What would you do differently at Versailles in 1919?

I thought you were serious until I reread it and saw Danzig being given to Japan.

Yeah that might be a bit outside the box.

As for Turkey the too situation for the Arabs was terrible.

Unify all of it under a single flag, but find a secular dystasty to rule it. Never ever let Saudi Arabia form and if it does don't let them have the Hejaz.
 
The main thing isn't enforcement, and it's not even necessarily big changes to the provisions. What matters is the treaty writers not being so far up their own asses as to sabotage their own plans. So, no war guilt clause - it was in there to "justify" the reparations, but most treaties never bother with justifying those, so just put a fixed number on (something that they refused to do in the OTL treaty) and call it good. Likewise, the arms limitations were justified "as part of a general limitation of arms by all nations", something that seemed like it might go somewhere in the pacifist movements of the 20's, but naturally died off after a while. Skip that, and maybe be a bit more lenient on the limitations, and you won't be handing German governments an easy excuse to say "the general arms limitations are no longer progressing, so we are no longer bound by the treaty limitations". Honestly, that's probably good enough to fix most of the issues that can be fixed.
 

BigBlueBox

Banned
Butterflies, man, butterflies.
Well, I was obviously describing the absolute worst-case scenario, but a status quo ante bellum peace would leave Germany, the country that LOST the war, as the dominant European power within a decade. Germany didn't suffer nearly as much infrastructure damage and economic damage as Belgium and France did. Not only that, but the Russian Empire would be gone, leaving Germany with no natural competition to the East. So within a decade Germany would be in a better position than it was in 1914. A far better position. It will take advantage of this to start a second war to finally achieve Prussia's expansionist dreams.
 
Yeah that might be a bit outside the box.

As for Turkey the too situation for the Arabs was terrible.

Unify all of it under a single flag, but find a secular dystasty to rule it. Never ever let Saudi Arabia form and if it does don't let them have the Hejaz.

Iran had a secular dynasty - but just look at it now.

Re Saudi, iirc it was already well on its way to forming. Istr that Ibn Saud nicked Turkey's Gulf coastal province of al-Hasa as early as 1914, which meant he had most of the places where the oil turned out to be. So keeping him out of Hejaz (even if feasible) probably doesn't change very much.

A bunch of blokes in top hats and tails can't shape the future even of their own countries, let alone anyone else's.
 

BigBlueBox

Banned
Ukrainian nationalists managed to help bring down the Soviet Union in our TL, though. Indeed, if it wasn't for Ukraine, some kind of union might have survived (true, the remaining SSRs were demanding extremely large devolution, but if the Union is still intact, power could possibly gradually be redirected back towards the Kremlin). Plus, this is not to mention that, without western Ukraine, Ukraine might have very well shifted back into Russia's orbit in 2013-2014 in our TL.

Basically, I am looking at a century-long viewpoint here; indeed, anything which helps to eventually bring down the Soviet Union, the better. (Also, I was thinking of adding Subcarpathian Ruthenia to the Soviet Union, but I was hoping that this could be done after the Stalin era was over. After all, I don't want the Ruthenians to suffer and prematurely putting them inside of the Soviet Union will accomplish just that with no gain (since the Ruthenians weren't particularly nationalistic)). Basically, while I'd like an independent Ukraine (and Belarus) to survive, I would consider this to be extremely unrealistic and thus I'd like to try setting the stage for these countries to regain their independence in the future (probably after 70 or more years).

Also, off-topic, but I realized that I should have mentioned that I would have made Lebanon smaller in this TL. Indeed, I would have limited Lebanon to the Christian-majority areas as well as to a strip which connects it to Palestine. As for the rest of Lebanon, it should join (Greater) Syria in this TL.
If Ukrainian nationalists start making trouble Stalin will just make an even bigger Holodomor, and deport any surviving troublemakers to Siberia or Central Asia. I still agree though with giving the Ukrainian lands to the USSR because Poland will be better off without them.

I would make Ruthenia a co-protectorate of Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Hungary, with all three nations having free-trade rights and minority rights in the protectorate being guaranteed. If that's impractical then just make it an autonomous region of Hungary.

A Lebanon with only Christian-majority areas sounds good, but it's worth noting that in OTL many Christian-majority areas became Muslim-majority after Israel expelled Palestinians into Lebanon.
 
Destroy the German Empire and ban reunification unless it's under Entente supervision? :p Realistically, I think that the harder the peace, the better. Germany is responsible for starting and losing the Great War, and they should be reminded of both. I won't comment on Saint-Germain or Sykes-Pykot's carving of the Middle East though, since the thread's about Versailles.
 
So, you're saying that Germany's war guilt entitles Britain to also have some reparations from Germany? If so, why not also give the U.S. some German reparations?
USA didn't want reparations. They said they were morally better because they didn't get reparations. They just made sure to collect the debts their allies owed them.

British need to pay war debt entitles them to reparations. They crippled themselves financially paying for Russia France and Italy as well as the smaller allies to pay for the war. None of their partners could get credit in America. Britain borrowed and relent to their allies. Don't forget they paid for their own war too. Unless America agrees not to collect British loans from them Britain needs reparations or for their partners to pay them back.

