WI: Milder Versailles?

[Empress_Janina_I.]

Hello everyone!
Would it be possible for Germany to get a way milder Versailles after WW 1?
Let's say, the Brits are somewhat more Germany-friendly and "tout" for a plebiscite in all northern West Prussia (Gouvernment district of Danzig), Germany will keep one colony (for example (a smaller) Cameroon or OTL French Togoland or even Namibia) and there are by far not that heavy repressions on Germany.
How possible would it be and what would be the consequences?
Maybe no Nazi overtake?

Thank you and sorry for my bad English.

Empress Janina I.

 

[Uruk]

Doesnt really matter as the stab in the back myth will still exist

 

[LordKalvert]

The "harshness" of the treaty is a myth as most of the "harsh" terms aren't enforced. Yes, Germany lost all her colonies- but then she didn't make anything on her colonies anyway. Yes, Germany lost her fleet but many Germans thought building the fleet was a mistake. Yes, Germany had a massive indemnity imposed on her- but she didn't have any foreign debts from the war and didn't pay the indemnity in any event


The problem with Versailles is that Germany is being treated as defeated by countries that didn't nor could defeat Germany. The Russians were replaced by the Poles, the Americans went back to North America and the British didn't mind a stronger Germany to keep France in check.. Basically, the only powers interested in imposing Versailles on the Germans are the French and the Belgians. Given this, that the Germans would make another bid for supremacy is inevitable

Yes there are some territorial losses but the Germans have to have expected some losses. They just become part of the reason for revanche

 

[Vault Dweller]

For a Versailles that's far more likely to be broadly (if unhappily) accepted within Germany, let the country keep it's 1914 borders (with the obvious exception of Alsasce-Lorraine which realistically has to go back to France). That will nip a good deal of OTL revanchist sentiment in the bud, far more so than any tweaking of reparation rates or military and naval issues, and be vastly more productive than the token return of a minor colony or two.

 

[Avrorrange]

The "harshness" of the treaty is a myth as most of the "harsh" terms aren't enforced. Yes, Germany lost all her colonies- but then she didn't make anything on her colonies anyway. Yes, Germany lost her fleet but many Germans thought building the fleet was a mistake. Yes, Germany had a massive indemnity imposed on her- but she didn't have any foreign debts from the war and didn't pay the indemnity in any event


The problem with Versailles is that Germany is being treated as defeated by countries that didn't nor could defeat Germany. The Russians were replaced by the Poles, the Americans went back to North America and the British didn't mind a stronger Germany to keep France in check.. Basically, the only powers interested in imposing Versailles on the Germans are the French and the Belgians. Given this, that the Germans would make another bid for supremacy is inevitable

Yes there are some territorial losses but the Germans have to have expected some losses. They just become part of the reason for revanche

Well,they were defeated.It's hard not to treat them as a country that isn't defeated.

 

[LordKalvert]

Well,they were defeated.It's hard not to treat them as a country that isn't defeated.

True but the point was the Germans were beaten by a coalition that didn't survive the war. This, rather than the "harshness" of Versailles, is what gives Hitler the opening

Truthfully, the territorial revisions aren't all that severe. Obviously, Alsace Lorraine was going back to France, Polish Independence is also a given with the destruction of the Hapsburg and Romanov Empires- the corridor to the sea is more nuisance but essential. One can argue about the Sudentland

But with the victorious coalition scattered to the wind, there was no way France could enforce Versailles on her own. The Germans get away with canceling the reparations which gave them the money to ignore the disarmament clauses

The way to prevent WWII would be to make the terms sufficiently harsh that Germany has no chance to recover. Permanent French occupation of the Rhineland would be a start (Please note- occupation doesn't mean annexation)

 

[rast]

It was not a matter of 'milder' but rather of 'less ignoble'. - The so-called treaty was a dictate, served as an insult.
No party or group in Germany had negotiated anything; the nation had been forced to accept by the threat of imminent invasion and sustained naval blockade (even worse than in wartime because the Baltic was now also controlled by the RN).
Thus, nobody in Germany felt in the least bound by this dictate, other than being forced at gunpoint. Sure, Hitler made a lot of aboliting it, but all other political parties were working to the same goal. Much of the armaments restrictions had been underrun even before the Nazis got near the Wilhelmstraße.
I'm not sure about the 'stab in the back' myth. It became a big thing once Hitler had seized power. But before that date, hardly anybody cared for the rubbish. People had other problems; so, the few diehards who claimed it were pretty much alone.

