WI: Non Punitive Treaty of Versallies

Valdemar II

Banned
Frankly letting France outright having the Rhineland isn't actually that bad of an idea

It wouldn't if they had been able to keep or had the popular support in the westen Rhineland, and you didn't care that it would completely alienate Belgium, Luxembourg and Netherland whom would be terrified over further French expansion. In short it would be a insanely terrible idea instead of a bad idea, which would weaken France a lot more than Germany. It doesn't help that it would be almost impossible to defend either.
 

Typo

Banned
It wouldn't if they had been able to keep or had the popular support in the westen Rhineland,
And if they lose it, the boundaries are just back to OTL's

and you didn't care that it would completely alienate Belgium, Luxembourg and Netherland whom would be terrified over further French expansion.
Why? France had zero chance to take territory from any of the above countries. Besides, it's not like those countries proved cooperative on defense issues with Britain/France anyway.

In short it would be a insanely terrible idea instead of a bad idea, which would weaken France a lot more than Germany.
I doubt it, without the Rhineland the German's industrial heartland is on the border with France
It doesn't help that it would be almost impossible to defend either.
The Rhine is a pretty good natural barrier actually.
 

Valdemar II

Banned
But I think a smart Versailles Treaty should focus on East Europe rather than Germany really. A major problem with OTL Versailles was that East Europe was split up in a lot of small and medium sized states, whom had revanchiest claim toward each other, with German minorities spread more or less thinly all over these states, and Germany was more less even in it weaken state still the 800 pound gorilla. If you insist on splitting up Austria Hungary look to create some more viable successor states, keep Austria as big and multicultural as possible (let them keep Slovenia, Küstenland and Tyrol at the very least, Bohemia are likely impossible), give Czechoslovakia the entire Silesia and Lusatia, that would force the Czechs to cooperate more with Slovaks and Ruthenian to run the country to avoid being overwhelm by the Germans (in OTL the Czechs could run the show themself with 51% of the population, being forced to relay on the Slovaks could create a common identity), and Silesia make it a stronger state too. Yugoslavia wasn't really a bad idea except in hindsigth so let us keep that around, unless we can find a good reason for a Austrian-Croatian union. Beside that keep as many of the old institutions around as possible, a Habsburg Archduke if possible would be a good idea, much of the Austrian legitimicy as a separate state from the rest of Germany lays in the Habsburg monarchy.

The idea of removing the admitting war guilt, reparitions, the limits on the size of the military clauses are a quite good idea, those (especially the first and last) pissed the Germans off even more than the loss of territorium. The removal of reparitions also have the benefit that we see a more stable Weimar Republic without the enourmous loss of capital. Another clause I would push for removing was that, was to make the Rhine, Elb and Oder international territorium it wasn't just insulting it was also a continued rubbing the Germans in the face over their loss.
 

Deleted member 1487

For Clemenceau, I'm not sure how we could avert that... The French didn't nicknamed him "Le Tigre" (The Tiger) for nothing : he was a strong personnality and played a major role in the French politicis during WW1.

For the U.S., it seems relatively simple :
-Have the Lusitania not sunk. Without that much American casualties due to a German submarine (around 1,000 if I recall correctly) the U.S. would probably get less angry towards the Germans.
-Do not have the secret deal that Germans had planned for Mexico to attack the U.S. if they entered the war on the Entente side leaked.


Oh that is relatively easy. It depends on the president Poincare choosing Joseph Caillaux: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Caillaux
after Caporetto instead of Clemenceau. Poincare is the hard part, because he wanted to inspire the nation with a hardcore new leader to continue the struggle. If he has lost hope as a result of the US staying out, the Russians falling, and Italy being smashed, he could go for Caillaux instead to start negotiations.
 

Valdemar II

Banned
And if they lose it, the boundaries are just back to OTL's

...and they would had lost vast resources in trying to keep and defend it. The real world aren't a game of Hearts of Iron.

Why? France had zero chance to take territory from any of the above countries. Besides, it's not like those countries proved cooperative on defense issues with Britain/France anyway.

