What would you do differently at Versailles in 1919?

This is what I would do to:
*Germany would loose its colonies, Alsace Lorraine and anywhere in its empire that was ethnically non-German. Germany would keep everywhere that is ethnically German and would gain Austria and the Sudetenland, with both joining Germany as constituent states.
*Germany would have to become a symmetrical federation with a democratic republican system of government. Prussia would be broken up so that each of its former provinces becomes a constituent state in its own right, while Franconia would have to split off from Bavaria.
*Anyone with a royal or aristocratic title in the old Imperial Germany would get their lands and estates confiscated. They would subsequently be sold to either the new German government or to the Bourgeoisie with the proceeds going to the countries that lost the most during the war.
*Hungary would only loose territories that were not ethnically Hungarian, with the exception of Székely Land which would either be made independent or have autonomy within Romania.
*An independent Kurdistan would be created, while everywhere that had been Ethinically Armenian in 1914 would be transferred to Armenia.
 
Wow! I wanted to leave this thread, but this! Wow!
For centuries it belonged to Prussia, before this to Austria & before this to Bohemia. Which where all part of the Holy Roman Empire of the German nation. It even belonged to the fucking KINGDOM OF GERMANY in 1000.
But all of this is pretty much irrelevant, because this matterd jack shit to the Entente.
Funny how they decided to ignore the will of people when its collided with their "secruity" intrests. A recurring phenomenon & not only in Versailles, but all treaties ending WW1.
Cant remember that. Care to share some informations?
Versailles is probably the worst treaty of all times. Designed to be a Carthaginian peace by the victors they where to weak to enforce it. I spare me the hybris the Entente nations showed when dealing with national self determination.

It was a shitty treaty, driven by nationalism, revanchism & imperialism and haven't even had the decency to admit it.

This. If you tried to write a peace treaty that would guarantee a future War, probably near future, you would have trouble writing it.
 
Alright, assuming that you need to take into account the situation on the ground and stay even remotely realistic (so no giving back german concessions to the chinese since Japan occupy them and no independent Middle-east since the Brits would never have done that) here is probably the best scenario you can plausibly come up with:

-France get Alsace-Lorraine back
-Belgium get Eupen Malmedy
-Rhineland occupied for 50 years
-Independant Bavaria (there was actually a pretty strong movement in favor of that OTL)
-Austria is forbided to join Germany back but encouraged to unify with Bavaria.
-Reparations calculated according to what the former Central Powers can actually realistically pay).
-Germany lost her colonies and those go to the OTL benificaries.
-Clause in the treaty that specifically obligate the allies to help the Husseini's stay in power in Arabia (so hopefully no Ibn Saud taking over)
-Greco-turkish border along the lines of the OTL treaty of Lausanne.
-Independent Armenia created
-Italy get what she want in the Adriatic (this one make me cringe but its probably needed to prevent the Mutilated victory ideology arising, and therefore Fascism).
-Serbia is restored to her previous territory + Montenegro and OTL conscessions from Bulgaria, Slovenien, Bosniac and Croatian state are created
-Czech and Slovack states are created.
-Same borders then OTL between Germany and Poland and as far as Hungary is concerned.
-Same restriction on the military forces of the former Central Powers.
-The administative divisions of the mid-east are built around more ethnic lines as to hopefully make future states there more stable then OTL.

With this you get a somewhat stable Europe where the citizens of the defeated nations have a shot at rebuilding but will find it hard to go into a revisionist policy.
 
Last edited:

Perkeo

Banned
Things to remember at the time the treaty is being thrashed out.

