What would a “fair” Treaty of Versailles / Paris Peace Conference look like?

[jycee]

As the title says, what do you guys think a “fair” Treaty of Versailles / Paris Peace Conference look like?

Basically let’s imagine at the end of WWI – keeping the POD around the time of the armistice in November 1918 - the Allied leaders got a sudden spurt of enlightenment and did their best to take everyone into account during the Paris Peace Conference in order to build a lasting and balanced peace (i.e. a “fair” Treaty of Versailles, St-Germain, Trianon, etc.)

This would include inviting Germany and the defeated Central Powers to the negotiations, and an attempt to keep a semblance of the old order, while trying to keep their promises to most of the Arab and Central European Minorities, and an cohesive strategy on how to deal with revolutionary Russia.

I reckon:

More reasonable reparations imposed on Germany. However Germany’s borders would be similar as OTL, although Danzig / Gdansk might stay German.

Germany would still lose its colonies regardless. But the repartition would be different with Japan getting a better deal from Germany’s Pacific Colonies.

Czechoslovakia would likely still happen, but Southern Bohemia could remain part of Austria.

Hungary gets a much better deal, possibly keeping Northern Transylvania, and Southwestern Slovakia. Depending on how much the Powers want to keep the old order and avoid Germany annexing Austria; could the Hapsburgs be allowed to remain Emperors of a reduced Austria-Hungary?

No Yugoslavia, but three or four separate states for Slovenians, Croatians (with part of Bosnia), Serbs (with the majority of Bosnia as compensation) and in possible union with Montenegro.

Further east I’m not so sure about; the Baltic states probably do get recognized though, and if the Brits and French keep their promises we’d see a different treaty of Sevres with a united Arab state emerging.

And if they get seriously, and I mean near-ASB, enlightened, they could accept Japan’s racial equality clause. But turn it around on them as an argument for Korean independence.

I’m pretty sure, this has been discussed plenty of times. But I’d like to know your thoughts.

 

[Anchises]

How would it be fair to say that German borders would look similiar?

Germany and Austria wanted to unite, whx shouldn't they? Fair would be settling the fate of areas like Danzig or Alsace-Lorraine via a fair democratic vote.

After such a bitter war a fair peace is simply ASB imho.

 

[Theoretical_TJ]

Lighter terms ruthlessly enforced instead of perceived harsh (war guilt clause) with lots of acquiescence along the way.

 

[Riain]

I would remove the war guilt clause and make the reparations what Germany could actually pay rather than have extra stuff in there to pad it out as a political sop. It was this extra stuff, which despite agreement in 1919 that Germany wouldn't pay, that was loaded up in the late 20s and pushed Germany over the edge.

 

[Mina-van-Mako]

After such a bitter war a fair peace is simply ASB imho.

Plus France, with a sixth of it's territory turned into ashes and mod, and after loosing a whole generation would be extremely pissed. A nice Versailles Treaty to Germany is a "Victoire Mutilée" for France, so peace wouldn't be saved either.

 

[Anchises]

Plus France, with a sixth of it's territory turned into ashes and mod, and after loosing a whole generation would be extremely pissed. A nice Versailles Treaty to Germany is a "Victoire Mutilée" for France, so peace wouldn't be saved either.

This war was a giant clusterfuck tbh. There aren't many good outcomes where a stable post-war order is created.

 

[Alex1guy]

I feel the war needs to be shorter for the peace treaty to be less intense

 

[Xgentis]

I think it is amazing how peoples still buy into the "Versaille dictate" the nazi used to justify their war.

 

[Augenis]

Referendums. Referendums everywhere.

Let every single constituency of Germany and the Austro-Hungarian Empire, down to the town and village level, vote on whether they want to be in Germany, Austria, independent or part of whatever breakaway state is the closest to them.

We might get a little intense Bangladesh-India level bordergore, especially at the German-Polish border, but it's worth it.

 

[Drizzt]

I think it is amazing how peoples still buy into the "Versaille dictate" the nazi used to justify their war.

You familiar with the saying about broken clocks?

 

[The Tai-Pan]

I think it is amazing how peoples still buy into the "Versaille dictate" the nazi used to justify their war.

You do not think German outrage at Versailles and the new world order in general are part of the Nazi rise to power?

 

[Xgentis]

You do not think German outrage at Versailles and the new world order in general are part of the Nazi rise to power?

I think it is overstated and used to shift the blame for WWII the great depression had a bigger impact in fact Germany was slowly recovering when the nazis took power.