France mostly paid them back from reparations. Italy didn't really pay much back. The Soviets said that they weren't the Russian empire and they didn't owe anything. The minor nations didn't really pay much back.

Britain survived non payment as they got reparations. Once Germany stopped paying reparations France suspended baying back Britain. America agreed to stop expecting Britain to pay. Italy went from paying Britain back a trickle to suspending reparations.
 
Ultimately, at Versailles, the Allied powers know they can defeat Germany. Totally disarming them risks destroying the only realistic counterbalance to the Soviet Union in Eastern Europe; as big a threat as Germany was, a Communist empire with the immense resources of Russia was a still greater one. Without nuclear deterrents, you need an army that can threaten Moscow and liberate the Soviets' subject peoples to guarantee the self determination of Eastern European nations from the Russian behemoth, and you would want the Entente forces in the Middle East to guard the Georgian Military Road to keep Baku out of Russian hands. You would need a lot of leverage over the Germans to make this workable, though; certainly a defensive alliance with Poland and demilitarized Rhineland. Some kind of plan where German rearmament is tied to reparations payments, maybe. Basically you don't want to save Europe from the Germans just to hand it to the Communists.
 

Perkeo

Banned
Destroy the German Empire and ban reunification unless it's under Entente supervision?
How do you prevent them from unifying again, or at least fight on the same side as Austria and Germany were in both world wars?

:p Realistically, I think that the harder the peace, the better. Germany is responsible for starting and losing the Great War, and they should be reminded of both.
Do you suddenly have the final answer to a question that as been debated over and over by professional historians since 1914???

And even so, France has indisputedly started and lost the Napoleonic wars, and France wasn't disassembled either, was it? This is not WWII, Germany hasn't done anything France and Britain didn't do before yet.

I won't comment on Saint-Germain or Sykes-Pykot's carving of the Middle East though, since the thread's about Versailles.
All I can say about that is that each and every one of those peace treaties caused a bloody war. The TOV gets some relief since it was dead and buried before Hitler came to power so it may have been an excuse but it wasn't really a reason for WWII.
 
What would have been the more important thing is to shatter the power of the Prussian militarists, including forcing land reform to permanently break their power base.

Also, re: submarines, USW was a far greater horror to that era than we can imagine now. It was seen as little better than state sanctioned piracy with a murderous, rather than avaracious, bent.
 
How do you prevent them from unifying again, or at least fight on the same side as Austria and Germany were in both world wars?

Joke mate. I know realistically, the Entente have no chances of actually keeping Germany apart. It's what the bloody Krauts deserve though.


Do you suddenly have the final answer to a question that as been debated over and over by professional historians since 1914???
Pretty nitpicky for uh...a thread title "What would you do differently at Versailles?"

And even so, France has indisputedly started and lost the Napoleonic wars, and France wasn't disassembled either, was it? This is not WWII, Germany hasn't done anything France and Britain didn't do before yet.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-Prussian_War
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_of_Belgium

August 1 - Germany declares war on Russia.
August 3 - Germany declares war on France.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unrestricted_submarine_warfare
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Brest-Litovsk
Oh, and the fact that the Napoleonic Wars had a completely different set of circumstances. Napoleon didn't declare war on the United Kingdom so they couldn't mobilize, and also the fact that France was disassembled. Natural border at the Rhine? Helvetia? France in 1836 was a pale shadow of France under Napoleon in 1805.



All I can say about that is that each and every one of those peace treaties caused a bloody war. The TOV gets some relief since it was dead and buried before Hitler came to power so it may have been an excuse but it wasn't really a reason for WWII.
That I'll agree with that, all the treaties except Versailles were shitty and the allies carving up random lines. *Cough* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sykes...kes_Picot_Agreement_Map_signed_8_May_1916.jpg But unless you change European attitudes towards the east, how can you can convince Parliament or the Sénat that the Arabs should rule themselves when you've got a perfectly good opportunity to land grab.
 
What would have been the more important thing is to shatter the power of the Prussian militarists, including forcing land reform to permanently break their power base.

Also, re: submarines, USW was a far greater horror to that era than we can imagine now. It was seen as little better than state sanctioned piracy with a murderous, rather than avaracious, bent.

And yet it wasn't responded to by declaring the submarine crews pirates, nor did this stop the British and Americans from using it themselves during the second war. The former lapse certainly makes it harder to justify internal meddling on the grounds of punishing a "pirate kingdom" or whatever.

As for the reforms, they seem anachronistic in their aims. The Entente wouldn't have allied with the Tsar if they really thought democracy would solve everything. "Prussian militarism" was a catchphrase, but I doubt it was taken that literally as the key to what happened.
 
Destroy the German Empire and ban reunification unless it's under Entente supervision? :p Realistically, I think that the harder the peace, the better. Germany is responsible for starting and losing the Great War, and they should be reminded of both. I won't comment on Saint-Germain or Sykes-Pykot's carving of the Middle East though, since the thread's about Versailles.

How does changing the peace terms help unless you can also create the will to enforce them?

Imho it is significant that the only WW1 peace treaty that can be said to have worked is the Treaty of Lausanne, which was negotiated on far more equal terms than the others. There, essentially, the victors imposed only the things they cared enough about to actually enforce, with the result that with only minor modifications it has survived to the present day.
 
Last edited:
Top