The treaty to end the Franco-Prussian War ( hint its harsher than OTL ToV )
Not true. The treaty of Frankfurt stripped France of all disputable territories, as the TOV did to Germany, in doing so bent the term "disputable", as the TOV did to Germany, and demanded five billion gold Francs, which if I'm not mistaken is 4.05 billion gold Marks. The TOV demanded 20 billion gold Marks, and then a total blank check on the rest of the reparations plus the war guilt clause. What makes you think the treaty of Frankfurt was nearly as harsh as let alone harsher than the TOV?
Put all that together and the following are Red lines

Germany is paying heavy reparations ( as France had to,
I must once again remind you of the difference between 4.05 billion Marks and infinity, or 132 billion in the London payment schedule.
no other Central Power country is left that can pay, money is needed )
Germany is getting smallest not bigger ( France wants its land back , new countries want their claims met and have sympathy on their side , France especially is afraid of round 3 happening )
Poland will do well ( the new soviets are worrying as well as a need to contain Germany )
Britain wants the HSF out of German hands
No one cares about fairness if it conflicts with perceived national interests

Its hard to see how , given those constraints, ToV ends up much different than OTL.
The differences may be relatively small but they are important. In short, give Germany a path to return to normal relations to her neighbors. If you block that path the TOV will fail - because not even the allies will be happy with an economic mess and military sitting duck at their doorstep.
Make the reparations high but not limitless!
Make the arms restrictions tough but let integrate them into a multilateral arms limitation treaty as even the TOV demands!
The major difference that would possibly have a great effect is favoring Italy over the new Yugoslavia and keeping the promises made re territory. This could cause a pro Allied Italy rather than an Axis one in the 30's, with all the butterflies that may cause.
Italy got all she could reasonably claim as hers and AFAIK also all she was promised.
 
Not true. The treaty of Frankfurt stripped France of all disputable territories, as the TOV did to Germany, in doing so bent the term "disputable", as the TOV did to Germany, and demanded five billion gold Francs, which if I'm not mistaken is 4.05 billion gold Marks. The TOV demanded 20 billion gold Marks, and then a total blank check on the rest of the reparations plus the war guilt clause. What makes you think the treaty of Frankfurt was nearly as harsh as let alone harsher than the TOV?
Try adjusting to a measure you can compare across time like % of GDP.
 
Its hard to see how , given those constraints, ToV ends up much different than OTL.

I'm inclined to agree. Unfortunately, though, the same holds good for its sequel. Given the war-weariness of the populations concerned, it was also a near cert that the will to enforce the Treaty would quickly fade, so that Europe would end up with the worst of all possible worlds.
 
Last edited:

Perkeo

Banned
Try adjusting to a measure you can compare across time like % of GDP.
True, but that doesn't make 4.05 billion more than 20 billion let alone 137 billion:
France and Germany GDP were about equal in 1870 and the German GDP grew by a factor of 3, not 30 until 1914. Remember inflation doesn't apply since we're talking gold currency.
 

Perkeo

Banned
I'm inclined to agree. Unfortunately, though, the same holds good for its sequel. Given the war-weariness of the populations concerned, it was also a near cert that the will to enforce the Treaty would quickly fade, so that Europe would end up witht he worst of all possible worlds.
Only if Hitler does come to power - which is all but certain even with OTL TOV.
 
Last edited:
You to be honest need a POD in which the German Army is decisively beaten,broken and in large part surrenders before the politicians throw the towel in to stop the rise of Hitler ( or an analog ). If the stabbed in the back myth cannot obviously be shown to be blatantly false then as soon as the Great Depression hits, someone will get to power by blaming foreigners and internal outsiders. You end up with a para-military style organization that persecutes minorities and believes others occupy German territory ( para-military due to its support base stemming from ex military , the stabbed in the back myth and the irredentistism it fanned causing the rest).
Now the regime can be a lot milder than OTL but the chances are a version of WW2 was going to happen from the moment Germany surrendered. ToV did not help but any treaty possible by 1919 would have been twisted as too harsh. It would just take a major crisis to help the rise of the fringe party and Germany is on a collision course with its neighbors.
 
You to be honest need a POD in which the German Army is decisively beaten,broken and in large part surrenders before the politicians throw the towel in to stop the rise of Hitler ( or an analog ).

That sounds like a description of what happened to the Confederate Army in 1865. Yet that didn't stop the South getting its breath back enough to defeat radical reconstruction.

The real problem, imho, stemmed from the first half of 1918 rather than the second. The German offensives failed, but it was quite a close-run thing, so that in retrospect what stuck in many German minds was not that they lost but that they so nearly won. Now if there were some way to make those offensives stall after getting only a mile or two (as so many Entente ones did) or even preventing them altogether - - -.
 
