What would you do differently at Versailles in 1919?

Lausanne was too pro-Turkish, IMHO. While the Turkish border with Greece seems fair, Turkey got a lot of territories in the east where Armenians, Kurds, or a combination of these two groups made up the majority of the population:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_vilayets

Were Armenians still the majority anywhere in Turkey after 1915?

Anyway, it doesn't really affect my main point. In the near-century since Lausanne, Turkey has had no wars, or even serious rebellions, save for one little spat in Cyprus (which had little or nothing to do with the Lausanne peace terms). In short, Lausanne worked. Ok, there've been occasional riots and even assassinations, but by Mideast standards it has been virtually complete peace.

I'm sorry if Armenians and Kurds feel hard done by, but a peace treaty is not an exercise in abstract justice. Its purpose is to give all the principals - in this case Turkey and the Entente - a deal which they can live with and not feel the need to go to war again. Lausanne has passed this test. Versailles failed.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Were Armenians still the majority anywhere in Turkey after 1915?

Anyway, it doesn't really affect my main point. In the near-century since Lausanne, Turkey has had no wars, or even serious rebellions, save for one little spat in Cyprus (which had little or nothing to do with the Lausanne peace terms). In short, Lausanne worked. Ok, there've been occasional riots and even assassinations, but by Mideast standards it has been virtually complete peace.

I'm sorry if Armenians and Kurds feel hard done by, but a peace treaty is not an exercise in abstract justice. Its purpose is to give all the principals - in this case Turkey and the Entente - a deal which they can live with and not feel the need to go to war again. Lausanne has passed this test. Versailles failed.
Fair point about Lausanne. However, in regards to Versailles, I would like to point out that, short of allowing Germany to keep its Eastern European empire, no peace treaty would have probably been sufficiently good for the likes of Adolf Hitler.
 
If I was responsible for imposing the peace treaties after the First World War I would do the following:

GERMANY:

1. I would've dissolved the German Empire and given all the various territories that made up the former German Empire their independence.
2. Alsace-Lorraine would've gone back to France.
3. Poland would've been handed the Memel region and the east Prussian province of Gumbinnen thus ensuring there would be no vulnerable "Polish Corridor" while still keeping the promise to give Poland access to the sea.
4. Finland, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia would have their independence recognised.
5. The German colonies would be carved up among the Allies as in our time line EXCEPT that China would get Tsingtao and all of German East Africa including what is now Burundi and Rwanda would be annexed by the British.
6. Political unification of Germany would not be permitted until at least 1970.
7. No restrictions would be placed on the size of the military forces held by the various German states except Prussia which would be confined to a military force no larger than the total number of soldiers under arms in all the other German states combined.

How would you plan to dissolve Germany without troops parading in Berlin?
 
Lots of genuine ideas but very few that are possible in 1919.

1) 4 years of propaganda cannot be forgotten overnight.
In the UK in 1918 the slogans "Hang the Kaiser" and "squeeze Germany until the pips squeak" were bandied around during the election campaign.
Though the latter belongs to Campbell-Geddes not, as it's often incorrectly attributed. Churchill. In fact WSC wanted to ship boatloads of food to Germany and impose a lenient peace settlement.
 
its an opinion what citation could be given?

Something about how the SPD and KPD also had flagrant aggression in their platforms, just to start. If not, then that suggests that governments involving those parties might not, in fact be "guaranteed" to start another war.
 

trajen777

Banned
Look at the treaties USA imposed on Japan (same model - i know that was 1945 not 1914 -- but that type of thinking)
1. Help write an effective constitution for Germany
2. Keep Germany whole (part of issue here is that Germany 'together" is so much stronger then the rest of Europe)
3. An early Nato as a org to keep the peace (kind of like what Metternich did after the Nap wars - or the Three emperors alliance) with goals of controlling communism and dangerous dictatorships or hot spots.
4. Create a major euro zone for cooperative trade to gain co dependence -
5. Look at German monarchy possibilities and "pick" a rational choice for British type monarchy so that there is friendly support
6. Breaking up Germany just allows a future war with Russia more likely
 
Lithuania didn't need Memel to be independent. From 1919 to 1923 Memel wasn't part of Lithuania. It was a Free State.
Yes, but not quite. If Memel was Polish it would be actually be pretty similar to Danzig being German. Yes, Lithuania/Poland would be in theory able to reroute trade to other ports, such as Palanga/Gdynia. But, that takes time and resources and in the meantime those countries are vulnerable to pressure from their stronger neighbour Poland/Germany. OTL the compromise was to create the Free Cities, which proved semi-workable, but if you're willing to ignore ethnic considerations, as with Gumbinnen, then it would be better to outright give Memel to Lithuania and Danzig to Poland.
The second is that the Gumbinnen province had 9399 sq km and about half a million people. It was also rather poor. In contrast, the Polish Corridor was 46,142 sq km and had around four million people as well as a lot of industry.
And Vistula, the main water route. As I see it, Polands needs every bit of economic potential it can get. In OTL it barely survived the trade war with the Weimar Republic. If you take away the Corridor Poland might fold and be integrated into the German sphere, which defeats the entire purpose of it being independent and is counter-productive for weakening Germany.
 
