What would you do differently at Versailles in 1919?

Poland's rail network is cobbled together from three different economies OTL it had to expend vast amounts of capital on standardizing rails and making rail lines that actually connect to each other, it could be genuinely beneficial for them to opt for large truck fleets at an ahistorically early time. As for the treaty, just make it indefinite.
I very much doubt it. Trucks capable of moving at most couple tons of goods at once as long range transport would be highly inefficient compared to rail and riverine transport. Plus Poland had large reserves of coal, while relatively little oil. Having said that, Poland would indeed greatly benefit from increased motorization and mechanization of all branches of economy. But it is important to remember that Poland was utterly ravaged by six years of war and only returned to pre WWI levels of economy in the thirties. Later rather than earlier thirties iirc.
 
Sure, but invading Germany is only an option if the international community sees it favourable light and there is next to zero chance of it being the case. Poland can invade on their own, but Germany will use it as an excuse to rearm and later retake more land.

Then try harder to enforce the arms restrictions. As for international support, if national survival was really being put in jeopardy, then stopping it is worth any price, no? And if it's so obviously true, then France and Britain, the only third parties that matter, will surely understand.
 
if national survival was really being put in jeopardy, then stopping it is worth any price, no?
Ideally, that would be true, but in reality who cares about Poland? They're an upstart nation who already has too much and is evidently prone to sabre-rattling and besides Germans are better trading partners. It's easy to make up an excuse for doing nothing, therefore the Corridor being Polish needs to be the default.
 
Ideally, that would be true, but in reality who cares about Poland? They're an upstart nation who already has too much and is evidently prone to sabre-rattling and besides Germans are better trading partners. It's easy to make up an excuse for doing nothing, therefore the Corridor being Polish needs to be the default.

If foreign allies are unreliable, then that makes it all the more important for Poland to take as hard a stance as humanly possible against the Germans to ensure they never exceed their arms limitations. Given the French chose Stalin over Hitler in the 30's, it seems unlikely they'd find the Polish government any more abhorrent than that.

And again, the Corridor didn't help in the slightest IOTL, while also giving Hitler a pretext to saber rattle, so against a rearmed Germany, it's actually more of a liability than an asset.
 
If foreign allies are unreliable, then that makes it all the more important for Poland to take as hard a stance as humanly possible against the Germans to ensure they never exceed their arms limitations.
Hmmm... Perhaps, but on what grounds would Poland act? AFAIK the ToV didn't name them as enforcers.
And again, the Corridor didn't help in the slightest IOTL, while also giving Hitler a pretext to saber rattle, so against a rearmed Germany, it's actually more of a liability than an asset.
Well, it did help in 1925, so at the very least it allowed Poland to resist low-level German aggression.

That being said, an ideal situation would be offering Germany some sort of incentive so that they "play nice".
 
Hmmm... Perhaps, but on what grounds would Poland act? AFAIK the ToV didn't name them as enforcers.

On the grounds of "What is France going to do? Declare war on us to help the Germans?"

Well, it did help in 1925, so at the very least it allowed Poland to resist low-level German aggression.

That being said, an ideal situation would be offering Germany some sort of incentive so that they "play nice".

Low-level German aggression isn't the sort of thing that validates the "No Danzig means the end of Poland!" argument you'll always hear on this subject. Anyways, the Czechs survived and even thrived without similar considerations.

As for incentives for the Germans to cooperate, those would first require an acknowledgement that Germany would have to be part of the international community post-war. Versailles was predicated on avoiding that admission.
 
Well ideally I'd make Versailles the surrendur of the Entente and not the Central Powers, but going along with the OP's request I'll try to make it more or less realistic for an Entente victory. I'll also only make it about Germany as I have alot to say about the entire Paris Peace Conferance in general about Eastern Europe that I'll not share.

-The only reparations would be minor to repair damage done to French and Belgian territory and they would be paid after 1925.

-The treaty would return A-L to France.

-Czechoslovakia, Romania, and Yugoslavia will Trianon Hungary.

