What would you do differently at Versailles in 1919?

Perkeo

Banned
5. That's patently false, the french reparations in peaked in 1873 at 11,1%, while Germans one made only 2,5 of their GDP in average. Even counting for the differences between peak and average and what Germany paid compared to what she was supposed to pay it doesn't add even remotely to what you pretend.
With the last sentence you cross the line from creative accounting to flatly false claims:
Germany was supposed to pay 20 billion Marks within two years. France 5 billion Francs within three years. The exchange rate is 0.81 Marks per Franc, 1914 German GDP is about 3 times 1870 French. So with simple maths you find that this first rate alone exceeds 1871's reparations in the (IMO most relevant) total amount, average amount and the (IMO irrelevant) peak rate.
7. In Russia case it would have refused to sign a treaty, even with the inevitable consequences, since without their forces they would have been dead in the civil war to come (and I would argue that sheer harsheness of the territorial clauses was more then enough to compensate for the absence of army limits at Brest-Litovsk. In France case they're was a bunch of neutral powers left who would have seen this as tilting the balance too much in Germany favor, no one with some semblance of power left had similar feelings for Germany in 1919. Again, circumstances and realism for you.
Just look at the arms restrictions in the TOV: no airforce, no tanks, no heavy artillery, not even significant stockpiles of spare rifles and ammunition. Compare that to what France and the USSR were able to mobilize in further wars of aggression against newly. Then decide who needs a lesson in realism.
 
How do you enforce the "No paramilitaries" bit, or the boundaries given to Greece and Armenia, assuming the victors won't make any greater effort at enforcement than OTL?
 
With the last sentence you cross the line from creative accounting to flatly false claims:
Germany was supposed to pay 20 billion Marks within two years. France 5 billion Francs within three years. The exchange rate is 0.81 Marks per Franc, 1914 German GDP is about 3 times 1870 French. So with simple maths you find that this first rate alone exceeds 1871's reparations in the (IMO most relevant) total amount, average amount and the (IMO irrelevant) peak rate.

Just look at the arms restrictions in the TOV: no airforce, no tanks, no heavy artillery, not even significant stockpiles of spare rifles and ammunition. Compare that to what France and the USSR were able to mobilize in further wars of aggression against newly. Then decide who needs a lesson in realism.

You are the one who used % of the GDP as a measure first and said that the reparations where ten time higher in terms of the GDP % of Germany then it was for France back in the days.

Here is what Germany had to pay in that regard: https://blogs.harvard.edu/philg/201...orld-war-i-compared-to-todays-sovereign-debt/
Here is what France had to pay in her worst year (page 6): http://faculty.arts.ubc.ca/mdevereux/Franco-P.pdf

Even the most german-sympathetic spin can make that even remotely close to ten times, a number you seem to have essentially throwed around.

As for the rest, you are not even adressing the circumstances witch explained why Germany wasn't able to put similar military restrictions to France or the USSR and certainly have nothing to do with Germany being inherently more moderate (the territorial clauses of Brest-Litovsk where far harsher then Versailles for exemple) and simply repeated your first point while failling to adressing arguments as to why the comparaison doesn't work in that regard.

How do you enforce the "No paramilitaries" bit, or the boundaries given to Greece and Armenia, assuming the victors won't make any greater effort at enforcement than OTL?

The no paramilitaries you simply can't enforce it without greater effort but I suppose the Entente could have found ways to send newly available weapons to Armenia and the Greeks if they had make a priority out of it.
 
The no paramilitaries you simply can't enforce it without greater effort but I suppose the Entente could have found ways to send newly available weapons to Armenia and the Greeks if they had make a priority out of it.

Is there any particular reason why they would make it a priority?

And even if they did, would simply giving Greece and Armenia a fe w more weapons be enough to change thhe outcome?
 
Most of Sinai might have been part of Palestine in the days of the Byzantine Empire but it was part of Egypt before and after. It last joined Egypt around the time of crusades. Given that Egypt had been under British control since 1882, chances of Sinai changing hands in 1919 are nil.
 

