WI: Milder Versailles?

[Mikestone8]

Which is a way of saying, that some people don't follow a thread and therefore take comments out of context. I noted pretty earlier on, like my first response, that the biggest problem with Versailles wasn't that it was harsh- it wasn't- but that the coalition that created it broke down (the Americans went home, the Russians were beaten, the Italians had few complaints with the Germans and the British didn't trust the French) which left only France and Belgium really interested in enforcing the treaty

And would any of these things have been less true had the treaty been harsher?

 

[Deleted member 1487]

What is nonsense is that Versailles was harsh and that somehow led to WWII

Source that claim and I'll pick apart the source for the reasons I listed before: either too French archive based or revisionist to sell books.

As you point out- this "harsh" period ends with the Dawes and Young plan in 1924. Hitler's rise is in 1932, so making the treaty more "lenient" doesn't change a thing. The German inflation was a deliberate policy of the Weimar Republic to extinguish their internal debts

Yeah 5 years of brutal economic times that pushed the country to the brink of collapse in the midst of the civil war. That's pretty harsh, far worse than the French got in 1871. As to the lie about Weimar purposely inflating, that is nonsense. Read Feldman he wrote the definitive history of Weimar inflation and it was the looting of Germany and Versailles that were the biggest component of inflation, not a deliberate attempt to get out of debt. They were required to pay in gold and the only way they could get gold given that their economy had collapsed was to print money and buy it up on the market until other nations stopped taking Marks for gold. The whole narrative about Weimar deliberately inflating to get out of debt was from the historians working in French archives in the 1920s and is a highly biased perspective; of course the French of the 1920s thought the Germans were lying, but we have German, British, and US records of the period and no the Germans were wrecking their currency on purpose they were forced into it by the French. Just read that massive book on it and you'll see because he gets into the politics around the historiography around the inflation issue and how the narrative was corrupted in the 1970s.

As for the Germans couldn't pay the reparations and that was what was driving the Germans to bankruptcy during the Great Depression, that too is nonsense. The Germans immediately took the money and spent it on weapons. The whole point of the reparations was to keep the Germans from doing this- if the Germans had taken the money they spent on Hitler's war machine, they probably could have made a very serious dent in the reparations

That's nonsense too, Germany wasn't using any money from 1929-32 on armaments, that came in 1933 after Hitler rose to power. They weren't getting any money from anyone until later and that was the Brits around 1936.

In the 1920s they weren't taking Young and Dawes plan money and spending it on armaments, they couldn't because they had Allied occupation forces in country and inspectors making sure Germany wasn't rearming secretly. What little attempts are research that were done happened in the Netherlands and were exposed, but they weren't building weapons, just doing research via a deal with a Dutch company.

The myth that the "harshness of Versailles" is the cause of WWII is that no one in the WWII allies thought that was the solution. Instead, Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin all agreed that this time, the Germans are really going to pay.

You are just repeating unsourced talking points. WW2 was linked to Versailles, because it was Versailles and its fallout that led to the Nazis coming to power. After that Hitler was the cause of WW2, as well as a dysfunctional international system that enabled him to rearm and run roughshod over Europe. In normal times Hitler would not have been possible, let alone be allowed to come to power and conquer Central Europe without firing a shot.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Which is a way of saying, that some people don't follow a thread and therefore take comments out of context. I noted pretty earlier on, like my first response, that the biggest problem with Versailles wasn't that it was harsh- it wasn't- but that the coalition that created it broke down (the Americans went home, the Russians were beaten, the Italians had few complaints with the Germans and the British didn't trust the French) which left only France and Belgium really interested in enforcing the treaty

The US never signed on to Versailles and walked away from the deal because they thought it was terrible. The Brits immediately regretted signing on and worked to undermine it. The only ones interested in the deal were the French and Belgians, but they were too weak to get away with it and by the early 1920s the fallout from their enforcement was impacting the economies of Britain and the US, so they stepped in and forced the French to back down, partly through economic leverage and partly via negotiating the Dawes and Young Plan that reduced the debt burden because it was onerous and impossible to pay. Instead when Versailles under its original formula was going it brought Germany to the brink of collapse so it had to be modified, by 1932 it was recognized that it needed to be suspended, and by 1934 Germany was forced to default on US loans because it couldn't afford those either (Tooze, Wages of Destruction) or risk economic collapse again.