Because they didn't trust France farther than they could throw them, Netherlands was pro-German, Belgium and Luxembourg was paranoid that France would try to take them over. Here they're going to be active anti-French.

I doubt it, without the Rhineland the German's industrial heartland is on the border with France

Which would mean shit, because the French position in that area would be incredible weak (see below why).

The Rhine is a pretty good natural barrier actually.

Not really it's a lousy real world border. France would need armies along the entire Rhine to defend the border, in 2/3 of the border the population would be active hostile to France, while they distrusted the population in the last 1/3, even if they was rather loyal. The transportation into the area are hard, and if the middle 1/3 was conquered it would isolate a significant amount of the French army in the north, which they could only help by invading Belgium and Netherlands.
 

Typo

Banned
...and they would had lost vast resources in trying to keep and defend it. The real world aren't a game of Hearts of Iron.
That depends on how much the Rhineland prove economically beneficial to France
Netherlands was pro-German, Belgium and Luxembourg was paranoid that France would try to take them over.
I don't recall any of the above actually been true Interbellum actually
Not really it's a lousy real world border. France would need armies along the entire Rhine to defend the border
And this would eliminate the need to guard the Belgian border from the Germans
in 2/3 of the border the population would be active hostile to France, while they distrusted the population in the last 1/3, even if they was rather loyal. The transportation into the area are hard, and if the middle 1/3 was conquered it would isolate a significant amount of the French army in the north, which they could only help by invading Belgium and Netherlands.
Fair enough, but event the worst case scenario is better than fall gelb, plus the loss of the Rhineland would naturally weaken whatever forces the Germans field
 
As far as I know, the Netherlands were neutral. Really neutral. Yes, I believe they traded more with Germany than with others, which is quite logical. America probably interacts more with Canada than with Cambodia.

EDIT: That was in the first world war though. In the second one, while officially neutral, there was a token force guarding the northern parts of the Netherlands from the British, while a much larger force was guarding its borders from Germany.
 
Last edited:

Valdemar II

Banned
That depends on how much the Rhineland prove economically beneficial to France

It wouldn't be worth the defenses, and the political problem of including 9 million Germans into the Republic (and that's without including Alsace)

I don't recall any of the above actually been true Interbellum actually

Why do you think the Belgians avoided cooperation with the French?

And this would eliminate the need to guard the Belgian border from the Germans

You mean the border where the Germans more or less walked through in OTL

Fair enough, but event the worst case scenario is better than fall gelb, plus the loss of the Rhineland would naturally weaken whatever forces the Germans field

Yes it would weaken the German, but the longer border would mean that the French army would be spread thinner, and any recruits from the westen Rhineland would of questionable loyalty.
 
But I think a smart Versailles Treaty should focus on East Europe rather than Germany really. A major problem with OTL Versailles was that East Europe was split up in a lot of small and medium sized states, whom had revanchiest claim toward each other, with German minorities spread more or less thinly all over these states, and Germany was more less even in it weaken state still the 800 pound gorilla. If you insist on splitting up Austria Hungary look to create some more viable successor states, keep Austria as big and multicultural as possible (let them keep Slovenia, Küstenland and Tyrol at the very least, Bohemia are likely impossible), give Czechoslovakia the entire Silesia and Lusatia, that would force the Czechs to cooperate more with Slovaks and Ruthenian to run the country to avoid being overwhelm by the Germans (in OTL the Czechs could run the show themself with 51% of the population, being forced to relay on the Slovaks could create a common identity), and Silesia make it a stronger state too. Yugoslavia wasn't really a bad idea except in hindsigth so let us keep that around, unless we can find a good reason for a Austrian-Croatian union. Beside that keep as many of the old institutions around as possible, a Habsburg Archduke if possible would be a good idea, much of the Austrian legitimicy as a separate state from the rest of Germany lays in the Habsburg monarchy.

The idea of removing the admitting war guilt, reparitions, the limits on the size of the military clauses are a quite good idea, those (especially the first and last) pissed the Germans off even more than the loss of territorium. The removal of reparitions also have the benefit that we see a more stable Weimar Republic without the enourmous loss of capital. Another clause I would push for removing was that, was to make the Rhine, Elb and Oder international territorium it wasn't just insulting it was also a continued rubbing the Germans in the face over their loss.