 

[Pelranius]

A good way to deal with Germany would be to let ethnically German majority areas (within reason, so no German enclaves in Bohemia, for example) unite in one country, but alter the German power structure in such a way that, for example, the Catholic South holds the majority of power, so the Prussians spend all their time scheming to get on top, and the Wittelsbachs//Hapsburgs/Zentrum spend all their time trying to keep the Prussians down (would rewiring German internal politics require an ASB though?).

 

[jycee]

How would it be fair to say that German borders would look similiar?

Germany and Austria wanted to unite, why shouldn't they? Fair would be settling the fate of areas like Danzig or Alsace-Lorraine via a fair democratic vote.

After such a bitter war a fair peace is simply ASB IMHO.

It is ASB but that is part of the exercise. As far as the German borders, you bring a good point with Austria, and a referendum would be the solution as for Danzig and Alsace-Lorraine for this scenario.

However, I don't think the majority of the border changes (in regards to Germany) where that unreasonable in OTL.

Alsace-Lorraine was always France's main goal. Even though the time the majority or plurality of the population was German it was at stake since the beginning of the war. A solution could have been for France to regain the former departments of Moselle and Meurthe (Lorraine), and have referendums in the departments along the Rhine.
Belgium got a little slice of land one could barely miss; in a fair scenario this is would count towards reparations.
Posen, if I am not mistaken, had a Polish plurality and considered part of the core Polish territory outside the Grand Duchy of Warsaw. In a way of carving out Poland from the territory out of Germany, Austria, and Russia can be considered "fair"; of these three Germany really lost the least amount of territory. Like with Alsace-Lorrain only dividing the territory and holding plebiscites would really fix it.
Silesia was divided via a plebiscite, and Germany got to keep part of it.
Plebiscites were also held in Southern East Prussia, which also voted in Germany.
Memel is a relatively minor issue, but we have to consider what happens with Lithuania; whether it gains independence or not, get confederated with Poland or not, and solves its border issue with Poland or not.

So far this seems fairly reasonable. The big problem zone Eastern Pomerania and Danzig, which separated East Prussia from the rest of Germany. Historically Polish territory was seen as a way to give Poland access to the sea. This could have been adjusted and perhaps Danzig allowed to remain German, same goes for Soldau, which was given to Poland so the railway from Warsaw to Danzig wasn't bisected by the German border; German Danzig should also result from German Soldau.

Territorially the only loss seemingly out of the blue was Schleswig, but this agreed separately between Germany and Denmark prior to the treaty being signed, and a plebiscite was held.

Referendums. Referendums everywhere.

Let every single constituency of Germany and the Austro-Hungarian Empire, down to the town and village level, vote on whether they want to be in Germany, Austria, independent or part of whatever breakaway state is the closest to them.

We might get a little intense Bangladesh-India level bordergore, especially at the German-Polish border, but it's worth it.

At that point it be easiest to just hyper-balkanize all of Central Europe to village level and create a macro federation for economic cooperation from the results. To many this would end up looking like a Greater Germany

 

[Galba Otho Vitelius]

The territorial provisions of Versailles were not the problem. The problem was not inviting the Germans to negotiate at the peace conference, was really was unprecedented in diplomatic history, the war guilt charge, the over the top reparations, and maintaining the blockade until well into 1918 to force the Germans to sign.

Change all the above and the other provisions of the treaty would work out.

These are some other changes that should have been made, though of less importance:

1. Japan should have gotten more, particularly the condemnation of racism that they had been seeking.

2. Mini-Austria was a bad idea on realpolitik grounds, because the Germans wound up absorbing Austria and Bohemia anyway. If Austria and Bohemia stay united this country could have counterbalanced Germany better. Throw in Slovenia, since I don't think the Slovenes really were looking to join Yugoslavia, Fiume, and a part of Silesia, probably the part that ultimately went to Poland.

3. Hungary just got screwed too hard. If you adopt the Austria-Bohemia idea, the Hungarians can keep Slovakia, as well as the the Hungarian parts of Transylvania that Hitler and Ribbentrop gave them back (the award was actually quite fair).

4. Instead of creating Yugoslavia, just create a really big Serbia by letting the Serbs absorb Montenegro, Bosnia, and the majority Serb parts of Croatia. The Croat majority part of northern Croatia would remain in Hungary. This screws the Croats but prevents alot of problems down the line. You can also give the Italians more of Dalmatia. They didn't deserve it, but it might have taken some of the wind out of Italian fascism, though no one in 1919 was anticipating the blackshirt coup.

5. The port for Poland is Bremen and Bremerhaven, which can be justified by Bremen historically being a free city. A port directly on the Atlantic is of more use to the Poles than one on the Baltic. They get rail transit rights, of course. Germany keeps Danzig and the German majority parts of West Prussia, and a land link to East Prussia. The Germans won't like losing Bremen but they still keep more territory than IOTL.