 

[CrimsonKing]

I've never understood why it is so commonly believed that without Versailles or Hitler there wouldn't be WW2. First, WW1 happened without either, and Japan
started WW2 in Asia despite having been on the winning side of WW1. Second, seriously, every country that has ever lost a war, at any time, at any place, wants revenge. It is inherent in the process of losing and has nothing to do with how harsh the peace is. The only question is do circumstances give it the chance to satisfy this desire. Look at France after 1871. All a milder Versailles does is allow Germany to repair its economy quicker, rearm quicker, and start WW2 sooner, under a non-Nazi regime.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

I've never understood why it is so commonly believed that without Versailles or Hitler there wouldn't be WW2. First, WW1 happened without either, and Japan
started WW2 in Asia despite having been on the winning side of WW1. Second, seriously, every country that has ever lost a war, at any time, at any place, wants revenge. It is inherent in the process of losing and has nothing to do with how harsh the peace is. The only question is do circumstances give it the chance to satisfy this desire. Look at France after 1871. All a milder Versailles does is allow Germany to repair its economy quicker, rearm quicker, and start WW2 sooner, under a non-Nazi regime.

The situation post-WW1 was a lot more mild internationally than it was before and really pre-WW1 going to wasn't exactly guaranteed either despite tensions; without FF being assassinated WW1 is likely to not have happened at all. Hitler did drive WW2, without him doing so there is not likely to have been a WW, though a regional war might have happened. The traditional elite were far too cautious to start a war in any country, Hitler was nuts enough to think it could be done, kind of like how Colombus found America because he got the math wrong and was so convinced of his own rectitude he wouldn't give up on making the trip.

Japan couldn't have gotten away with what it did in 1937 without Germany and Italy increasing tensions in Europe with the SCW.

I think a significantly more mild Versailles creates an 1815 situation where Germany can be brought back into the family of nations and constrained by making it too dependent on post-war trade for prosperity to think about going back to war. The problems for Germany IOTL was it was effectively pushed into a no-win situation so that got Hitler into power and by the time the international situation changed so that Germany could prosper without war Hitler was far too committed to war to divert. A milder peace after WW1 ensures that Hitler could not come to power, it was a near run thing for him coming to power as it was, any change for the better likely derails him and then that means no world war.

 

[Zaius]

I think a significantly more mild Versailles creates an 1815 situation where Germany can be brought back into the family of nations and constrained by making it too dependent on post-war trade for prosperity to think about going back to war.

This seems like a rather illusory argument to me.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

This seems like a rather illusory argument to me.

Okay?
A huge part of German resentment to the peace was to be marginalized, held down, not respected or have a say in the world, and have its economy wrecked. The majority of the public was pretty anti-war after it was over and was desperate for survival after the government fell apart and the communists rose up, as they had in Russia and Hungary and taken over there. When it was all over they were excluded from the league of nations until 1926.

 

[jmc247]

Versailles was the perfect combination of being just too hard on Germany for the level of military success the victors had as it was not a peace drawn up with the victors standing in Berlin in which case the Germans would have accepted the terms of a conquered people nor was it enforceable with Russia out of the picture and France politically unstable in the interwar period.

First off get rid of the war guilt clause, I talked to Germans nearly 90 years old who that one thing pissed them off the most was not the territorial annexations and financial payments and limits on their armed forces after WW1 it was being force to accept sole and total blame for the war and this guy perfectly admitted they caused WW2 in Europe.

Secondly the limits on the armed forces were completely unnecessary given the amount of money Germany had to pay they wouldn't be able to maintain a 400K man military and pay for WW1. Second in terms of the annexations and cost if you let Austria and Germany merge in the early 20s it would have helped allow Germany to better make the payments and take away a fair bit of the anger over the annexations in the East.