Look at the treaties USA imposed on Japan (same model - i know that was 1945 not 1914 -- but that type of thinking)
1. Help write an effective constitution for Germany
2. Keep Germany whole (part of issue here is that Germany 'together" is so much stronger then the rest of Europe)
3. An early Nato as a org to keep the peace (kind of like what Metternich did after the Nap wars - or the Three emperors alliance) with goals of controlling communism and dangerous dictatorships or hot spots.
4. Create a major euro zone for cooperative trade to gain co dependence -
5. Look at German monarchy possibilities and "pick" a rational choice for British type monarchy so that there is friendly support
6. Breaking up Germany just allows a future war with Russia more likely

Yep, it would be quite ideal - but the prequisite for all this is a full occupation and an unconditional and unambiguous surrender. The Allies had no stomach for that and after 4,5 years of horrible slaughter probably not even the capability. Though they tried to pretend in otl Versailles that they got a full surrender and aimed to prevent Germany to rise ever again militarily But they had not achieved the situation on the battlefield where that would have been realistic.
 
Last edited:
Something about how the SPD and KPD also had flagrant aggression in their platforms, just to start. If not, then that suggests that governments involving those parties might not, in fact be "guaranteed" to start another war.
they did , read wilhelm deist "The Wehrmacht and German Rearmament"

https://www.amazon.com/Wehrmacht-German-rearmament-Wilhelm-Deist/dp/0802024238

MORE INFO " GERMANY AND THE SECOND WORLD WAR" vol-1....which includes the above as one of its section.

https://www.amazon.com/Germany-Seco...rds="+GERMANY+AND+THE+SECOND+WORLD+WAR"+vol-1
 

I can't seem to look inside either of these, but perhaps you can answer this immediate question: these seem to be about rearmament, but do they actually say anything about Poland, much less the much more outlandish claims about Alsace-Lorraine that were made earlier? Streseman wanted to redress Poland, but he was not a Social Democrat, so he's no testament to their preferences.
 
Russia had the choice to either partially mobilizing or full, know what the latter would lead to. There is no way Serbia and Russia are not at fault when a Serbian-funded terrorist group kills a monarch and is supported. Yes Germany committed war crimes in Belgium, they should be punished. But don't put blame on them for not just allowing Russia to walk all over A-H because you have a something against them, which is evident by your posts in this thread.
>they should be punished
>but versailles was too harsh
Have you ever heard the term "Reap what you sow"? Because Germany deserved to reap what they sowed in Nambia, in China, in Russia, in Poland, in Belgium. And you know what we got instead? We got Adolf Hitler starting another war in 20 years because the German Government didn't know how to manage a war and blamed others. What was Russia supposed to do, huh? Were they supposed to just let Austria invade Serbia? What the fuck were the Serbs supposed to do? Have you read the Austrian demands of Serbia? Or the famous invasion of Serbia? How Austria-Hungaria invaded before the Serbs finally submitted to insanely harsh demands? Wanna' know why I have something against Germany? Because the entire Prusso-Military complex started a World War, then whined that they were rightfully blamed. Austria Hungary in 1914 wanted a war, and they were getting, and Germany enabled them the entire way. So yes, Germany is to blame for WW1. Not completly. The order's more like.
Germany
Austria
Serbia
Russia



















France
The United Kingdom
The Ottoman Turks.
 
Austria keeps Tyrol and Sudetenland, re-gains southern Silesia and gains Bavaria. Karl is to renounce the throne and go into exile. Young Otto von Habsburg is to be the new Kaiser, to be betrothed to a Wittelsbach princess.

Germany* to have all heavy industry dismantled in exchange for no reparations.
View attachment 337740

Wonder how long it takes for the next war to break out...

Germany would be better off paying the reparations. Without heavy industry it is hard to see how Germany can export enough to import enough food to survive. Maybe they can survive if you take away the car , airplane and tractor factories while they can survive on steel, chemical and light industries.
 