About Yugoslavia the Slovenians and the Croats were quite happy in the 'Austro-HUngarian Empire', furthermore they felt that Yugoslavia, was actually a greater Serbia. Not to mention catholic and orthodox differences, yes these matter, as a Dutchman I know that Protestant and Catholic differences were a huge problem in the 'United' kingdom of the Netherlands (1815-1830/1839; southern part became Belgium) and later there were other (religious) emancipation issues.

Giving 1870/1871 the German Empire will have to pay some form of reparations. Limits or better limitting growth of the miltary could be useful, but not this harsh. The big problem was the guilt clause, by now we can all say that all parties can be blamed for their part. IMHO the central powers as losers were to have been punished (that's the way it goes, they would have done the same), however the guilt clause IMHO is too much.

Finally I can only agree with your remarks about the Rhine, Elbe and Oder..
 
That depends on how much the Rhineland prove economically beneficial to FranceI don't recall any of the above actually been true Interbellum actuallyAnd this would eliminate the need to guard the Belgian border from the Germans


Fair enough, but event the worst case scenario is better than fall gelb, plus the loss of the Rhineland would naturally weaken whatever forces the Germans field

The Rhineland is Germany, this would have been a much greater insult than Alsace-Lorraine was for France; that's really asking for a rematch...

Furthermore the Netherlands, especially the harbour of Rotterdam, had and still has good economic connections with Germany. OTOH the occupation during WWII really scattered the trust of a lot of Dutchmen, however with fewer generations remembering the war this basically becomes a virtual none issue.

Well French obesession with a natural border on the Rhine, which meant conquering ethnic German regions, is one of the reasons that during the age of nationalism France was seen as a threat for Germany (from the German perspective this started when France was centralized (after the 100ys war)). IIRC that is one of the reasons for Alsace-Lorraine and reparations in 1871...
 
Last edited:
But I think a smart Versailles Treaty should focus on East Europe rather than Germany really. A major problem with OTL Versailles was that East Europe was split up in a lot of small and medium sized states, whom had revanchiest claim toward each other, with German minorities spread more or less thinly all over these states, and Germany was more less even in it weaken state still the 800 pound gorilla. If you insist on splitting up Austria Hungary look to create some more viable successor states, keep Austria as big and multicultural as possible (let them keep Slovenia, Küstenland and Tyrol at the very least, Bohemia are likely impossible), give Czechoslovakia the entire Silesia and Lusatia, that would force the Czechs to cooperate more with Slovaks and Ruthenian to run the country to avoid being overwhelm by the Germans (in OTL the Czechs could run the show themself with 51% of the population, being forced to relay on the Slovaks could create a common identity), and Silesia make it a stronger state too. Yugoslavia wasn't really a bad idea except in hindsigth so let us keep that around, unless we can find a good reason for a Austrian-Croatian union. Beside that keep as many of the old institutions around as possible, a Habsburg Archduke if possible would be a good idea, much of the Austrian legitimicy as a separate state from the rest of Germany lays in the Habsburg monarchy.

The idea of removing the admitting war guilt, reparitions, the limits on the size of the military clauses are a quite good idea, those (especially the first and last) pissed the Germans off even more than the loss of territorium. The removal of reparitions also have the benefit that we see a more stable Weimar Republic without the enourmous loss of capital. Another clause I would push for removing was that, was to make the Rhine, Elb and Oder international territorium it wasn't just insulting it was also a continued rubbing the Germans in the face over their loss.

Except that the breakup of AH and the independence of Poland were fait accomplis by the time the Paris Peace talks were in motion. Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, and Poland and independent governments in "German Austria" and Hungary already existed and already exerted authority in most of the areas they were assigned by the peace talks.

As for your suggestions, Silesia was nearly entirely German and as it was Czechoslovakia was stuffed with Germans in the Sudeten regions. Anything more would only have encouraged German revanchism even more while undermining the character and stability of the nascent Czecho-Slovak state.