-Independant Bavaria (there was actually a pretty strong movement in favor of that OTL)

wikipedian_protester.jpg
 

Perkeo

Banned
You to be honest need a POD in which the German Army is decisively beaten,broken and in large part surrenders before the politicians throw the towel in to stop the rise of Hitler ( or an analog ). If the stabbed in the back myth cannot obviously be shown to be blatantly false then as soon as the Great Depression hits, someone will get to power by blaming foreigners and internal outsiders.
Each of the following PODs would save the Weimar Republic without removing the myth:
1) Hitler, or his analogy, fails to unite the aristocracy with the lower class ultra right wing
2) Hindenburg doesn't appoint Hitler as chancellor (either he is as oath keeping as in his first term or he is too much of an aristocrat to appoint the "Bohemian private")
3) A re-elected Weimar Coalition candidate who beat Hindenburg in 1925 doesn't appoint Hitler
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bavarian_nationalism

Upon Germany's defeat in World War I, revolution spread across Germany including Bavaria, with the Bavarian monarchy being toppled and the proclamation of Bavaria as an independent communist state (the Bavarian Soviet Republic).[6] After the collapse of the Soviet Republic, Bavarian nationalism—associated with anti-Prussian as well as anti-Semitic tendencies—became popular amongst both radical and reactionary movements.[2]

Following the collapse of Austria-Hungary, proposals for Austria to join Bavaria were made.[3] The Bavarian government held particular interest in incorporating the regions of North Tyrol and Upper Austria into Bavaria.[4] Such proposals were taken with interest by significant numbers of North Tyrolese wishing to join Bavaria.[5] The Bavarian government's actions prompted the German government to respond by proposing the anschluss of Austria into Germany.[4]

In 1923, Bavarian monarchists under Minister-President Gustav Ritter von Kahr and his Bavarian People's Party attempted to seize control of the Bavarian government and declare Bavaria independent of Germany and restore the Bavarian monarchy.[2]This Bavarian separatist coup attempt was frustrated by the actions of the then-small Nazi Party which preempted the planned coup and itself attempted to take over the Bavarian government in what became known as the Beerhall Putsch.[2] Bavarian nationalists and the Nazi Party competed for a support base; however, even by the 1932 election, when the Nazi Party won a major victory, the Nazis had failed to surpass the Catholic Bavarian People's Party in southern Bavaria, carrying only the Protestant areas of northern Bavaria.[2]

Its pretty basic knowledge of German history during this time period frankly.
 
They didn't hold referendums in Alsace-Lorraine, Austria, eastern Belgium or South Tyrol. Which proves my point thar the Versailles treaty didn't respect the right to self-self-determination.

Because historically there is nothing like dividing land into a bunch of tiny states to provide for peace and prosperity. :p
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bavarian_nationalism
Its pretty basic knowledge of German history during this time period frankly.

I do not dispute that there was a sepparatist sentiment, but I strongly doubt that it had anywhere near majority support.
As far as the bavarian soviet republic is concerned (or more aptly Munich Soviet Republic), it was limited to little more than the city of Munich and collapsed after less than a month.

Additionally, the source for the imminent monarchist coup in 1923 is a dictionary, which not only does give no specific source for its claim but is also riddled with mistakes according to its only amazon review. Other gems of its chapter on bavaria include "Franconians remain staunchly Bavarian" and apparently the accession of Bavaria to Germany in 1871 remains controversial even to this day...

According to the German source about von Kahr I could come up with,speaks of von Kahr seeking greater autonomy for Bavaria and even considering the possibility of independence, there was no imminent separatist coup. Instead, the long-term goal was "a radical change in the political conditions for the entirety of Germany". (Der Weg der Deutschen: Band II: Deutschland im Zwanzigsten Jahrhundert)
 
I do not dispute that there was a sepparatist sentiment, but I strongly doubt that it had anywhere near majority support.
As far as the bavarian soviet republic is concerned (or more aptly Munich Soviet Republic), it was limited to little more than the city of Munich and collapsed after less than a month.

