What would you do differently at Versailles in 1919?

OK.

Also, off-topic, but out of curiosity--what do you think about Kosovo's independence?

I would be (grudgingly) OK with it, if the right of self-determination was not limited to the ethnic Albanians - in other words, if Kosovo's minorities were also allowed to secede from that mess.
OK; also, what was the reason for this?

The desire to further reduce a rival's stability, and build up useful contacts for the future?
 

CaliGuy

Banned
I would be (grudgingly) OK with it, if the minorities within Kosovo were also granted the right of self-determination and allowed to secede from that mess.

So, a North Kosovo secession and union with Serbia?

The desire to further reduce a rival's stability, and build up useful contacts for the future?

OK; makes sense.
 
Okay, so there isn't a historical claim to Upper Silesia. Which is why the Allies chose to hold referendums there and partition it, and both Germany and Poland gave their chunk a limited amount of autonomy. Which proves my point about OTL Versailles being a fair treaty.

They didn't hold referendums in Alsace-Lorraine, Austria, eastern Belgium or South Tyrol. Which proves my point thar the Versailles treaty didn't respect the right to self-self-determination.
 

Perkeo

Banned
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.
IMO the Franco Prussian War is an example for my point rather than against it: Having agreed to each and every French demand, the Prussian king kindly rejected to continue doing so for all eternity - and France declared war upon the false rumor that this last rejection wasn't polite enough. If that isn't French warmongery, I don't know what is.

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

I kindly recommend a look on a map of the world of 1914. None of those nations voluntarily joined the French and British empire. Nor did those conquests come without civilian casualties:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_conquest_of_Algeria
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Boer_War#Concentration_camps_.281900.E2.80.931902.29
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atrocities_in_the_Congo_Free_State
Even if I were to demonize Germany, I'd choose Namibia, not Belgium.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_of_Belgium
August 1 - Germany declares war on Russia.
August 3 - Germany declares war on France.
...
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,
France started this war quickly so France's enemies can't mobilize, Germany started that war quickly so Germany's enemies can't mobilize. What is the big difference?
The allies used unrestricted submarine warfare against Japan in WWII and in WWI the food blockade wasn't even lifted after the German surrender.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Brest-Litovsk
...
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.
Russia was stripped of (not even all) her non-Russian territories, France was stripped of her non-French territories, and Germany was stripped of her non-German territories. What exactly do you think is the difference? What makes you think this is too harsh for Russia and not harsh enough for Germany?

The problem with the unlimited-punishment fraction is that people overlook there is a reason why it wasn't enforced: WWI isn't WWII. Atrocities against Germany are not overshadowed by the incredibly horrible crimes that Germany committed. After WWI, every punitive expedition to enforce the destruction of Germany will loose credibility to the Entente claim od supposedly defending freedom aginst ITTL non-existent Nazis and add credibility to the German claim that all she did in WWI was a desperate self-defense. Ironically, when Germany did provide that moral case, disassembling was barely under discussion. Germany ended up divided due to the controversy how to unify the occupation zones to a single nations, not if.

A good peace treaty must include punitive measurements and a path for Germany to move on and be a full member of the international community again. Leaving out the second was stupid and childish.

OTOH I must emphasize: I do not think the TOV caused WWII. Democracy fell to the great depression, not the TOV.
 
Last edited:

Perkeo

Banned
Well, the Zionists succeeded in having the international community endorse their claim to a majority of Palestine.
The majority of Palestine is now Jordan. What is now Israel/Palestine is only a small part of the original mandate.
 

Perkeo

Banned
They didn't hold referendums in Alsace-Lorraine, Austria, eastern Belgium or South Tyrol. Which proves my point thar the Versailles treaty didn't respect the right to self-self-determination.
Unification with Austria and Danzig was only a matter of time unless the Austrians refuse and the other territories are so tiny compared to the size of the nation that "didn't respect" seems a little far-fetched to me.

EDIT: And the corridor was part of the 14 points that Germany sort of agreed to and Poland would have won that referendum.
 
Last edited:
>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.

You seem to forget that every single Great Power was guilty of exactly the same stuff that you seem to only blame Germany for. You even mention Namibia and China, which is hilarious considering you have the UK and France at the end of the list.
 
Make the EU without all the bullshit.
Make it so war in Europe has major economic reprisals.
Germany gives up Prussia and Danzig that is not negotiable.
Germany and Britain become tied at the hip both military and economic.
Britain,France,Italy,Turkey,Spain and Germany sign a co economic treaty with a mutual defence agreements.
Japan and Britain sign economic treaty with a few military contracts

Please explain how you get the various governments to ratify any of this.
 

Perkeo

Banned
WW1 may not have occurred had the German states not unified in the 1860-70s.

That is half the truth, and I'm afraid the true half is not the relevant one.
First, Germany may not have a long history of being completely united, but there is no history of being completely divided either.

Second, just look at the maps:
1789:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_...ile:Map_of_the_Holy_Roman_Empire,_1789_en.png

1815:
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kleinstaaterei#/media/File:Deutscher_Bund.pnghttps://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kleinstaaterei#/media/File:Deutscher_Bund.png
1871:
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsches_Reich#/media/File:Deutsches_Reich_(1871-1918)-de.svg

For the vast majority of Germans, the allegiance to any German states were in extreme fluctuation, both in time and in distance. Yes, Germany was divided, but not into entities that qualify as nations.

The only definite exception is Bavaria, perhaps Saxony and Prussia can become too. But all the rest have no national identity except German.

So, my TOV breaks up Germany into several independent nations, with solid democratic rules in place.
And what do you do with an all but unlikely solid democratic vote for unification?

In order to give these states a chance at success, I'd skip all financial reparations.
And bancrupt France and the UK

East Prussia is mostly lost to create Poland.
What do you do with millions of Germans? Expelling them as after WWII won't work (too many civilian casualties).

I would't punish Germany with everything but reparations, I'd punish Germany with reparations alone.
 
Western border of Poland as proposed by Cambon's comission-whole Upper Silesia and Danzig to Poland. As result Poland do better job fighting Bolsheviks, without Danzig dockers blocking unloading of ammo and weapons for Polish army. Soviets are weaker and Czechoslovakia has no opportunity to grab Teschen-so Polish-Czechoslovak relations are likely better.
Germans are angry but that is not change compared to OTL, but they are also weakened, thus need more time to prepare for round 2, could prevail over Poland and Czechoslovakia anyway, but at least France has now more chance to stop them.
 
Things to remember at the time the treaty is being thrashed out.

The treaty to end the Franco-Prussian War ( hint its harsher than OTL ToV )
Effect of 4 years of War on Entente popular opinion ( and so Government wriggle room on terms )
The A-H , Russian and Ottoman Empires are collapsing/collapsed
Assorted promises/pledges made during the war ( this came back to bite after OTL ToV )
Northern France and Belgium are trashed
Entente are pretty broke ( and loans made to Russia look like they will not be repaid )

Put all that together and the following are Red lines

Germany is paying heavy reparations ( as France had to, no other Central Power country is left that can pay, money is needed )
Germany is getting smaller not bigger ( France wants its land back , new countries want their claims met and have sympathy on their side , France especially is afraid of round 3 happening )
Poland will do well ( the new soviets are worrying as well as a need to contain Germany )
Britain wants the HSF out of German hands
No one cares about fairness if it conflicts with perceived national interests

Its hard to see how , given those constraints, ToV ends up much different than OTL. The major difference that would possibly have a great effect is favoring Italy over the new Yugoslavia and keeping the promises made re territory. This could cause a pro Allied Italy rather than an Axis one in the 30's, with all the butterflies that may cause.
 
Top