You want a treaty that Germans will accept based on where the war ended with the victors signing the damn thing outside Germany itself. The Germans were beaten in WW1, not conquered. The ToV was a treaty that a conquered people would have accepted.

 

[LordKalvert]

And would any of these things have been less true had the treaty been harsher?

The question of the thread was whether making Versailles less harsh would have prevented WWII- the answer is no. WWII and the rise of Hitler are caused by the failure to enforce Versailles

Simply including the standard "occupation until indemnity is paid" clause with costs of occupation added to the indemnity would have gone a long way to preventing Hitler or at least his having enough money to finance the war

French occupation of the Rhineland and Polish occupation to the Oder would have given the two defensible borders as well

In any event, if no one is going to enforce the disarmament clauses, WWII seems inevitable simply because Germany is bigger and more powerful than either France or Britain and isn't likely to tolerate being a third class power

 

[Zaius]

Okay?
A huge part of German resentment to the peace was to be marginalized, held down, not respected or have a say in the world, and have its economy wrecked. The majority of the public was pretty anti-war after it was over and was desperate for survival after the government fell apart and the communists rose up, as they had in Russia and Hungary and taken over there. When it was all over they were excluded from the league of nations until 1926.

My point was that, as WWI had just demonstrated, globalization and trade relationships are not good at preventing wars.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

My point was that, as WWI had just demonstrated, globalization and trade relationships are not good at preventing wars.

By themselves no, but without the factors leading up to WW1 then yes they are thanks to pacifism as a movement created by the war. Also technology and globalization had not developed enough to prevent war yet; now there is no way the US and China could go to war with one another due to outsourcing of industries without an economic collapse if the war lasted more than 6 months.

 

[LordKalvert]

Okay?
A huge part of German resentment to the peace was to be marginalized, held down, not respected or have a say in the world, and have its economy wrecked. The majority of the public was pretty anti-war after it was over and was desperate for survival after the government fell apart and the communists rose up, as they had in Russia and Hungary and taken over there. When it was all over they were excluded from the league of nations until 1926.

So the Germans don't like the fact that they lost the war and wanted to be treated like a victor. Sorry, but they aren't going to get those kind of terms nor were they given in 45 either

France burned with revenge after 1870 a war they clearly started

The Versailles was too harsh crowd is as silly as the Germans shouldn't have taken Alsace and Lorraine crowd. Neither would have prevented the cries for revenge to re established the vanquished's previous status in the world

Only the lost of all hope for revanche will do- such as the dismemberment of Germany and reducing it to thirty petty states more interested in quarreling with each other than their bigger neighbors will do that for certain

Short of that, the next best option is the French, upon hearing that Hitler was reneging on the treaty, mobilizing and occupying as much German territory as she wants until Hitler and the Nazi party are outlawed.

 

[Iserlohn]

I'll join in with the crowd that the lack of negotiation on Germany's part did most of the work in regards to allowing the rise of Hitler. Even if it only were to lead to a slightly lighter treaty (smaller Northern Schleswig concession, earlier possibility of reunification with the Saarland, having Free Danzig smaller and maybe keeping Togoland), it'd improve the German's view on the peace treaty massively, since they would stop believing that the political elite betrayed them with Versailles.

 

[Deimos]

Does anyone know what altered terms to Versailles Wilson's successors would grace with their signature?
Suppose Wilson does a better job (or somebody else does a better job for him) and tries to get his Republican successors involved in Versailles. Would that be a possible POD?

 

[Monter]

"Make the treaty harder!" isn't going to anything because... no one is going to do anything. If the supposed "light" terms failed to be enforced, what will lead to the even harsher terms to be?

On a opposite note, a 1815 peace isn't really comparable. In 1815 there was an entire alliance of Great Powers (Russia, Prussia and Austria) capable of containing France anytime soon, with Britain on the sidelines just in case. In 1919 we have: Russia is gone, it's replacement (Poland) can only dream in defeating a resurgent Germany on full steam, specially with another big baddie on her back; Italy showed her potential in WW1, not impressive; Austria not only was a CP, but it was dismantled in a bunch of small powers; the US don't care about Europe as long as it don't bother them directly and Japan is on the other side of globe. Which leaves us... France, which is weaker than Germany in population and industry.