Perkeo

Banned
You are the one who used % of the GDP as a measure first and said that the reparations where ten time higher in terms of the GDP % of Germany then it was for France back in the days.
No, I compared amount of gold to amount of gold and used this data:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_regions_by_past_GDP_(PPP)
to determine the correction factor to account for the relative growth in GDP.
Here is what Germany had to pay in that regard: https://blogs.harvard.edu/philg/201...orld-war-i-compared-to-todays-sovereign-debt/
Here is what France had to pay in her worst year (page 6): http://faculty.arts.ubc.ca/mdevereux/Franco-P.pdf

Even the most german-sympathetic spin can make that even remotely close to ten times, a number you seem to have essentially throwed around.
Your source is a blogger who did "a quick Google search" and, if I'm not mistaken, forgot to take into account that Wikipedia gives past GDP in 1960 US$, but the WWI reparations in 1919 US$.

Anyway, your claim was that the French reparations were larger. I don't exactly loose my face if that's only incorrect by a factor of 3.2 rather than 10.
As for the rest, you are not even adressing the circumstances witch explained why Germany wasn't able to put similar military restrictions to France or the USSR and certainly have nothing to do with Germany being inherently more moderate (the territorial clauses of Brest-Litovsk where far harsher then Versailles for exemple) and simply repeated your first point while failling to adressing arguments as to why the comparaison doesn't work in that regard.
You introduced that comparison. I argued against it by listing the many many differences in the treaties.
 
No, I compared amount of gold to amount of gold and used this data:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_regions_by_past_GDP_(PPP)
to determine the correction factor to account for the relative growth in GDP.

Your source is a blogger who did "a quick Google search" and, if I'm not mistaken, forgot to take into account that Wikipedia gives past GDP in 1960 US$, but the WWI reparations in 1919 US$.

Anyway, your claim was that the French reparations were larger. I don't exactly loose my face if that's only incorrect by a factor of 3.2 rather than 10.

You introduced that comparison. I argued against it by listing the many many differences in the treaties.

None of my sources where wikipedia nor mentionned using wikipedia as a source so I don't see why whatever miscalculations wikipedia use is of any pertinence to all of this. I argued the french reparations where harsher (not larger) due to their concentrations on a far shorter amount of time (the germans would continue to occupy a third of the country including Paris and Orléans until it was completely repay so France had no choice to cough up immediately). At the end of the day the germans had to pay 83% of their GDP in total, but over a period of more then 40 years, while France had to pay in the 50's% but had to do so in a few years (it ended up doing so in five years), a heavier burden even if the sum was smaller.

The correct figure for the difference in total of the GDP is not even 3.2 (already three time less then what you pretended at first, and yes that's in itself would be pretty damning as a mistake in estimations) but rather 0.6 or something like that.

As for the military clauses, I explained to you why your objections in that regard due to the different circumstances surrounding Frankfurt and Brest then Versailles and you didn't adress my counter objections, merely repeating the very points I had just countered.

In any case arguing over the finer points is getting thiresome and doesn't change the basic facts of the comparaison: both France and the USSR where presented with treaties they would never have signed at they had any choice in the matter. Just like Germany at Versailles. A peace of victors was the norm back then and unlike what many have advanced Germany being given a take it or leave it deal was hardly an anomaly.
 
Last edited:

Perkeo

Banned
None of my sources where wikipedia nor mentionned using wikipedia as a source so I don't see why whatever miscalculations wikipedia use is of any pertinence to all of this. I argued the french reparations where harsher (not larger) due to their concentrations on a far shorter amount of time (the germans would continue to occupy a third of the country including Paris and Orléans until it was completely repay so France had no choice to cough up immediately). At the end of the day the germans had to pay 83% of their GDP in total, but over a period of more then 40 years, while France had to pay in the 50's% but had to do so in a few years (it ended up doing so in five years), a heavier burden even if the sum was smaller.