The one area where there was some fluidity was the Baltic, and maybe Lithuania could have been assigned to Poland in lieu of giving them the Polish Corridor, but even that would hardly have been easy.
 
Except that the breakup of AH and the independence of Poland were fait accomplis by the time the Paris Peace talks were in motion. Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, and Poland and independent governments in "German Austria" and Hungary already existed and already exerted authority in most of the areas they were assigned by the peace talks.

As for your suggestions, Silesia was nearly entirely German and as it was Czechoslovakia was stuffed with Germans in the Sudeten regions. Anything more would only have encouraged German revanchism even more while undermining the character and stability of the nascent Czecho-Slovak state.

The one area where there was some fluidity was the Baltic, and maybe Lithuania could have been assigned to Poland in lieu of giving them the Polish Corridor, but even that would hardly have been easy.

I actually think a Poland that included Lithuania (heck, lets call it a re-incarnation of the Commonwealth) but not the Corridor, and was otherwise the same as interbellum Poland, might be a good idea. This plus a larger Hungary and Yugoslavia could provide a counterweight to German power without being utterly humiliating to Germany. It has some problems, but then again, OTL certainly did too.
 
I actually think a Poland that included Lithuania (heck, lets call it a re-incarnation of the Commonwealth) but not the Corridor, and was otherwise the same as interbellum Poland, might be a good idea. This plus a larger Hungary and Yugoslavia could provide a counterweight to German power without being utterly humiliating to Germany. It has some problems, but then again, OTL certainly did too.

Well wouldn't this make Wilson's ideals an even greater joke than IOTL? (If you reinstate Poland-Lithuania, why not keep a Austria-Hungary?)
 
I actually think a Poland that included Lithuania (heck, lets call it a re-incarnation of the Commonwealth) but not the Corridor, and was otherwise the same as interbellum Poland, might be a good idea. This plus a larger Hungary and Yugoslavia could provide a counterweight to German power without being utterly humiliating to Germany. It has some problems, but then again, OTL certainly did too.

Right, but remember that (a) the Polish Corridor actually had a Polish majority and (b) lumping Lithuania in with Poland WAS considered in real life but ran into fierce opposition from the Lithuanians, who had already set up their own government and considered the Commonwealth period to be one of Polish dominance.
 
Well wouldn't this make Wilson's ideals an even greater joke than IOTL?

With all due respect to Wilson, the man was way too much of an idealist with regard to Eastern Europe. IIRC, almost everywhere in Eastern Europe was populated by at least two or more ethnicities, who tended to shade into one another without clearly defined borders, and had previously been ruled by large, polyethnic states. Introducing the single-ethnicity nation-state into this region was, IMO, a well-intentioned mistake. Everyone's historical claims and populations overlapped each other to the point that introducing borders that would satasfy everyone was basically impossible. The result was a bunch of medium sized states that all had irredentist grievances against each other, and weren't large enough to stand up against Germany and Russia, the two 800-pound gorillas in the room. Trying to create large, viable states would, IMO, have been much better.

EDIT: And before anyone brings it up, multiethnic states exist and function under the right circumstances. Iran, for example, is only ~51% Iranian, but most of the nationalities are well represented and politics and-with the exception of Kurds and Balochis-the country has no ethnic separtist groups of any consequince.

India comes to mind as another functional multiethnic state.
 
Last edited:
Agreed, which is why a more lenient one is the only option. It might or might not work, but going the other way is a complete dead end.
Actually, it's not. The trouble was trying to "split the difference". The Allies wanted tough terms, but not crushing ones, which produced a revanchiste backlash & ultimately Nazis & WW2. Either easier terms, as proposed, or positively crushing Germany, in the fashion of Polish partition, would have been better outcomes in the long term.
For the Treaty to be less harsh with a war ending in 1918, you would need different politicians with different ideas at the head of the victorious countries (France, UK, Italy and the US).
Which suggests to me another option: not having the U.S. enter the war, & both sides declare a truce from sheer exhaustion. This means neither is victorious, & all parties are willing to be reasonable.
For the U.S., it seems relatively simple :
-Have the Lusitania not sunk. Without that much American casualties due to a German submarine (around 1,000 if I recall correctly) the U.S. would probably get less angry towards the Germans.
Honestly, I am so sick of hearing this myth. Lusitania had damn all to do with it. The sinking was a convenient cover to hide the fact the U.S. (thanks to Room 40) had read the Zimmermann Telegram....
 
