, and not of the folks that were freed from the Russian Empire back then, are a part of Russia today, so that really should put paid to claims that B/L was harsh to Russia, rather than to her empire.

Okay. It was harsh to the Russian Empire. But here's the thing, in 1914? Russia was the empire and the empire was Russia. There's a reason why Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin (Russian, Ukrainian, and Georgian respectively) all wanted to reconquer the lost territory.

Such is afterall, human nature, that no peace is going to "end all wars", but why setup a situation that makes the second largest industrialized nation in the world mad and bent on revenge, just so the 4th most powerful industrialized nation can feel good about themselves, until the next war that will inevitably reverse this situation? France and Germany have to learn to live side by side, and any artificial structure that is contrived to put the smaller and weaker nation on top will eventually fail, just as the colonial empires themselves failed not to long after WWII.

So... might does make right, and Germany should've just sucked it up? Germany was the smaller and weaker power relative to its competitors, otherwise it would've won.

Alternatively, why is germanys ego worth more than france's security? Germany popped up, invaded France, tried to cripple them (and only failed because they took their financial obligations seriously,) and spent the next 40 years playing chicken trying to justify going back in to actually cripple them.

I cannot understand this, are you saying that having to rebuild war torn areas of Belgium and France, including (paying for the) building of fortifications of these borders is somehow more humiliating than what was historically done? Please explain this in context:
Loosing their entire empire.
Having their military stripped away.

For the record, I'm saying Germany would've been just as humiliated and angry about building those fortifications as it was the reparations. Because Germany's problem with Versailles was that it wasn't the winner.

Loosing their great power status.

They didn't lose it. Germany's demographic edge and industrial dominance on France was not changed. The only thing that was changed was that Berlin lost the not-german parts of its empire and the German-speaking province that didn't want to be there.

If germany had lost its great power status, it would've lost the means to start world War two.

Well, this bolded part pretty clearly spells out your thinking process. You honestly believe that Germany should just accept everything that was done to her post WWI, and that France should be allowed to do this and pay no price for it?

yes, because i do not believe the treaty was particularly harsh? France was owed reparations, germany lost no land that was majority german with the debatable exception of tje polish corridor, and the central powers were the aggressors.

Such thinking is what made our history what it was, I wonder what the rest of the world's population thinks of this? We could start by asking folks from all the modern nations what they think of French thinking on this matter, it might just shed some light, and open up people's eyes. Just saying.

France needs = sounds like more of that French thinning.

France won and was keeping its empire. We can debate all day about how moral that empire was, but telling France "congratulations on winning the deadliest war in history, now give up everything you have but the bare minimum" is in fact, worse, than telling the losing aggressor to give up land.

At least, we finally come to some common ground, the disarmament of Germany was "a little harsh", is how you put this?!?! It was, in fact, an outrage! And only one of many.

Okay admittedly I was trying to be funny with the little harsh phrasing. But again, why is German ego worth more than French, Belgian or polish security?

Anyway, nothing the two of us type into this forums threads is going to undo what the French got away with post WWI, and what that nonsense let to in WWII, so there is that anyway.

Indeed, and I think that you are correct, we do indeed see things differently.

Were not really any different than those of either Britain or France, themselves, but the Germans came to the game of empire in 1871, and by that time there was precocious little in the way of less advanced peoples to ruthlessly conquer and bully into dancing to German tunes, like the British and French had been doing for 100's of years, and so the Germans started to bully France, and taking little bits and pieces from their empire (just like, but on a way smaller scale the the British had done, time and time again), and the British, seeing the beginnings of someone else taking another empires overseas colonies, and realizing they they would inevitably loose their own empire to the Germans if something wasn't done to halt this trend...

I won't reply to this, other than to say that I won't. Not because it is beneath me or some such drivel, but because I have no idea what all this is? Not understanding it, I cannot really make any meaningful comment on it.

I think, reading the above, that I really do need to go ahead and start writing my "Consequences and Repercussions" thread, just to expose another line of thought, where the British and French empires are shown in a more honest light, and are made to fall earlier than historically, and not in a long and drawn out series of independence wars lasting decades, but where decolonization is enforced when their own nations are conquered and occupied, their own armed forces are crushed and dismantled forever afterwards, and they are made to be seen as the evil doers. I fear that only such a fictional timeline is going to finally end the myth that the British and French empires were a good thing, while the German empire was a bad thing.

I never said that the British and French empires were meaningfully better than the German overseas Empire. However, Germany was the principal agitator in Europe and lost the war its bloc started.

All of the colonial empires were a bad thing, and thank god they are all dust in the wind today.

And in truth, the USA didn't join the LoN, nor sign and ratify the historical treaties imposed upon Germany post WWI. This was a good thing, but not as good as getting a just and lasting piece would have been.