-Austria would be an independent state that could only join Germany after a plesbicite in 1925.

-Danzig would go to Germany.

-Germany's borders with Poland would be as IOTL with the exception of Danzig, however Poland must allow free transport from Germany to East Prussia for non-military purposes.

-Austria, and Czechoslovakia may not place trade restrictions on eachother until 1925.

-The German Army must not, until 1945, exceed 500,000, excluding the period until 1925 with the option to increase that year by approval of the 2 of the 3 Entente powers: U.S, France, and Britain. The same restrictions apply to Austria.



This falls out of the Versailles treaty but my ideas are predicated on this element so I must include it.

-A combined military operation including the armed forces of all former belligerent and willing former neutral European Nations excluding Turkey, and Hungary, Japan, and the United States are to assemble their armed forces to liberate Eastern Europe and Russia from Soviet aggression. Restoring the Governments of the Belarussian People's Republic, the (Western and Eastern) Ukrainian People's Republic, and ensuring the continued independence of the Baltic States and Finland.

It's a bit idealistic but it woud have been the right thing to do.
 
-The German Army must not, until 1945, exceed 500,000, excluding the period until 1925 with the option to increase that year by approval of the 2 of the 3 Entente powers: U.S, France, and Britain. The same restrictions apply to Austria.
Combine that with no occupation of the Rhineland there is no way France will sign it as it won't give them enough ensurance against future german agression (its far easier to build an army from half a million to a million and a half then it is from a hundred thousand). There is also good ods that Britain won't sign it either since it doesn't deal decisively with the german high fleet.
 
Combine that with no occupation of the Rhineland there is no way France will sign it as it won't give them enough ensurance against future german agression (its far easier to build an army from half a million to a million and a half then it is from a hundred thousand). There is also good ods that Britain won't sign it either since it doesn't deal decisively with the german high fleet.
I forgot the fleet, I would limit it to 3 BBs 6 CAs and 20 DDs and no U boats until 1940 and no new Naval construction until 1930.

As for France, they were unreasonable and caused WWII with their BS so I'm not going to cater to them. Wasn't it Foch who said it would be "war in 20 years" anyways?
 
I forgot the fleet, I would limit it to 3 BBs 6 CAs and 20 DDs and no U boats until 1940 and no new Naval construction until 1930.

As for France, they were unreasonable and caused WWII with their BS so I'm not going to cater to them. Wasn't it Foch who said it would be "war in 20 years" anyways?

Bolding mine. How did France cause WW2? Foch was referring to the fact the treaty was too harsh, not a bloodthirsty oath, so you are mistaken on that point.
 
I forgot the fleet, I would limit it to 3 BBs 6 CAs and 20 DDs and no U boats until 1940 and no new Naval construction until 1930.

As for France, they were unreasonable and caused WWII with their BS so I'm not going to cater to them. Wasn't it Foch who said it would be "war in 20 years" anyways?

Foch said that because he predicted that the Entente wouldn't enforce the treaty well enough, therefore allowing Germany to go revanchist. In that he was entirely correct. On a more realistic perspective, you need France on board to have peace so you don't have a choice to care about what they think.

The idea that if the allies had been lenient at Versailles everything would have been fine and dandy and they, not Germany and the Germans, where to be held responsible for what was essentially a war of german agression in Europe is incredibly simplistic and debunked historiography, as many historians have demonstred that the roots of the rise of fascism in Germany existed far before that. Its really the only way I can see someone come to the conclusion that France was somehow responsible.
 