Last edited:
The Rhineland IS Germany, this would have been a much greater insult than Alsace-Lorraine was for France; that's really asking for a rematch...

Isn't it all academic anyway?

The French would meet the same kind of resistance that they met OTL in the Ruhr[1], and would soon get tired of it.

Remember that, despite the Ruhr occupation achieving all its aims, the French people in 1924 threw out the government which had ordered it, putting in the one that would sign up to Locarno next year. The will to engage in such strong-arm tactics had completely evaporated. Even success couldn't make it popular.


[1] Maybe worse. Istr that the HQ of a Rhineland separatist organisation got burned down with the separatist leaders still inside - not to mention several IRA-style shootings.
 
Actually, it's not. The trouble was trying to "split the difference". The Allies wanted tough terms, but not crushing ones, which produced a revanchiste backlash & ultimately Nazis & WW2. Either easier terms, as proposed, or positively crushing Germany, in the fashion of Polish partition, would have been better outcomes in the long term.

How do you keep it partitioned? Once the Allied armies are demobilised, there is insufficient force to occupy the whole country, and repeated incursions to stop it reuniting would be hugely unpopular - note what happened to the French government which occupied the Ruhr.

Basically, Allied public opinion in 1919 wanted an impossibility - a harsh peace which would require no effort to enforce. Unsurprisingly, the attempt to get this ended in fiasco.

Which suggests to me another option: not having the U.S. enter the war, & both sides declare a truce from sheer exhaustion. This means neither is victorious, & all parties are willing to be reasonable.

Interesting, but it depends on both sides becoming exhausted at the same time, and it is not in the nature of things to work out so conveniently. In practice, one side or the other will get exhausted first, and the other will dictate terms. Judging from how close-run 1918 was even OTL, with the Allies getting huge financial aid (far more important than the purely military contribution) from the US, the CP pretty certainly win.


Honestly, I am so sick of hearing this myth. Lusitania had damn all to do with it. The sinking was a convenient cover to hide the fact the U.S. (thanks to Room 40) had read the Zimmermann Telegram....

Actually the sinking wasn't a cover for anything - though of course it made great propaganda. It was ancient history by the time the ZT came along two years later.

OTOH there were several sinkings of American ships (the Lusitania had been British) in March 1917, which, coming right after the publication of the ZT, probably removed any remaining hesitations about going to war.
 
Isn't it all academic anyway?

The French would meet the same kind of resistance that they met OTL in the Ruhr[1], and would soon get tired of it.

Remember that, despite the Ruhr occupation achieving all its aims, the French people in 1924 threw out the government which had ordered it, putting in the one that would sign up to Locarno next year. The will to engage in such strong-arm tactics had completely evaporated. Even success couldn't make it popular.


[1] Maybe worse. Istr that the HQ of a Rhineland separatist organisation got burned down with the separatist leaders still inside - not to mention several IRA-style shootings.

I agree, but I would go with worse resistance, because now 9 million Germans would have been made a part of the French Republic against their will...

Secondly, the Rhineland is not like the parts Germany lost IOTL, most of those regions had a mixed ethnicity, in contrast the Rhineland is ethnically German (btw that is why I wrote: Rhineland IS Germany). It would have caused much greater revanchist feelings. Furthermore it would increase the OTL feeling that they were treated undeservingly harsh.
 
How do you keep it partitioned?
I haven't the faintest notion. I wasn't proposing it. It was, however, proposed as the preferred solution.
Actually the sinking wasn't a cover for anything - though of course it made great propaganda.
"Cover' perhaps not the best word. Pretext. Excuse. And the fact it keeps coming up as the real reason, when anyone who knows anything about it knows better.
 
Top