What would you do differently at Versailles in 1919?

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

This was an existing conspiracy theory, actually. Several people believed that Germany was behind the assassination, including Max Hohenberg (Franz Ferdinand's son).
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 greatest act of terrorism ever committed? I'd say a shooting with two victims wouldn't even be in the "top" 100 acts of terrorism ever committed.

Never mind how many other countries at the time were also engaged in undermining their neighbors (sometimes in ways more severe than anything the "Black Hand" could have dreamed of).
 
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.

Uhm... lets set one thing straight: only Italy was fascist.
But more to the point: the three powers you mentioned were pretty much shafted by the ToV. Germany is obvious, Italy, well, pyrrhic victory is an understatement: not only with a hindsight would they remain neutral, a good portion of their OTL gains could have been achieved without a single drop of blood, they were practically humiliated by the Entente in the conference. In case of Japan the major gains... yeah, for the cost, those were major. However, i think the rejection of the race equality proposal has enormous effect on them - that was their own war guilt clause IMHO.
 
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:

The Okhrana was far from having universal approval in France, and when asked to leave it outright violated France's sovereignty.


The head of the Black Hand was on the Serbian General Staff. Point 4 seems extreme but it was entirely necessary.

And? The only thing that prove is that their was opposition regarding to the policy of the French government regarding the Okhrana and that it continued to opperate in the shadows aftwerward. Its still quite different from having an hostile power essentially forcing you to accept to have their police look over their shoulder all the time.

As for point 4 you would notice that there isn't any mention to proving a link with the Black hand or anything in the like. Written as it was it gave leaway to Vienna to fire anybody in the government and the army they didn't like, therefore giving them everything they needed to destroy Serbian independence if it was applied.

Its also important to not overstate the influence of the Black Hand either, the serbian government did destroy them relatively easily during the war and there is no indication it impeded their war effort.

Uhm... lets set one thing straight: only Italy was fascist.
But more to the point: the three powers you mentioned were pretty much shafted by the ToV. Germany is obvious, Italy, well, pyrrhic victory is an understatement: not only with a hindsight would they remain neutral, a good portion of their OTL gains could have been achieved without a single drop of blood, they were practically humiliated by the Entente in the conference. In case of Japan the major gains... yeah, for the cost, those were major. However, i think the rejection of the race equality proposal has enormous effect on them - that was their own war guilt clause IMHO.

That's essentially pedentic, fascism as a term is used in historiography to describe a variety of regimes on an historical spectrum, who include Japan and Germany. I also don't buy for an instant that idea that something who would have been essentially symbolic was nothing more then one of smalest among many causes of future conflicts, especially since Japan pretty much secured everything else it wanted at the conference.
 
Last edited:
On the grounds of "What is France going to do? Declare war on us to help the Germans?"



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.

At the very least Germany has to have a way to make enough money to actually pay for the reparations without going over their head in debt. A somewhat more free trade US would help. Even if it is "We need the Europeans to be able to trade with us so they can pay back the money they owe us.". A lot of the money that Europe would make off of US trade would have wound back up in the US as debt repayment anyways.
 
And? The only thing that prove is that their was opposition regarding to the policy of the French government regarding the Okhrana and that it continued to opperate in the shadows aftwerward.
You say that like it's a little thing.

Its still quite different from having an hostile power essentially forcing you to accept to have their police look over their shoulder all the time.
Except it wouldn't allow that.
Bring to trial all accessories to the Archduke's assassination and allow "Austro-Hungarian delegates" (law enforcement officers) to take part in the investigations.
It's made clear that the Austrian Police would only be involved in the relevant investigations. Not looking over their shoulders for perpetuity. Point 5 seems closer to what you suggest, but strangely it was the one the Serbians didn't outright reject (likely because it's own wording is ambiguous enough for them to wriggle out of should the Austrian intent be too much)

As for point 4 you would notice that there isn't any mention to proving a link with the Black hand or anything in the like. Written as it was it gave leaway to Vienna to fire anybody in the government and the army they didn't like, therefore giving them everything they needed to destroy Serbian independence if it was applied.
And then in 1917 when A-H tries having a trade minister fired for not granting them most favoured nation status, the King of Serbia complains loudly and the other great powers tell Austria to follow the spirit of the ultimatum not just the word.

Its also important to not overstate the influence of the Black Hand either, the serbian government did destroy them relatively easily during the war and there is no indication it impeded their war effort.
Um Serbia had been wiped off the map and its government forced into exile by the time of the crack down on the Black Hand. There wasn't much of a war effort to hurt.

edit: and given that Apis was the head of military intelligence who failed to fully realize the threat posed by the Bulgarians, I think it's safe to say he wasn't much of a loss.
 
Last edited:
And then in 1917 when A-H tries having a trade minister fired for not granting them most favoured nation status, the King of Serbia complains loudly and the other great powers tell Austria to follow the spirit of the ultimatum not just the word.