Perkeo

Banned
Foch said that because he predicted that the Entente wouldn't enforce the treaty well enough, therefore allowing Germany to go revanchist. In that he was entirely correct. On a more realistic perspective, you need France on board to have peace so you don't have a choice to care about what they think.
This "enforce the treaty well enough"- proposal seems somewhat contradictory to the "have peace" result. Constantly sending men to battle won't feel like peace.
Eventually they have tp come up with a solution that lives on more than brute force.
Let them collect reparations, let the reparations be high, but start with the Dawes Plan, not the childish blank cheque of OTL TOV.
Let Germany disarm to sitting duck status, but provide a mechanism to replace that with a general arms limitation treaty as even the OTL TOV demands.
Let Danzig be independent, but only temporarily like the Saarland, so Poland has enough time to extend the port in Gdynia.
Force Germany into, not out of, the League of Nations and any future European system of checks and balances.
The idea that if the allies had been lenient at Versailles everything would have been fine and dandy and they, not Germany and the Germans, where to be held responsible for what was essentially a war of german agression in Europe is incredibly simplistic and debunked historiography, as many historians have demonstred that the roots of the rise of fascism in Germany existed far before that. Its really the only way I can see someone come to the conclusion that France was somehow responsible.
Of course holding Versailles responsible is incredibly simplistic and debunked historiography, but so is the claim that Germany was always destined to go racist and start wars of aggression. All of Europe was militaristic before 1914, and after WWI, all over Europe and North America the roots of fascism were winning support. Indeed the First Nation to go fascist was an Entente member.
But one thing was not simplistic: There is no way the OTL TOV succeeds without mayor corrections, not because it provides the wrong answers, but because it provides no answers at all to all the questions a peace treaty normally answers. It is at best a poor beginning to a longer peace process, but not even a credible attempt of a permanent settlement.
 
This "enforce the treaty well enough"- proposal seems somewhat contradictory to the "have peace" result. Constantly sending men to battle won't feel like peace.
Eventually they have tp come up with a solution that lives on more than brute force.
Let them collect reparations, let the reparations be high, but start with the Dawes Plan, not the childish blank cheque of OTL TOV.
Let Germany disarm to sitting duck status, but provide a mechanism to replace that with a general arms limitation treaty as even the OTL TOV demands.
Let Danzig be independent, but only temporarily like the Saarland, so Poland has enough time to extend the port in Gdynia.
Force Germany into, not out of, the League of Nations and any future European system of checks and balances.

Of course holding Versailles responsible is incredibly simplistic and debunked historiography, but so is the claim that Germany was always destined to go racist and start wars of aggression. All of Europe was militaristic before 1914, and after WWI, all over Europe and North America the roots of fascism were winning support. Indeed the First Nation to go fascist was an Entente member.
But one thing was not simplistic: There is no way the OTL TOV succeeds without mayor corrections, not because it provides the wrong answers, but because it provides no answers at all to all the questions a peace treaty normally answers. It is at best a poor beginning to a longer peace process, but not even a credible attempt of a permanent settlement.

To enforce the treaty you don't need to send men constantly to battle, merely to put your foot on the ground when they attempt to breake said treaty unilateraly, when you have the far more means at end threats are enough.

Destined is a strong word but they're is a host of reasons why fascism in Germany had far more success then in the large majority of countries, and Versailles is only one of them. If you look at the big three of fascist power in WWII you have one defeated power (Germany), one who won a Pyrhic victory (Italy) and one who made major gains for minimal costs (Japan). The correlation between the two just doesn't work.

As for OTL, honestly, anything was bound to be merely a beguining in the circumstances. Reparations you can help with, both the US and Britain had more moderate aims in the area at some point, and France could be made to accept it if given other conscessions, but actually giving Germany a seat at the table just wasn't gonna going to happen for the moment, perhaps down the road things could be revised in that direction but no way a Versailles treaty who said that directly was going to happen.
 
Last edited:
Bolding mine. How did France cause WW2? Foch was referring to the fact the treaty was too harsh, not a bloodthirsty oath, so you are mistaken on that point.

I know what Foch meant, he hated the Germans would have probably preferred the dissolution of Germany entirely, I was merely using his qoute to refer to the poor quality of Versailles IOTL. Foch wanted to go harsher as did the rest of the French. A desire for petty revenge when there was much more at stake, revanche had already been achieved and Alsace-Lorraine was back in French hands, they had won the war and recieved the territory they wanted in return.