... yes. I know that. But Woodrow Wilson negotiated the Treaty, sent it off to Congress to ratify it, failed, and it fell to harding and Coolidge to negotiate a second treaty based on the de facto reality (including America's absence from the lon)

 

[AltoRegnant]

Russia Invaded Germany to start the war in the East.

According to the library of congress, germany issued the first declarations of war. Russia mightve been mobilizing against Austria, but it certainly didn't attack germany first.

France played games and wanted Germany to cross the border first. Then Plan 17 kicked in and almost cost them the war.
France had been itching for a rematch since 1870, thats one of the main reasons they were out empire building, to get stronger. Their Russian Alliance had one purpose, an attack on Germany.

France and Russia seemed to be in a defensive alliance more than anything.

Just go through the War plans of Russia and France. Russian Plan 19 and French Plans 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16(2) and 16(3) and 17 were offensive plans. Plans 1 through 7, 14 and 15 were defensive.

"Il est prévu de passer à l'offensive dès que les corps d'active sont déployés, conformément aux règlements qui viennent d'être mis en vigueur, tel que le Règlement sur la conduite des grandes unités d'octobre 1913 et le Règlement sur le service des armées en campagne de décembre 1913, ainsi qu'aux engagements pris par la France envers la Russie, les deux nations devant lancer des offensives simultanées à partir du 15e jour de leur mobilisation"

"It was planned for the French Army to go on the offensive as soon as the active corps were deployed, in accordance with the regulations that had just been put into force, such as the Regulations on the Conduct of Large Units of October 1913 and the Army Service in the Field Regulations of December 1913, as well as France's commitments to Russia, with both nations to launch simultaneous offensives from the 15th day of their mobilization"

I pulled those from a site. Earlier I called for breaking up Prussia into 4 or 5 States.

They entered one war to support their only ally. France was involved in wars in Europe before and after 1870. You paint it as if Germany was running around invading countries in Europe. They fought three wars to create the German Empire, one with Denmark, one vs Austria and one vs France. The Kaiser made two big mistakes, appointing Moltke and listening to him when the Kaiser decided to stop the invasion of Luxemburg and Belgium. Moltke didn't think his plan would work but pushed it anyways. He lied to the Kaiser about plans to reinforce the East and stand on the defensive in the West, saying the army had no plans for this, which was not true.

So submarine blockades are cool? You allies broke the cruiser rules to try to get neutral ships torpedoed without warning.

The Social democrats wanted no part of the war, some reactionaries in Germany and A/H hoped to defuse their political strength. Similar thought and movements were in France and Russia. At the end of the war they took power and purged a lot of the prowar figures.

In France Jean Jaurès was assassinated, by Raoul Villain (what a name), a likely tool of either British or French intelligence. He was acquitted by a jury of peers on March 29, 1919, and Anatole France wrote in L'Humanité: "Workers! ... A monstrous verdict proclaims that the assassination of Jaurès is not a crime...".Jaurès's wife, as plaintiff, was ordered to pay the court costs.

They took Alsace for the Iron, mountains against the advice of Bismark.

They took it so baden and wurtenburg wouldn't be the frontline if France came back. And sure, Bismarck knew better, but you also admitted with that "against the advice of" that he wasn't calling all the shots.

Frankfort was no biggie, France recovered in a decade. They then spend the next 34 years planning revenge. Germany left France with major iron fields just outside of A/L.

Germant thought it would hold them down and were genuinely surprised by France paying the bill as quick as it did. If anything they expected a reaction like their own 40 years later.

Germany had given up on the Naval Arms race by 1910-12, it was a luxury the Reichstag decided they could no longer afford. They had strict limits on spending and on the size of the armed forces. For an army increase, the navy got the axe and faced more cuts in future years.

So they still spent a decade participating in it and were surprised when the island took it as a threat? And of course it was perfectly reasonable Germany responded to this with "well stop in exchange for am alliance and cart Blanche in europe"?

Russia was going to free Poland ... Not even this bank robber believes that.

Ngl took me too long to recognize him. But no, I was under the impression there was a greater push in nationalist circles to take back the partition border.

 

[Baron Steakpuncher]

Honestly?

Not all that much. As it stood the post-ww1 treaties were... not perfect but not entirely unfair either. Probably they should have taken more of a hand in eastern europe to ensure some plebiscites weren't rigged (iirc thats part of why Masuria wound up in Germany despite being mostly Polish?)

Maybe been a bit more generous to Hungary, but a large part of why they weren't consisted of that countries own instabilities and the whole revolution business going on.

