Maybe, maybe not. Occupation doesn't mean direct rule Occupation means the right to keep your army there. Its basically what happens to Germany after WWII The Western Zones aren't bad, the Eastern one is
In any event, I think they'll enjoy it a whole lot more than being bombed into oblivion and having the Red Army occupy a third of the country In any event, the Poles, Czechs, Slovaks and other victims of Nazi aggression would be much better off
Germany lost the war. Letting her rearm and challenge the peace is the dumbest thing ever done
The trouble is that the german population had no prophetic powers back then so they would never know what catastrophy is averted. Also, their spirit wasn't as broken after WWI as it was after WWII - no matter how objectively pleasant their civilian lives, going from a great power to occupied statelets would infuriate a lot of people to no end, a whole bouquet of hitlers perhaps, and violent uprisings can be expected.
Mind you, in the end this doesn't invalidate your point - reducing the "german question" entirely to civil wars safely contained
within germany would be a boon to the rest of the world and stability of Europe, ignoring occasional terror attacks in neighbouring countries. Except inevitably, the occupiers would get tired of this, and "decolonize" the germanies probably by the 1960ies or so. And who knows what kind of Germany would emerge then? Perhaps weakened enough to be de facto harmless for generations to come, but who knows?
That's the trouble with all alternate Versailles, really. Short of getting rid of germany as a nation (not just the german state), the "german question" will return.
I don't think allowing postwar germany to be
more powerful and self-confident is any better, by the way.