Foch said that because he predicted that the Entente wouldn't enforce the treaty well enough, therefore allowing Germany to go revanchist. In that he was entirely correct. On a more realistic perspective, you need France on board to have peace so you don't have a choice to care about what they think.

The idea that if the allies had been lenient at Versailles everything would have been fine and dandy and they, not Germany and the Germans, where to be held responsible for what was essentially a war of german agression in Europe is incredibly simplistic and debunked historiography, as many historians have demonstred that the roots of the rise of fascism in Germany existed far before that. Its really the only way I can see someone come to the conclusion that France was somehow responsible.

Because it was Germany who assinated the heir to Austria-Hungary right?

The Serbian Government allowed for the Black Hand terrorist organization to grow more powerful until they assasinated the heir to the Austro-Hungarian Empire in what is almost certainly the greatest (in a negative sense obviously) act of terrorism ever committed. Russia then mobilized their entire army along their entire frontier including that with Germany, after Austria-Hungary merely responded to an act of Serbian aggression. Sure, Germany invaded neutral Belgium, but that isn't what started the July crisis and it is not what started the war.

The problem with Versailles was that it tried to low-key destroy Germany and nearly made it fall to communism before Hitler ever even got any of his grand ideas. It was a shit-show from the beginning, like the whole Paris Peace Conferance.
 
Basically I agree with the forementioned ideas, but I think Germany should keep Danzig and access to East Prussia. Also a right to unify with Austria in 15 years, if and only if regime in Germany is democratic and ready to cooperate, and not isolate. That way we can ensure a peaceful unification, and people would genuinely be happier.
The issue with Versailles was German hatred for the French and the idea that Allies were their enemies. An act of good will would proud prove to Germans that the West is good.
Also, there should be a pact to invade Germany in case of restoration of the "reactionary" regimes. Like an secretive amendment to the Versailles agreement.
If Germany ultimately still gets a autocratic regime, the West would have a right to intervene, and a genocide could be stopped before it begins.
Also, Hitler would probably not stick to his anti-Western ideas, as simply Versailles would be less harsh to the German people. I assume he would try to persuade the West that he wanted to demilitarize complitely. But I assume that he would fail at that. Germany will be banned from annexing Austria no matter the results of the referenda, and that would start a brief war, ending in total German defeat, and a shorter period of rebuilding, and at least 40 million less victims.
 
I know what Foch meant, he hated the Germans would have probably preferred the dissolution of Germany entirely, I was merely using his qoute to refer to the poor quality of Versailles IOTL. Foch wanted to go harsher as did the rest of the French. A desire for petty revenge when there was much more at stake, revanche had already been achieved and Alsace-Lorraine was back in French hands, they had won the war and recieved the territory they wanted in return.



Because it was Germany who assinated the heir to Austria-Hungary right?

The Serbian Government allowed for the Black Hand terrorist organization to grow more powerful until they assasinated the heir to the Austro-Hungarian Empire in what is almost certainly the greatest (in a negative sense obviously) act of terrorism ever committed. Russia then mobilized their entire army along their entire frontier including that with Germany, after Austria-Hungary merely responded to an act of Serbian aggression. Sure, Germany invaded neutral Belgium, but that isn't what started the July crisis and it is not what started the war.

The problem with Versailles was that it tried to low-key destroy Germany and nearly made it fall to communism before Hitler ever even got any of his grand ideas. It was a shit-show from the beginning, like the whole Paris Peace Conferance.

Ok, for a starter: you made a comment about France resonsability in WWII nothing here adress that.

Appart from that, the Black hand was most definitely not in Serbia control. After that Serbia accepted all the terms of Vienna ultimatum appart for one who would have made them puppets, essentially. After that Vienna consulted the Germans to see if they would have their support in a more general war as anybody could have seen that a) Russia wouldn't let Serbia be annexed as it would have destroyed their whole balkanic policy and b) France wouldn't let Russia stand alone since the russian aliance was at the base of their foreign policy. Despite that Berlin gave insurance of support and the rest is history.