Um Serbia had been wiped off the map and its government forced into exile by the time of the crack down on the Black Hand. There wasn't much of a war effort to hurt.

edit: and given that Apis was the head of military intelligence who failed to fully realize the threat posed by the Bulgarians, I think it's safe to say he wasn't much of a loss.

Or Germany support Austria-Hungary when it argue that all accessories haven't brought to trial yet to be able to keep his police in Serbia and/or use the ultamitum to fire anybody they don't like and we are back to scare one.

They're was still a pretty consequential army in Salonica.
 
They're was still a pretty consequential army in Salonica.
But it was also no longer on it's own, the massive allied army of the orient could cover for any inadequacies resulting from the Serbian purges, which there wouldn't be much of, the Black Hand's core was a small elite group.

Or Germany support Austria-Hungary when it argue that all accessories haven't brought to trial yet to be able to keep his police in Serbia
Then, as per the treaty, they'd still be limited to looking for accessories, not maliciously undermining the Serbian police.

and/or use the ultamitum to fire anybody they don't like and we are back to scare one.
If Austria can't claim the moral high ground (and it wouldn't should it use the ultimatum for gains unrelated to the assassination) then Germany isn't going to back it.
 
Then, as per the treaty, they'd still be limited to looking for accessories, not maliciously undermining the Serbian police.


If Austria can't claim the moral high ground (and it wouldn't should it use the ultimatum for gains unrelated to the assassination) then Germany isn't going to back it.

And we should believe that Vienna will care about the letter of the treaty and the moral high-ground when Germany support them because?
 
The Austrian police would have only been there to make sure the Serbian Police do their jobs...

There's no reason to assume that. It was no accident that the Austrian ultimatum was a totally unacceptable abortion of diplomacy - Vienna had intentionally composed it to be totally unacceptable and provide an excuse for invasion. This Austrian police delegation would likely spend most of its time manufacturing another excuse to invade Serbia.
...something that they could not be trusted to do due to the far reach of the Black Hand and other Serbian nationalist groups.

...

The head of the Black Hand was on the Serbian General Staff. Point 4 seems extreme but it was entirely necessary.

May as well clear up some common misconceptions about the Black Hand:

1. The first and only head of the Black Hand died in 1913, and a successor was never chosen. Apis was never the leader of the organization, although he was the most influential of its surviving members.

2. The "Black Hand" was staunchly opposed to the actual Serbian government.

3. The members and associates of the "Black Hand" were overwhelmingly pro-German (occasionally even pro-Austrian) and more or less anti-Entente. In fact, several of the Black Hand's major associates were quislings for the Central Powers during the war.
 
And we should believe that Vienna will care about the letter of the treaty and the moral high-ground when Germany support them because?
Because Germany isn't going to support Austria if the abuse becomes to blatant. Heck Germany was the largest investor in Serbia prior to the Crisis, they aren't going to drop their own advantages just because Franz wants to wring Serbia's neck some more.
 
Because Germany isn't going to support Austria if the abuse becomes to blatant. Heck Germany was the largest investor in Serbia prior to the Crisis, they aren't going to drop their own advantages just because Franz wants to wring Serbia's neck some more.

They essentially gave a blank cheque to Vienna OTL, don't see why that would change.

Edit: Just saw the last message, and yeah will do.
 
There's no reason to assume that. It was no accident that the Austrian ultimatum was a totally unacceptable abortion of diplomacy - Vienna had intentionally composed it to be totally unacceptable and provide an excuse for invasion. This Austrian police delegation would likely spend most of its time manufacturing another excuse to invade Serbia.
A fair point, but I'd argue that what A-H intends to do, and what the other great powers, including Germany, would allow them to do are two separate things.

1. The first and only head of the Black Hand died in 1913, and a successor was never chosen. Apis was never the leader of the organization, although he was the most influential of its surviving members.
Indeed but "head" is much easier to say than "most influential member who could probably be viewed as a defacto head".

2. The "Black Hand" was staunchly opposed to the actual Serbian government.
Yup, and the Serbian government couldn't do anything because they remembered what happened to the last royal government that didn't go along with the radicals.

3. The members and associates of the "Black Hand" were overwhelmingly pro-German (occasionally even pro-Austrian) and more or less anti-Entente. In fact, several of the Black Hand's major associates were quislings for the Central Powers during the war.
Indeed, Apis was the military attache with Germany IIRC. Although I've never heard of them being pro-Austrian before.

edit: sorry just saw the message
 
Last edited:
While not on the subject of Versailles itself, I've seen a lot of references to the Kurds and some to the Armenians. What of the Assyrians? OTL, they were promised a national homeland as well by the British and the Russians. The Russians couldn't enforce it, due to the revolution, the the British basically threw the Assyrians under the bus in order to compensate the Arabs.