 

[jmc247]

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)

What would you view as terms sufficiently harsh that Germany has no chance to recover?

Obviously, we have a wide variation in views on AH on how hard Germany should have been punished for WW1.

Certain elements of the OTL treaty (the colonies, Alsace-Lorraine, Eupen-Malmedy, disposal of the High Seas Fleet) are to be retained.

Break the southern German states off and unify them with Austria.

Give Silesia to Czechoslovakia, give both West and East Prussia to Poland (make the Poles give the Lithuanians Vilnius to slightly offset this).

Give the Danes the entirety of Schleswig.

Give the Dutch something too; East Frisia, perhaps.

Give the Saar to Luxembourg, along with any territory necessary to make it contiguous with the prewar Grand Duchy.

Occupy the Rhineland for long enough to dismantle a significant portion of its industry and ship it back to France and Belgium.

Heligoland goes to Britain.

Transfer of all German patents, as well as the German gold reserves.

British, French and American corporations granted majority shares in a wide range of German industrial concerns, particularly those which might produce anything that can be put to military use. This is set up so that each involved Entente corporation is given control of a set of companies, not so that the majority stake in each German company is divided among multiple corporations. Forbid any sale of shares in any of these companies to German investors for at least twenty or thirty years, except where such shares are explicitly stated to grant no voting rights whatsoever within the corporation.

Ban the Germans from establishing tariffs of any kind, except on such goods as the Entente nations might prefer to be able to purchase more cheaply from Germany.

The Germans are to put some number of their infantry divisions at the disposal of the Entente powers. These divisions will be used up as part of the intervention in the Russian Civil War. They will also be required to supply a certain number of divisions for the use of the League of Nations, each of which will be quartered outside of Germany for the duration of its service.

The German soldiers seconded to the League of Nations will be required to purchase all of their own equipment within Germany, in quantities and at prices to be set by Entente quartermasters. German armaments manufacturers will be required to provide said quantities at said prices.

In short (or not, I suppose), give every one of Germany's neighbors a stake in containing and suppressing it, cripple their economy in such a fashion as to make them little more than an exploitable appendage of the Entente, and send as much of their military as possible to die in Russia and any other place that the Big Three don't want to expend their own lives on.

If the Germans refuse these terms, continue the blockade until either they surrender or they completely disintegrate, whichever comes first.

https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showpost.php?p=5036953&postcount=13

 

[Monter]

Hahahaha, there is simply NO WAY the Entente is going to do it, if I was a German I did rather fight to death than simply submit like a dog, let's remind that in 1919 the Rhineland was the furthest the Entente reached of German soil.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

The question of the thread was whether making Versailles less harsh would have prevented WWII- the answer is no. WWII and the rise of Hitler are caused by the failure to enforce Versailles

Simply including the standard "occupation until indemnity is paid" clause with costs of occupation added to the indemnity would have gone a long way to preventing Hitler or at least his having enough money to finance the war

French occupation of the Rhineland and Polish occupation to the Oder would have given the two defensible borders as well

In any event, if no one is going to enforce the disarmament clauses, WWII seems inevitable simply because Germany is bigger and more powerful than either France or Britain and isn't likely to tolerate being a third class power

The French left their occupation in 1930, no one in Europe wanted to deal with it. The French and Poles did not want to occupy all that of German either; Poland had Russia to worry about, plus millions of unhappy ethnic minorities and disgruntled unemployed Poles and you want them to occupy 12 million or more Germans? Not physically possible.