The question of the responsability of WWI is a complex one but your version of events is very incomplete and selective it what it ignore.

Versailles didn't try to destroy Germany, at the allies actually pushed for that they had the means to do it. The idea that the communists where supposedly on the verge of triumph in the early 30's is also ludicrous: their vote peaked at 17% and they didn't have the supports in the army to try to make a coup.
 
The Serbian Government allowed for the Black Hand terrorist organization to grow more powerful until they assasinated the heir to the Austro-Hungarian Empire in what is almost certainly the greatest (in a negative sense obviously) act of terrorism ever committed.

The murder was carried out by a citizen of Bosnia, part of the Austro-Hungarian empire. Supporting secessionist/independence movements was not unique to Serbia. Have a look at what Austro-Hungary was doing in Russian Poland for example.

Russia then mobilized their entire army along their entire frontier including that with Germany, after Austria-Hungary merely responded to an act of Serbian aggression. Sure, Germany invaded neutral Belgium, but that isn't what started the July crisis and it is not what started the war.

The Russian Army was not AT the frontier, it was deployed in depth. For some countries like Russia and Austro-Hungary mobilisation =/= war. There are relevant examples of Russia mobilising and not going to war.

Check the date that the Russia - Austro-Hungarian war started. It was after Germany had actually invaded Luxembourg, Belgium and France.
 
After that Serbia accepted all the terms of Vienna ultimatum appart for one who would have made them puppets, essentially.
Allowing Austrian police to temporarily operate on Serbian soil would have made them puppets? I guess France was a puppet of Russia then. And no they really didn't agree to the other terms, their reply was purposely vague enough that while it sounded positive they could easily wriggle out of any commitment.
 
Allowing Austrian police to temporarily operate on Serbian soil would have made them puppets? I guess France was a puppet of Russia then. And no they really didn't agree to the other terms, their reply was purposely vague enough that while it sounded positive they could easily wriggle out of any commitment.

That really isn't comparable, this is what the document has to say about the relation between the french sureté and the Okhrana

The Okhrana's relations with the Sûreté were symbiotic. The Okhrana reduced the Sûreté 'sworkload and provided employment for retired French detectives. The French police did not see the Paris bureau as a threat to French national interests or to the Sûreté's organizational equities. On the eve of World War I the French security service declared: "It is impossible, on any objective assessment, to deny the usefulness of having a Russian police [force] operating in Paris, whether officially or not, whose presence is to keep under surveillance the activities of Russian revolutionaries."

That's world away from an hostile power who insert its police to a country by strenght of arm. I also disagree with your interpretation of the Serbian answer but even if they did react in such a way the fact remain that the ultimatum was excessive. Just look at point 4:

4. Remove from the Serbian military and civil administration all officers and functionaries whose names the Austro-Hungarian Government will provide.
 
That really isn't comparable, this is what the document has to say about the relation between the french sureté and the Okhrana

That's world away from an hostile power who insert its police to a country by strenght of arm.
The Austrian police would have only been there to make sure the Serbian Police do their jobs, something that they could not be trusted to do due to the far reach of the Black Hand and other Serbian nationalist groups.

Also litterally the second half of the paragraph you quoted:
At the same time, socialist and radical deputies in the French Assembly, who were more sympathetic to the Russian revolutionaries than to the police, pressed the French and Russian Governments to shut down the Okhrana office. In 1913 the Russian regime formally complied by announcing the office's closure. But this was a subterfuge; the Russian police continued operating under the cover of the Agence Bint et Sambain, a private detective agency. One of the two proprietors, Henri Bint, was a former employee of both the Sûreté and the Okhrana.
The Okhrana was far from having universal approval in France, and when asked to leave it outright violated France's sovereignty.

I also disagree with your interpretation of the Serbian answer but even if they did react in such a way the fact remain that the ultimatum was excessive. Just look at point 4:
The head of the Black Hand was on the Serbian General Staff. Point 4 seems extreme but it was entirely necessary.
 
Top