6. Also give more support to the Poles in their war with Russia somehow,and maybe they can grab Odessa on the Black Sea and attach that to Poland. If this works, Bremen and Bremerhaven can be given back to Germany.

7. The entire treatment of the Ottoman Empire was a mess that didn't survive four years after the peace conference, so doing just about anything different here would work better.

They also should have invited the Russian Bolsheviks to send a delegation.

They are still stuck with keeping the Treaty of London promises to Italy and the Italian right still won't be satisfied. OK

 

[BigBlueBox]

A good way to deal with Germany would be to let ethnically German majority areas (within reason, so no German enclaves in Bohemia, for example) unite in one country, but alter the German power structure in such a way that, for example, the Catholic South holds the majority of power, so the Prussians spend all their time scheming to get on top, and the Wittelsbachs//Hapsburgs/Zentrum spend all their time trying to keep the Prussians down (would rewiring German internal politics require an ASB though?).

No outside force could alter the German power structure. This is 1918, not 1945.

 

[michael1]

There is no such thing as an objectively "fair" peace treaty since fairness is a subjective concept. What I think you're after (please forgive me if I'm wrong) is a treaty that everyone is willing to live with. This is simply not possible as the German political nation believed/convinced themselves that they had engaged in a defensive war that they either had been cheated out of victory or came very close to winning, and accordingly would have been unhappy with any losses or reparations. Given that the opposing coalition broke up practically immediately after the ceasefire this unhappiness would have translated into an attempt to change their position. As I see it the only terms that the Germans would have been willing to live with might well have involved additions to their territory (the Sudetenland and Austria) rather than losses. A major unknown is whether Germany would have engaged in war to revise its borders without the great depression.

 

[Aber]

This is simply not possible as the German political nation believed/convinced themselves that they had engaged in a defensive war that they either had been cheated out of victory or came very close to winning,

What is often forgotten is how quickly the German collapse came after the breach of the Hindenburg line.

The Times 29th September 1918

The last week has been easily the most successful week we have had since the war began, and if we weigh as well as measure our victories, the wonder increases. For the first time in the war we seem in sight of victory. Yet - let there be no mistake - it as yet only a distant view, and before we reach the summit we shall have to transverse many dips in the ground in which our vision is far more obscure.

Our correspondent at The Hague, a close student of conditions across the frontier, warns us this morning that the Germans do not even yet admit the possibility of defeat. We cannot afford to relax our efforts or suppose our troubles are over. It is a time for rejoicing. It is also a time for sober estimates and determined preparation.

One week later the Germans asked for an armistice.

 

[NoMommsen]

What is often forgotten is how quickly the German collapse came after the breach of the Hindenburg line.
...
One week later the Germans asked for an armistice.

Much reasons of this 'quickness' lay in the persons and their (often also especially on personal level )interacting at the centers of decision/power (Hindi, Ludi, Groener, Crown Prince, the Kaiser, Erzberger and other politicians in Berlin, etc., etc.).

There is no such thing as an objectively "fair" peace treaty since fairness is a subjective concept. What I think you're after (please forgive me if I'm wrong) is a treaty that everyone is willing to live with.
...

IMHO still too much asked for and - esp. regarding the germans in that I fully agree with you, @michael1 - not achievable in whatever ATL.

Perhaps a more ... possible interpretation of the asked for "fair" ToV would be :

a treaty everyone can live with ... though with some teeth-ache
(and with our ... 'hindsight' with-out rejecting it right after signing, thereby greatly reducing/avoiding the follow-on-WW 2)​

However, as I'm not as literate about the peculiarities and processes of the actual negatiations as I would like to be :

- Can someone explain me how and why Yugoslavia - kinda a VERY-Great-Serbia - came into existence ?
- What was its 'rational' for the Great Powers at the negotiations to throw the treaty/agreements with their italian partner under the bus (i.e. croatian coastal regions) ?​

That they 'ignored' their promises for the near and middle east ... well ... just some mediavial, tribal, dirty 'n dusty Bedouines ... not really 'understanding' or worthy of civilized diplomacy.
Just give their chieftains some pearls ...
And the jews ... well, ... you know ... Jews ...
(Not my opinion but well within the thinking of the time)

But Italy ?

 

[michael1]

What is often forgotten is how quickly the German collapse came after the breach of the Hindenburg line.



One week later the Germans asked for an armistice.

I'm not saying they weren't defeated, simply that a few years later they didn't recognise/acknowledge the extent of the collapse which had in fact happened. Even the SPD claimed to the troops that "No enemy has overcome you."