Probably there should have been a bone or two extra thrown to Italy. Some efforts to prevent the shitshow going on in the Ottoman Empire would have been nice, instead of just abandoning a fair number of people to being killed. Although in all honesty, that might have caused its own problems years down the line, so I can understand why it was mostly decided to leave the cards how they fell after the war. (Seriously though, they shouldn't have screwed over the Hashemites)

Maybe Poland should have been watched more closely what with the whole "Republic of Central Lithuania" buisness? But then again, Soviets, other problems. Actually if there had been less efforts to screw over the Soviets then a lot of time, men and resources wouldn't have gone to waste. I can't actually think of anything meaningful the efforts of the Allied armies in Russia accomplished aside from maybe the Japanese.

 

[Xgentis]

The treaty of Frankfurt was an attempt at crippling France with reparations. The Germans expected them to take decades for France to truly repay, allowing the Germans to keep occupying North France and make the French pay the occupation as long as possible.
That the French repaid in three years almost caused Germany to have another go at it in 1873.
In addition, the Briey-Longwy iron fields were unknown at the time of the treaty, otherwise it is most certain that Germany would've taken them as well. The goal of Frankfurt was twofold: A/L as a buffer/defensible military frontier and crippling France.

That's what Emperor Wilhelm I said in his letter to former impress Josephine, Alsace-Lorraine wasn't taken so much to increase german territory but to weaken France.

 

[redrobin65]

this framing makes it look like Germany just appeared one day pre-1870 and the prussian government never did anything wrong before unification.

It's the typical kaiserboo argument, poor Germany never did anything wrong ever, Versailles was unfair and the evil Entente have 350% of the blame. It's been like this for years and years here.

 

[Undeadmuffin]

France was punished too harshly after the Franco-Prussian war, they should have kept Alsace-Lorraine or at least put it under plebiscite, been allowed to unite with Belgium, not have to pay for reparation and not being put under occupation. Germany basically asked for WW1.

 

[extraterrestris]

France was punished too harshly after the Franco-Prussian war, they should have kept Alsace-Lorraine or at least put it under plebiscite, been allowed to unite with Belgium, not have to pay for reparation and not being put under occupation. Germany basically asked for WW1.

Blaming WWII on Versailles is indeed nonsense.
The events of 1933-1945 were not foreseeable, and indeed highly unlikely, in 1919. The Nazis were marginal up until the Great Depression. By late 1938 the ToV was mostly voided and it was only the insatiable expansionistic appetite of the Nazi regime that led to WWII one year later.

It is also not really avoidable that Germany would in 1919 be punished for losing a massive war for which it was seen as the aggressor by the victors (whether rightfully or wrongfully is immaterial here).

 

[TDM]

France was punished too harshly after the Franco-Prussian war, they should have kept Alsace-Lorraine or at least put it under plebiscite, been allowed to unite with Belgium, not have to pay for reparation and not being put under occupation. Germany basically asked for WW1.

heh like it, although it was Germany who invaded Belgium in 1914 not France!

 

[Mikestone8]

For the record, the German revolution was before the request for the ceasefire

No. The Armistice was requested on October 4, a full month before the revolution broke out.

 

[Undeadmuffin]

heh like it, although it was Germany who invaded Belgium in 1914 not France!

It was a reference to people frequently proposing to allow Germany and Austria to unite

 

[TDM]

It was a reference to people frequently proposing to allow Germany and Austria to unite

Hah, sorry didn't spot that

 

[holycookie]

1917. They were afraid of the Russian Steamroller for good reason.

Well, that doesn't justify it, because it's the same argument for the French and the English. They were rightly afraid of the Germans.

AH had a booming economy and population. Its issues were with leadership

yep

 

[prester.john208]

Blaming WWII on Versailles is indeed nonsense.
The events of 1933-1945 were not foreseeable, and indeed highly unlikely, in 1919. The Nazis were marginal up until the Great Depression. By late 1938 the ToV was mostly voided and it was only the insatiable expansionistic appetite of the Nazi regime that led to WWII one year later.

It is also not really avoidable that Germany would in 1919 be punished for losing a massive war for which it was seen as the aggressor by the victors (whether rightfully or wrongfully is immaterial here).

The depression was brought on by everyone's debt plus the Versailles terms making it almost impossible for Germany to pay up, loss of patents, loss of merchant fleet and no trade with GB and France, the #2 & #4 economies. Russia, AH also dropped off the market. Germany couldn't get the foreign exchange to pay their debts and finance trade, so they borrowed money to get funds that went straight out of the economy.

France in 1871 was not in a world awash with debt and collapsing economies, and they still had the captive markets and resources of their empire.

 

[prester.john208]

Okay, how is france taking colonies worse than taking european land? Now youve officially lost me. Especially since its not like the empire was big or did much good for germany.