The correct figure for the difference in total of the GDP is not even 3.2 (already three time less then what you pretended at first, and yes that's in itself would be pretty damning as a mistake in estimations) but rather 0.6 or something like that.

Not nearly as damning a mistake as referencing a blogger who says he's done "a quick Google search" as if it was a reliable source.

As for the military clauses, I explained to you why your objections in that regard due to the different circumstances surrounding Frankfurt and Brest then Versailles and you didn't adress my counter objections, merely repeating the very points I had just countered.

In any case arguing over the finer points is getting thiresome and doesn't change the basic facts of the comparaison: both France and the USSR where presented with treaties they would never have signed at they had any choice in the matter. Just like Germany at Versailles. A peace of victors was the norm back then and unlike what many have advanced Germany being given a take it or leave it deal was hardly an anomaly.
I didn't criticize the TOV for being a victor's peace, nor did I deny the difference in circumstances to any other treaties. Do respond to something that was actually brought up by me, and I will address those responses.
 
Not nearly as damning a mistake as referencing a blogger who says he's done "a quick Google search" as if it was a reliable source.


I didn't criticize the TOV for being a victor's peace, nor did I deny the difference in circumstances to any other treaties. Do respond to something that was actually brought up by me, and I will address those responses.

Let me be 100% clear: this is an informal discussion on a web forum, not an academic paper, a quick search is what you do. Regardless, since you openly said you where using wiki here it isn't like your sources are of such great qualities either.

You criticised the fact Germany didn't have a seat at the table and an input as to the content of the treaty, aka the very things that make it fit the definitions of a victor peace. You also claimed that the military clauses in Versailles proved that the allies where uniquely harsh in it, witch I contradicted.
 
Last edited:

Asami

Banned
My Treaty of Versailles would restore French sovereignty over French-majority parts of Alsace-Lorraine, Belgium over Belgian-majority parts of Eupen-Malmedy, Denmark over Danish-majority parts of Schleswig-Holstein, and redraw national borders in Central and Eastern Europe on merit of demographics, following Wilson's doctrine of self-determination.

I have no interest in inflicting an unwavering hostile peace on Germany, and maintain my view that the OTL Treaty of Versailles was an extension of French imperialism, and punished Germany too severely.

Germany would be permitted to annex Austria and the German-majority parts of Bohemia, while Poland would be entitled to West Prussia and Polish majority regions of Germany's eastern lands. Poland's not going to be super large because of how compact the Polish people are, but that's not my problem.

Germany would have to pay moderate (but not severe) reparations for invading France and Belgium, but I would not impose any arms or naval restrictions on them for losing a war. I would, however, make it a violation of the Treaty to restore the Hohenzollern dynasty. If Germany wants a monarchy, they would have to nominate a new dynasty, and maintain democratic constitutionalism.

I also wouldn't give France and Britain the Picot-Sykes Agreement borders, and would instead insist on self-determination for each Ottoman Vilayet to create their own independent states with protection from the League of Nations.

It's rather disappointing to see so many AH.commers think that totally balkanizing Germany is the solution. If what they got OTL was enough to trigger a war that killed sixty-million people, what the hell makes you think more harsh punishment wouldn't cause even worse problems? I think about how such a peace would feel if it was inflicted on the United States, and I determine that no, I wouldn't be very happy about it, having my nation split up because of us being on the wrong side of a war.
 
Last edited:
My Treaty of Versailles would restore French sovereignty over Alsace-Lorraine, Belgium over Eupen-Malmedy, Denmark over Northern Schleswig-Holstein, and redraw national borders in Central and Eastern Europe on merit of demographics.

Germany would be permitted to annex Austria and the German-majority parts of Bohemia, while Poland would be entitled to West Prussia and Polish majority regions of Germany's eastern lands. Poland's not going to be super large because of how compact the Polish people are, but that's not my problem.