 

[LordKalvert]

It was not a matter of 'milder' but rather of 'less ignoble'. - The so-called treaty was a dictate, served as an insult.
No party or group in Germany had negotiated anything; the nation had been forced to accept by the threat of imminent invasion and sustained naval blockade (even worse than in wartime because the Baltic was now also controlled by the RN).
Thus, nobody in Germany felt in the least bound by this dictate, other than being forced at gunpoint. Sure, Hitler made a lot of aboliting it, but all other political parties were working to the same goal. Much of the armaments restrictions had been underrun even before the Nazis got near the Wilhelmstraße.
I'm not sure about the 'stab in the back' myth. It became a big thing once Hitler had seized power. But before that date, hardly anybody cared for the rubbish. People had other problems; so, the few diehards who claimed it were pretty much alone.

Well I don't know how you can make this any easier on them emotionally. They had spent billions of marks, had millions of their men killed and wounded and they had lost. Its got to hurt.

The French got to negotiate after the Franco-Prussian War- revanche burned in their hearts for a generation. The only difference between the French and the Germans on that accord is that the Germans saw a chance to take vengeance on their own and the French didn't

The other reason why it leads to war so soon is Germany isn't the only one seeking changes to the settlement- the Soviets weren't all that happy either

 

[LordIreland]

It was not a matter of 'milder' but rather of 'less ignoble'. - The so-called treaty was a dictate, served as an insult.
No party or group in Germany had negotiated anything; the nation had been forced to accept by the threat of imminent invasion and sustained naval blockade (even worse than in wartime because the Baltic was now also controlled by the RN).
Thus, nobody in Germany felt in the least bound by this dictate, other than being forced at gunpoint. Sure, Hitler made a lot of aboliting it, but all other political parties were working to the same goal. Much of the armaments restrictions had been underrun even before the Nazis got near the Wilhelmstraße.
I'm not sure about the 'stab in the back' myth. It became a big thing once Hitler had seized power. But before that date, hardly anybody cared for the rubbish. People had other problems; so, the few diehards who claimed it were pretty much alone.

I think you hit on what is arguably the most important point here, the fact that the Germans were observers rather than participants. If we contrast the Versailles Treaty with the Second Treaty of Vienna in 1815 where France was an active participant we can see a very different outcome. No 'Great Power' is going to readily accept an imposed treaty in such a situation.

German representation might have allowed a 'Peace with Honour' resolution and thus a way forward that might have avoided the inevitable second round of OTL.

 

[Avrorrange]

I think you hit on what is arguably the most important point here, the fact that the Germans were observers rather than participants. If we contrast the Versailles Treaty with the Second Treaty of Vienna in 1815 where France was an active participant we can see a very different outcome. No 'Great Power' is going to readily accept an imposed treaty in such a situation.

German representation might have allowed a 'Peace with Honour' resolution and thus a way forward that might have avoided the inevitable second round of OTL.

Even if the Germans were 'participants',the outcome would have been the same given the circumstance of their defeat.By the time of Versailles,Germany basically has no bargaining chips to negotiate with.A Congress of Vienna was basically just politically unacceptable in the entente public.

 

[rast]

A Congress of Vienna was basically just politically unacceptable in the entente public.

Before Vienna, the Allies had beaten Napoleon, invaded France and occupied Paris. Nevertheless, they decided to negotiate a settlement instead of dictating it.

In 1919, Germany was a fully developed democracy. If the ruling coalition had sat at the table in Versailles, the big popular parties (SPD, Zentrum) would have been the ones who negotiated it - and thus would have felt bound to observe it.

That the terms would be harsh, everybody in Germany had anticipated. Being treated like criminals, nobody had anticipated.

 

[Avrorrange]

Before Vienna, the Allies had beaten Napoleon, invaded France and occupied Paris. Nevertheless, they decided to negotiate a settlement instead of dictating it.

In 1919, Germany was a fully developed democracy. If the ruling coalition had sat at the table in Versailles, the big popular parties (SPD, Zentrum) would have been the ones who negotiated it - and thus would have felt bound to observe it.

That the terms would be harsh, everybody in Germany had anticipated. Being treated like criminals, nobody had anticipated.

Guess what?the Entente public doesn't give a flying f$ck about Germany being a fully developed democracy.They've spilled a lot of blood and they want something back.You really can't negotiate anything if you have no bargaining chips.In 1815,the various powers have already dictated the peace by deposing Napoleon.Arguably,forcing the French off most of their gains and taking their emperor out is already a form of dictation.There was no negotiation for that.

 

[Reydan]

Before Vienna, the Allies had beaten Napoleon, invaded France and occupied Paris. Nevertheless, they decided to negotiate a settlement instead of dictating it.

In 1919, Germany was a fully developed democracy. If the ruling coalition had sat at the table in Versailles, the big popular parties (SPD, Zentrum) would have been the ones who negotiated it - and thus would have felt bound to observe it.

That the terms would be harsh, everybody in Germany had anticipated. Being treated like criminals, nobody had anticipated.