So we've come back to the central problem of the peace deal: OTL was too harsh to be enforced or practical, especially when the US opted to walk away rather than sign on, and the British weren't keen on it in the end anyway. France cannot do it on their own and Poland was FAR too weak to occupy anything in Germany; their attempts to annex German territory by force in the 1920s was beaten off by German militias. France had its economy nearly strangled by the US and Britain for occupying the Ruhr. So that's the point, a harsher deal is impossible because its unenforceable, just as OTL's was too unenforceable for its level of harshness. The only viable option then is a 1815 peace deal to avoid serious revanche.

http://www.zum.de/whkmla/sp/0910/joohyung/ljh2.html#VII

VII. Conclusion and Analysis
The French had made two major mistakes. First of all, their overly hostile policies towards Germany had only contributed to the rise of an extreme-right movement. The occupation of the Ruhr had not only enflamed German nationalism and public outrage by itself, but the severe economic crisis it entailed was the main cause of unrest and turmoil in Germany. This only led to increased antagonism against the Allied countries, along with a strong sense of purpose and justification for the Nazi party. The French occupation of the Rhineland too was a failure. In the end, the French did not achieve any of its outwardly proclaimed - or inwardly conceived - objectives, as the Rhineland would once again fall back into the hands of Germany, and France would be unable to stop it from doing so. Unable to fully take or leave the Rhineland, a decade and a half would pass with little earned.

Secondly, even after the Nazis had gained power in Germany, the French had the opportunity to halt their advance - and failed. When Hitler attempted to remilitarize the Rhineland, he was taking a great risk. Germany's military force was unable to cope with a direct confrontation with France (whose army at the time would have easily overwhelmed them). Added to that, had Hitler failed in his attempt, he would not have gained the political and public support he received after his success. His political peers had been wary of his ambitions, and would have been keen enough to remove him from power had the remilitarization failed, and had provoked a French retaliation. Yet his success was greeted with great enthusiasm by the public, and they had no choice but to lend him their power and approval. In the end, what the French intended as a measure to permanently weaken Germany only led to France's own destruction.

The Rhineland could be considered as the true place of beginning for Hitler's policies. His success at remilitarizing the area was what drastically shifted the public opinion towards him, and which also led the other people with power to support him.

 

[LordKalvert]

Avoiding WWII is very difficult, almost impossible, because, as noted, the coalition that defeated the Germans doesn't even survive the war. Enough of it does, that a truly punitive peace has a slim reed of a chance but there's no way to sugar coat it enough for the Germans

The collapse of the coalition-

1) Russia is defeated and Poland replaces the Tsar as the German's Eastern neighbor. This is like saying "no two front war" to the Germans- it almost begs an invasion of France

2) America goes home and nurses her wounded pride at the humiliating way the allies treated her at Versailles. Most Americans think they got cheated more than the Germans did

3) Japan is satisfied with her goodies but there's nothing more to take from the Germans. She's gone for good from the coalition and is looking at eating her former allies

4) Italy- another "victor" who feels cheated- mainly because she was cheated and didn't get everything her contract called for

5) United Kingdom- quickly decides that a somewhat strong Germany is needed to keep the French in check

Now this is for the future and the reason that Versailles breaks down. But at Versailles, there is an opening to let everyone bring home the bacon and keep Germany down

To do that- there must be a means of enforcing some of the major clauses. The standard- we will occupy key parts of your country until the reparations are paid tactic had worked for centuries

The French should have been given the Rhenish provinces. They don't have to rule them as a part of France. A protectorate is fine. The key is to give France easily defended borders and to remove a massive chunk of resources from the Germans. This would do it

Similarly, in the East, the Poles should have been allowed to occupy the area East of the Order. This would protect the Poles from the spectacle of being surrounded on three sides by the Germans.

Since this would make the Germans seething mad, the French and the Poles would probably be bright enough to enforce the disarmament clauses because if they don't, they know the Germans are coming

Again, this gives only a small chance of avoiding WWII. The imbalance in Europe caused by the collapse of the Romanov's is what is driving the event more than the harshness of Versailles.

The best way to prevent WWII is, of course, to divide Germany into thirty petty states who are a threat to no one and will quarrel amongst themselves. This would be a Franco-Russian solution but not of anyone else's.

 

[Jurgen Wullenwever]

The best way to prevent WWII is, of course, to divide Germany into thirty petty states who are a threat to no one and will quarrel amongst themselves. This would be a Franco-Russian solution but not of anyone else's.

But post-1945 Germany is very pacifist. Could not such an atmosphere have been created 26 years earlier, or was the destroying of cities and the collective guilt for atrocities and starting ww2 needed for that?