Germany would have to pay moderate (but not severe) reparations for invading France and Belgium, but I would not impose any arms or naval restrictions on them for losing a war.

It's rather disappointing to see so many AH.commers think that totally balkanizing Germany is the solution. If what they got OTL was enough to trigger a war that killed sixty-million people, what the hell makes you think more harsh punishment wouldn't cause even worse problems?
The thinking would be, maybe they might not be able to cause them after such a Versailles ?
Of course, this is not guaranteed to work.
Earlier on, this is what I had posted.
First thing, make sure the German war guilt crisis is well traduced - they are paying for the destruction wrecked upon Northern France, Belgium and Coastal England.
This is merely to avoid people like Hitler riffing on war guilt.
Second thing, fix the amount of reparations in the treaty. Doesn't have to be large, just get it fixed.
Here, we avoid renegotiations making sure Germany will not pay.
Third thing, have France and Belgium occupy say the Rhineland and the Ruhr, at Germany's expense, for an indefinite duration, with the Ruhr being evacuated at half the reparations having been paid for and the Rhineland when all is paid.
This will parallel the 1870 war's peace conditions.
And make sure Germany pays.
Fourth thing, don't link German disarmament to disarmament of other nations but to the size of the closest enforcer, in this case France, and maintain their army as a conscript army and not a professional one which can easily expand.
This makes the German army an useful suppletive to fight the Bolshevik, allows it to avoid the OTL unholy alliance with the Freikorps, while making sure it will not be able to fight any mechanised war against its foes.
And fifth thing, allow the possibility for France to sacrifice part of her reparations in exchange for a comprehensive trade agreement with Germany.
Germany was France's number 1 market. It will be easier for France to rebuild with easier access to said market.
Otherwise, from the territory POV, it's OK.
 

manav95

Banned
I would do one thing: unite Germany with Austria like they both wanted to do as well as the German majority areas in the Sudetenland. I feel Austria was most directly responsible for the damn war in the first place by declaring war on Serbia for the actions of a minor Serbian nationalist group. And with the Austrian empire gone, there was no point in trying to go after them and neither Germany.
 
I would do one thing: unite Germany with Austria like they both wanted to do as well as the German majority areas in the Sudetenland. I feel Austria was most directly responsible for the damn war in the first place by declaring war on Serbia for the actions of a minor Serbian nationalist group. And with the Austrian empire gone, there was no point in trying to go after them and neither Germany.
That would encourage Germany to start again, since they got expanded with lots of German-speaking lands while both their major foes - France and Russia - are way weaker than they started.
 
Poland needs an access to the sea that does not depend on other nations. That's why the corridor was put in place in the first place. The only other option might be to give it part of East Prussia/Lithuania and get a passage at its far North East
Interwar Czechoslovakia did better than Poland economically while still being land-locked so I fail to see an absolute necessity for Poland to have access to the sea.
 
Interwar Czechoslovakia did better than Poland economically while still being land-locked so I fail to see an absolute necessity for Poland to have access to the sea.
Interwar Czechoslovakia was among the most industrialized countries of the world, and didnt have to unite three partitions into something resembling a country, didnt have the fronts passing through her lands three or four times in the course of six years of wars, didnt have her industry evacuated to Russia or destroyed by Russian and German armies, didnt have her town and cities turned to ruin
 
Interwar Czechoslovakia did better than Poland economically while still being land-locked so I fail to see an absolute necessity for Poland to have access to the sea.
Misses the point , Poland was set up at least in part as a buffer to contain both Germany and the USSR. To do so she needed to be able to function without Germany being able to interfere ( and promises were not enough ). Hence the OTL demand for access to the sea leading to the compromise of a free city of Danzig.
 
Misses the point , Poland was set up at least in part as a buffer to contain both Germany and the USSR. To do so she needed to be able to function without Germany being able to interfere ( and promises were not enough ).

No rational person could think that Poland would be able to contain Germany AND the Soviet Union. It would literally need nuclear weapons for that.
 
Top