Additionally, the source for the imminent monarchist coup in 1923 is a dictionary, which not only does give no specific source for its claim but is also riddled with mistakes according to its only amazon review. Other gems of its chapter on bavaria include "Franconians remain staunchly Bavarian" and apparently the accession of Bavaria to Germany in 1871 remains controversial even to this day...

According to the German source about von Kahr I could come up with,speaks of von Kahr seeking greater autonomy for Bavaria and even considering the possibility of independence, there was no imminent separatist coup. Instead, the long-term goal was "a radical change in the political conditions for the entirety of Germany". (Der Weg der Deutschen: Band II: Deutschland im Zwanzigsten Jahrhundert)

I never said there was a majority either, I only said that it was there and that it was strong. I doubt that can really be argued and I believe it was certainly strong enough to be accepted as the status quo by the population. It would, at the very least, not be more of a stretch then some other geopolitical changes made by the treaty.

As for Kahr most of the sources I had (including Kershaw, who is about as well regarded as a specialist for german history as an historian can be on any subject) Kahr was definitely at least strongly considering restoring the Wittelsbach to power and Bavarian independance. I went for the wikipedia article for simplicity sake.
 
I never said there was a majority either, I only said that it was there and that it was strong. I doubt that can really be argued and I believe it was certainly strong enough to be accepted as the status quo by the population. It would, at the very least, not be more of a stretch then some other geopolitical changes made by the treaty.

As for Kahr most of the sources I had (including Kershaw, who is about as well regarded as a specialist for german history as an historian can be on any subject) Kahr was definitely at least strongly considering restoring the Wittelsbach to power and Bavarian independance. I went for the wikipedia article for simplicity sake.

So, if it was that strong it should be no problem for you to provide a source for the strength of this sentiment.

Sorry if I am coming over a bit testy, but it really annoys me in this kind of discussions when German nationalism is treated as if it had a simple on/off switch. I don't mean to imply that this is what you are thinking, but others in this thread certainly believe that breaking Germany up in its constituent states (and keeping it divided) has a good chance at succeeding. (with the Germans so pleased about the Great Powers once again playing divide and conquer with their country, that they would happily pay for the privilege...)
 
So, if it was that strong it should be no problem for you to provide a source for the strength of this sentiment.

Sorry if I am coming over a bit testy, but it really annoys me in this kind of discussions when German nationalism is treated as if it had a simple on/off switch. I don't mean to imply that this is what you are thinking, but others in this thread certainly believe that breaking Germany up in its constituent states (and keeping it divided) has a good chance at succeeding. (with the Germans so pleased about the Great Powers once again playing divide and conquer with their country, that they would happily pay for the privilege...)

I never argued for that: I talked about Bavaria and only Bavaria, witch by previous posts even you agree had a strong degree of nationalism at the moment (tough we disagree on how strong). Saxony, Hannover or anything else to be carved out would be silly but there is enough in Bavaria to work with. You dismissed the Bavarian soviet early on, its possible to do so, similar arguments can be made to dismiss Eisner and his free state too, a case can be made for that I suppose. Add them toguether tough, and add the plotting of some of the far right and the right with the Wittelsbach's as late as the early 30's and you have too much smoke around for it not be some kind of fire.

Even in Bavaria case, I never even argued a referendum would work, merely that the idea was not so unthinkable that it could be accepted in time by a majority of the population (with possibly some less harsh treatment by the entente to seal the deal).

Quickly like this most of the books I read on the subjects aren't in my posession (and frankly I am not that invested in this discussions that I would run to my university to get them ASAP) so I would cite Gustav Von Khar and the Emergence of the Radical Right in Bavaria who said
It was also suspected at the time, and since, that he had separatist designs for Bavaria, although this has never been definitively proven
While it does give some doubt that Kahr was indeed on board it does tend to indicate two things a) that there is a decent historiography who believe that he was and b) that they're was an actually significant separatism sentiment (while its easy to dismiss the Bavarian soviet or the Bavarian free state separately its harder to deny that both of them toguether meant something) that made such an idea even remotely plausible.
 
Last edited:

Saphroneth

Banned
The war guilt clause was indeed a mistranslation - it should have been "damages" guilt. For the British that meant the damages inflicted by illegal USW.
 
Top