Guess what,the Entente public doesn't give a flying f$ck about Germany being a fully developed democracy.They've spilled a lot of blood and they want something back.You really can't negotiate anything if you have no bargaining chips.In 1815,the various powers have already dictated the peace by deposing Napoleon.Arguably,forcing the French off most of their gains and taking their emperor out is already a form of dictation.There was no negotiation for that.

Agree completely with darthfanta, although slap on the wrist for (probably unintentionally) aggressive tone!

Its worth noting that the SPD regime is hardly what might be called legitimate in this period - coming out of the chaotic collapse of Wilhelm II's government. Even if they were legitimate 100%, the Allies are under no obligation to invite them. The Congress of Vienna analogy is a little phony in my opinion - technically the Bourbons, not France, were present as the negotiators and it was only the sly powerhouse that was Talleyrand that prevented the terms in 1815 being harsher.

Also, why would they look back to 1815 as inspiration? For the French the obvious inspiration was 1870 and the humiliation of the Franco-Prussian War. You've got to remember, on top of revanchism, that France loses so much in the war - between 4 and 5% of the pre-war population are dead, much of Eastern France is chewed up and ruined, and out of the pre 1914 population about 1 in 10 were wounded in some way. They called the French generations of the 1920s and 30s "the hollow classes" for a reason! For many of the French Versailles doesn't go far enough. Quite a few wanted to properly dismember Germany (which, remember, had only been unified less than 50 years ago).

SO to get a milder Versailles I think you need to change the position of France. My best guess would be if France had been knocked out, or somehow more badly bruised, by the War. Maybe the army mutinies see the Western Front collapse? If the Allies still win in this scenario (which admittedly becomes a big IF) then France will have much less say at whatever equivalent peace treaty happens.

 

[rast]

Guess what?the Entente public doesn't give a flying f$ck about Germany being a fully developed democracy.They've spilled a lot of blood and they want something back.You really can't negotiate anything if you have no bargaining chips.In 1815,the various powers have already dictated the peace by deposing Napoleon.Arguably,forcing the French off most of their gains and taking their emperor out is already a form of dictation.There was no negotiation for that.

Sorry, I was of the opinion the initial question was how to achieve a lasting peace and how to prevent A.H. and his unsavoury friends from coming to power.
If you're only interested in a lapse in fighting for twenty years, please go ahead.

 

[Avrorrange]

Sorry, I was of the opinion the initial question was how to achieve a lasting peace and how to prevent A.H. and his unsavoury friends from coming to power.
If you're only interested in a lapse in fighting for twenty years, please go ahead.

The point is that any peace less severe than OTL is complete ASB.Germany and friends will just have to fight better in the war than OTL to get a 'milder' peace.If you are hoping for a way for the allies to be more lenient after the armistice,sorry,it's just not possible,since the entente public is clearly out for blood.

 

[kung Zog]

The point is that any peace less severe than OTL is complete ASB.Germany and friends will just have to fight better in the war than OTL to get a 'milder' peace.If you are hoping for a way for the allies to be more lenient after the armistice,sorry,it's just not possible,since the entente public is clearly out for blood.

There are many avenues for a milder peace, just how much milder is another question.

 

[LordKalvert]

There are many avenues for a milder peace, just how much milder is another question.

Practically speaking, how can you make this treaty any milder?

The colonies? I doubt that the Germans would be all that thrilled to be able to say over their son's graves "Well, at least you kept Namibia for us"

The reparations? Is it at all possible to believe that the allies would say "Well, we had to borrow all this money to beat you and we cut off your trade so you don't have any debts. You really snookered us on that"

Alsace and Lorriane? Are the French really going to say to their people "Well we've always wanted them back but we decided to let the Germans keep them."

The only realistically possible changes are to

1) The Polish corridor- but a landlocked Poland isn't a viable state,

2) The disarmament clauses But that's just going to get the German revanchists going even earlier

I would note that after WWII the Allies concluded that Versailles had been too lenient not that it had been too harsh

 

[kung Zog]

The most obvious areas to make it milder is reduced territory loss against Denmark and Poland.

But yes, I agree it is hard, and the prevailing thought in most of the states during the process was that it could've been harder. Soon after, however, these opinions waned somewhat.

 

[Vault Dweller]

The most obvious areas to make it milder is reduced territory loss against Denmark and Poland.

Particularly Poland, and even more particularly the corridor. Allow Germany to retain West Prussia and you de-fang the biggest cause of revanchist sentiment on the traditional political Right (and even amongst the moderate and Social Democrat constituencies). That territorial cession caused more resentment than all the others combined.

 

[yulzari]

A milder Treaty of Frankfurt might be an initial POD. The least that the French public would have accepted at Versailles was a reversal of that.