- Germany & Austria gets occupied by France & GB with soldiers which they pull out of thin air.
- F & GB teach the Krauts how a enlightened Democracy works. If any nation is capable of doing this, its the most succesful imperialist powers in the world.
- G & A gets broken up to pre 1618 borders, so that the Krauts may never threaten world peace again.
- German (I spare me the Austrian at this point, they are after all just another Kraut tribe.) living standard is reduced to pre neolithic revolution standards.
- The Rhineland goes to France.
- Germany east of the Oder goes to Poland.
- Bavaria & Baden & Würtemberg goes to Lichtenstein.
- Austria goes to Hungary to make up for the Hungarian losses in the Balkan. They form the Hungary-Austrian double monarchy.
- The victorious powers are free to expel the Krauts.
- Berlin as a symbol of Prussian - German militarism gets razed, so is Potsdam and Königsberg.
- The German language is outlawed & replaced by Esperanto.
- German industrial products and patents for the next millenia go to the victorious powers.
- Danzig goes to Cuba
- Every Kraut settlement bigger than 50 Boches has to pay & built a monument thanking the enlightened Entente powers from saving them from the evils of nationalism, imperialism & germanism.

Brought to you by the not so serious department of revenge porn & paid by the Eternally Guilty German Fonds, EGGF
 
- Germany & Austria gets occupied by France & GB with soldiers which they pull out of thin air.
- F & GB teach the Krauts how a enlightened Democracy works. If any nation is capable of doing this, its the most succesful imperialist powers in the world.
- G & A gets broken up to pre 1618 borders, so that the Krauts may never threaten world peace again.
- German (I spare me the Austrian at this point, they are after all just another Kraut tribe.) living standard is reduced to pre neolithic revolution standards.
- The Rhineland goes to France.
- Germany east of the Oder goes to Poland.
- Bavaria & Baden & Würtemberg goes to Lichtenstein.
- Austria goes to Hungary to make up for the Hungarian losses in the Balkan. They form the Hungary-Austrian double monarchy.
- The victorious powers are free to expel the Krauts.
- Berlin as a symbol of Prussian - German militarism gets razed, so is Potsdam and Königsberg.
- The German language is outlawed & replaced by Esperanto.
- German industrial products and patents for the next millenia go to the victorious powers.
- Danzig goes to Cuba
- Every Kraut settlement bigger than 50 Boches has to pay & built a monument thanking the enlightened Entente powers from saving them from the evils of nationalism, imperialism & germanism.

Brought to you by the not so serious department of revenge porn & paid by the Eternally Guilty German Fonds, EGGF
You forget the weekly ritual topless self-flagellations.
 
Russia had the choice to either partially mobilizing or full, know what the latter would lead to. There is no way Serbia and Russia are not at fault when a Serbian-funded terrorist group kills a monarch and is supported. Yes Germany committed war crimes in Belgium, they should be punished. But don't put blame on them for not just allowing Russia to walk all over A-H because you have a something against them, which is evident by your posts in this thread.

I always blamed the Serbs primarily, they were the ones that started the whole mess with the assassination of the archduke. Did they really think that the Austrian-Hungarian Empire would take that lying down?
 
I always blamed the Serbs primarily, they were the ones that started the whole mess with the assassination of the archduke. Did they really think that the Austrian-Hungarian Empire would take that lying down?

I'm guessing they thought that their great power patrons would protect them, the same guarantee that made them and their neighbors feel safe repeatedly attacking the Ottomans. They were right, as it happens, although you have to wonder if they'd have gone for it knowing they'd lose a quarter of their population.
 
Sounds like an invitation for the Germans to try again.

So OTL wasn't?

I think it's very simple:

- Either you solve the problems that led to WWI and achieve a durable peace
- Or you humiliate Germany and risk round two
- Or you completely destroy Germany and achieve a brutal peace.

Solution 1 should have been chosen. Instead, solution 2 was implemented. And people like Foch advocated for solution number 3.
 
Last edited:
So OTL wasn't?

I think it's very simple:

- Either you solve the problems that led to WWI and achieve a durable peace
- Or you humiliate Germany and risk round to
- Or you completely destroy Germany and achieve a brutal peace.

Solution 1 should have been chosen. Instead, solution 2 was implemented. And people like Foch advocated for solution number 3.
Option 3 was never feasible without the Americans & risking a communist revolution in big parts of Europe.

I like your analysis quite, because it shows how hard it is to really create a lasting peace in Europe. And I have for a long time come to the conclusion that this is squaring the circle & in the end futile.
 
Top