WI: Germany pays lup-service to the Geneva disarmament conference.

Historically Germany demanded right to rearmament or disarmament to German level. They ended up Walking out of the conference and this spurred Britains rearmament, and infuriated Mussolini.
WI Germany befan to aeek compromises they could not break in the next few years anyway (eg Half the strengh of SU, many options). This would serve to keep the conference alive while Germany initiated rearmament.
What would the consequences be of such a process dragging on into say 1935 (other developments Can be imagined).
Politically and in later military readiness?
 

Tyr Anazasi

Banned
Indeed they did seek compromises. The French resistance against them led to the German retreat from the conference. Although coming back after they reached their goal, the exact numbers were still highly contested, especially by the French, who kept their resistance to the very end.

Ironically Hitler himself had proposed the French several offers to limit the German forces, which would then not be able to invade other countries. The French refused not willing to compromise. IF they did, Germany would not be able to make a war of aggression in 1939 at least.

Of course I don't know, how long Hitler's proposals would last. However, given the fact he needed time to install himself as "Führer" he would not break them before 1936 or '37. That would limit the German armed forces structures decisively, even up to the point, where he has to resign because of state bankruptcy.
 
Indeed they did seek compromises. The French resistance against them led to the German retreat from the conference. Although coming back after they reached their goal, the exact numbers were still highly contested, especially by the French, who kept their resistance to the very end.

Ironically Hitler himself had proposed the French several offers to limit the German forces, which would then not be able to invade other countries. The French refused not willing to compromise. IF they did, Germany would not be able to make a war of aggression in 1939 at least.

Of course I don't know, how long Hitler's proposals would last. However, given the fact he needed time to install himself as "Führer" he would not break them before 1936 or '37. That would limit the German armed forces structures decisively, even up to the point, where he has to resign because of state bankruptcy.

Thanks for the first comment. I am not sure about the compromises though. I am no expert in the event, but their suggestions are frequently quoted as equality either by German rearmament or the disarmament of others.
What I am proposing is that Hitler keeps the talks alive by accepting gradually more inferiority, maybe starts making early separate compromises on naval parts with Britain to pressure on the French and basically maintain the prospects that Germany is seeking an agreement. The overall message is that Hitler is playing by the rules, probably greatly soothing to the surrounding powers.
Hitler would off course rearm in the meantime as secretly as possible, but basically with the unofficial excuse that they are long from the compromises that they, the British and the Italians see as reasonable.
If an agreement should be made either in part (eg. bigger navy and an air force maybe without bombers of a certain size) then the keep rearming to the limit, exceed in secret and when it was obviously not being kept, they could find some excuse (eg. French/Russian pact of OTL or something similar) and seek a new treaty that would still allow self-defense and get British/Italian support.
Its basically a scheme to delay and reduce, but not prevent the British/French rearmament relatively to the German one.
 

Tyr Anazasi

Banned
March 1933: Mac Donald proposal: Troop reductions of all European nations; for example Germany like Poland and France 200 k soldiers, but no air force. All nations accept, except the French. Hitler agrees even to a 5 years moratorium until the German forces are allowed to reach that strength and accepted a ban of weapons, if these linds of weapons are banned by every other nation as well. At the same time Roosevelt proposed a ban of bombers, tanks and motorized heavy artillery. Hitler said, he would agree to that.

January '34: Hitler proposes 300 k soldiers for the Reichswehr, Mac Donald makes compromise proposals, Hitler accepts. He even proposes to disarm the SA and would agree to a Luftwaffe of 50% of the French strength, without bombers; Italy, the other nation not willing to accept, finally agrees, but France reacts hostile.

Note: I don't trust Hitler! I only say, he did propose this or that. What he would have done we don't know. But as he was very cautious in the early years, I guess he would not break this rules. In any case it would have likely prevented a war started by Germany.
 
March 1933: Mac Donald proposal: Troop reductions of all European nations; for example Germany like Poland and France 200 k soldiers, but no air force. All nations accept, except the French. Hitler agrees even to a 5 years moratorium until the German forces are allowed to reach that strength and accepted a ban of weapons, if these linds of weapons are banned by every other nation as well. At the same time Roosevelt proposed a ban of bombers, tanks and motorized heavy artillery. Hitler said, he would agree to that.

January '34: Hitler proposes 300 k soldiers for the Reichswehr, Mac Donald makes compromise proposals, Hitler accepts. He even proposes to disarm the SA and would agree to a Luftwaffe of 50% of the French strength, without bombers; Italy, the other nation not willing to accept, finally agrees, but France reacts hostile.

Note: I don't trust Hitler! I only say, he did propose this or that. What he would have done we don't know. But as he was very cautious in the early years, I guess he would not break this rules. In any case it would have likely prevented a war started by Germany.

Thanks again, btw, nobody trust Hitler now. Unnecessary disclaimer.

The January 1934 proposal is after the Germans walked out of the talks which was the eye opener for the rest of the world. Could you source it or elaborate?
 

Tyr Anazasi

Banned
Yes, but that did not mean, there were no attempts. Indeed the Barthou note of April 17th 1934 meant the very end of the negotiations. Until then a diplomatic solution might have been found.
 
Yes, but that did not mean, there were no attempts. Indeed the Barthou note of April 17th 1934 meant the very end of the negotiations. Until then a diplomatic solution might have been found.

Agreed, however its clear that Germany outside the Geneva conference was a driver for the Barthou not. Without Germany withdrawing is it possible to put off the realization that Germany was rearming without any hope for regulation. Maybe to 1935 or at least 1934?
 

Tyr Anazasi

Banned
Well, we have to be fair: It was France, who broke their obligations to disarm first. Since the Great War they were entitled to disarm, when Germany was disarmed. They didn't do so. And they didn't accept ANY compromise with Germany. Furthermore the Reichswehr could not effectively defend Germany with only 100.000 men and without heavy weapons.
 
Top