I mean, part of the complaint was that there were so few left... after hundreds and thousands had been murdered throughout the war (the Ottomans even launched an invasion into neighboring Persia in order to attack the Assyrian villages right across the border.

I'm not sure the best route to go about doing so (I mean, Hakkari valley used to be majority Assyrian, and there were large minorities throughout most of what is now northern Iraq.

Perhaps as part of Armenia, both the Pontic Republic and the Assyrian Republic are attached to it as autonomous regions, or simply have the regions allied as such. Depending on the scale, that might make Armenia enough of a player in the Middle East to act as a bulwark.
 
And?
That's essentially pedentic, fascism as a term is used in historiography to describe a variety of regimes on an historical spectrum, who include Japan and Germany. I also don't buy for an instant that idea that something who would have been essentially symbolic was nothing more then one of smalest among many causes of future conflicts, especially since Japan pretty much secured everything else it wanted at the conference.

Pedantic or not, the term used broadly only in History Channel and i think, we should not support that.

Now, as for the racial clause, i have to admit, im not an expert in japanese politics at all. However, i think, that it was not a small deal. They wanted to be treated as equals, and their - former - allies the moment their services were not needed, promptly refused to do so. Of course, it was not the only cause, but maybe the first big one.
 
Pedantic or not, the term used broadly only in History Channel and i think, we should not support that.

Now, as for the racial clause, i have to admit, im not an expert in japanese politics at all. However, i think, that it was not a small deal. They wanted to be treated as equals, and their - former - allies the moment their services were not needed, promptly refused to do so. Of course, it was not the only cause, but maybe the first big one.

Fascism as a broad term is used by many historians. On the top of my head, I can't make a list but Robert Paxton (probably one of most prestigious historians alive, all period and geographic specialisation confounded, is one of them. So no, it isn't just History Channel.

As for Japan, they got every conscessions they wanted and they where enthroned among the big five (Italy, France, USA, UK, Japan) at the conference. That's far more relevant then any declaration. They're is also a pretty decent argument to be made that the rejection of the demand turned out to be pretty convenient for Japan as it gave them the fake outrage card to play when they asked for far more meaningfull conscessions.

Overall the expansionist streak of Japan was already very much there, not developped to what it would eventually become but still.

While not on the subject of Versailles itself, I've seen a lot of references to the Kurds and some to the Armenians. What of the Assyrians? OTL, they were promised a national homeland as well by the British and the Russians. The Russians couldn't enforce it, due to the revolution, the the British basically threw the Assyrians under the bus in order to compensate the Arabs.

I mean, part of the complaint was that there were so few left... after hundreds and thousands had been murdered throughout the war (the Ottomans even launched an invasion into neighboring Persia in order to attack the Assyrian villages right across the border.

I'm not sure the best route to go about doing so (I mean, Hakkari valley used to be majority Assyrian, and there were large minorities throughout most of what is now northern Iraq.

Perhaps as part of Armenia, both the Pontic Republic and the Assyrian Republic are attached to it as autonomous regions, or simply have the regions allied as such. Depending on the scale, that might make Armenia enough of a player in the Middle East to act as a bulwark.

As a part of Armenia I could see it, tough the Pontic Republic might be a bit much.
 
As a part of Armenia I could see it, tough the Pontic Republic might be a bit much.

Well, the latter was appended to Armenia precisely because it was too small to exist on its own.

As for the Assyrians, I think it would have helped if they could have even attended the Paris Peace conference rather than their delegates being physically prevented from showing up.
 
Well, the latter was appended to Armenia precisely because it was too small to exist on its own.

As for the Assyrians, I think it would have helped if they could have even attended the Paris Peace conference rather than their delegates being physically prevented from showing up.

Honestly things are even simpler then that: the collapse of Turkey opened a window of opportunity for Armenia to emerge by itself, by reforging the turkish army and turkish power to some degree Kemal closed that window. You want Armenia to survive you need either no resurgence of Turkey until Armenia had the time to be well established and/or somebody willing to defend the new armenian state against a turkish attack.
 
Well, the latter was appended to Armenia precisely because it was too small to exist on its own.

As for the Assyrians, I think it would have helped if they could have even attended the Paris Peace conference rather than their delegates being physically prevented from showing up.

Not that it would matter much. Whatever provision was made for them would have been swept away along with the rest of the Treaty of Sevres.

BTW none of this would appear anywhere in the Treaty of Versailles, which was with Germany, not Turkey.
 
Not that it would matter much. Whatever provision was made for them would have been swept away along with the rest of the Treaty of Sevres.

BTW none of this would appear anywhere in the Treaty of Versailles, which was with Germany, not Turkey.
There is allot of peoples who went with a general settlements of WWI rather then just the questions relating to Germany here. I don't think its too out of touch since it was all discussed at the same conference aniway.
 
Top