Bismarck was against the colonies, correctly seeing them as a resource drain. They were almost worthless as sources of resources and trade. Plus they were used to justify an unnecessarily large fleet.

 

[holycookie]

Bismarck was against the colonies, correctly seeing them as a resource drain. They were almost worthless as sources of resources and trade. Plus they were used to justify an unnecessarily large fleet.

This is wrong, there are colonies and there are colonies. The colonies in Africa were mostly out of ego. Most colonies in Asia or America are not based on ego.

 

[prester.john208]

This is wrong, there are colonies and there are colonies. The colonies in Africa were mostly out of ego. Most colonies in Asia or America are not based on ego.

Agreed. Germany's colonies were resource sinks.

 

[TDM]

The depression was brought on by everyone's debt plus the Versailles terms making it almost impossible for Germany to pay up, loss of patents, loss of merchant fleet and no trade with GB and France, the #2 & #4 economies. Russia, AH also dropped off the market. Germany couldn't get the foreign exchange to pay their debts and finance trade, so they borrowed money to get funds that went straight out of the economy.

France in 1871 was not in a world awash with debt and collapsing economies, and they still had the captive markets and resources of their empire.

That's not true, the depression was not brought on by things that were specific to Germany and being forced to pay reparations it was a global thing that effected everyone.

In actual fact ToV reparation ended in 1932 having paid approx. one 8th of the initial leveed amount, and in fact the great depression was a big factor in the decision to end them early!*


Now what is true is US loans to Germany dried up (but they dried up to most other as well) and that made things harder on the German economy, but well lost of peoples economies were straining under the depression and many for long term reasons caused by WW1.

What is also true is that the Germany had largely funded WW1 on burrowing that was to be paid off after victory was thus already weak and dependent on foreign funding even before they lost the war and that continues afterwards. On top of that once the depression really kicks off in 1930+ there was the Austrian then German banking crisis.


Now when it came to the Nazi's economic claims they did benefit from the great depression but not in the "the ToV is making the Depression worse, boo the ToV" way that is often claimed.

One of the core points that the Nazis made early on was that Germany should not be relying on globalisation** and international funding (aka Jewish funding) because it made them weak and reliant on lesser countries and races and the usual mix of recrimination, race hate and wishful thinking.

Now in the mid/late 20's when the German economy was doing pretty god damn well especially after the post war period largely on the back of foreign funding this claim got them laughed at. But when the depression hit and international loans and funding dried up they looked like economic prophets proven right!




*although US war loans to entente members were not forgiven at this point which seems somewhat uneven

**yep that's right some complaints don't go out of fashion

 

[NoMommsen]

By the French pulling back 10km from the border to avoid any accidents while the German government through it's controlled press manufactured upto 20 instances of French aggressive incursions.

... ofc everything a german newspaper wrote has to be fake news as only the german press was was controlled (despite they publicising messages from different official sources, regionally as well as from the whole realm).

... and whatever the french goverment said can only be taken as the one and only truth.

... and that Jules Andre Peugeot and Albert Mayer as the first casualties in the west of the Great War were killed just wihtin 8 km from the border (there's a wee memorial just at the eastern outlet of the village) ... surely a perfidious fake of geography.
... unbelievable that french soldiers might be so near to the german border ... right?

 

[Glenn239]

The BEF fought at Le Cateau, the French 5th Army's 1st Corps fought the Battle of Dinant in mid_August 1914. Your map is wrong, 5th Army had to have concentrated much further north, more like around Hirson.

 

[prester.john208]

The BEF fought at Le Cateau, the French 5th Army's 1st Corps fought the Battle of Dinant in mid_August 1914. Your map is wrong, 5th Army had to have concentrated much further north, more like around Hirson.

Thats the French Map for Plan 17, not what actually happened.
Trois offensives prévues https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_XVII#Trois_offensives_prévues
""""
Two major French offensives were planned, one on the Lorraine plateau between Vosges and Metz by the 1st and 2nd Armies, the other in the Thionville between Luxembourg and Diedenhofen (or in Belgian Luxembourg in the event of an invasion of Belgium) by the 4th and 5th Armies.

A detached group of the 1st Army, comprising the 7th Corps and the 8th Division, was to attack in Upper Alsace on the 4th day of mobilization, on the orders of the Commander-in-Chief. "Its particular mission was to hold back in Alsace, by attacking them, the opposing forces that would try to emerge on the western slope of the Vosges, north of the Schlucht, and to encourage the uprising of the Alsatian populations who remained loyal to the French cause." In addition, this group was to block the bridges over the Rhine from Basel to Neuf-Brisach
"""
A site that uses the Official French records to show the action on the Western From from mobilization to the end of the war
Cartographie 1914 - 1918 Le front ouest de la première guerre mondiale