WI: Successful Kapp Putsch crushed by France

BigBlueBox

Banned
Let's say that the Kapp putsch or some similar military overthrow of the Weimar regime in 1920 was successful, and the new military regime repudiates the Treaty of Versailles and refuses to pay reparations or abide by the disarmament clauses. The new regime thinks they can do for Germany what Ataturk is doing for Turkey, but their attempt instead results in a Franco-Belgian invasion of Germany that sees the French and Belgiums in Berlin by the end of 1921. Poland has also taken the rest of Upper Silesia, as well as Warmia and Masuria. Due to an incredible amount of foresight, the French come to the following realizations:

  1. France cannot force Germany to pay reparations without occupying Germany
  2. France cannot occupy Germany forever
  3. Once France stops occupying Germany the Germans will eventually begin to re-arm, and France might not be able to stop them
Because of these realizations, the French decide to replace the monetary reparations with territorial compensation, and don't bother trying to enforce disarmament due to the belief that if Germany loses enough territory its economy will be too weak to support an army that can challenge France.

So let's say that the French set up a puppet Rhenish Republic that includes the Ruhr, and either annexes the Saarland directly or gives it to the Rhenish protectorate. France doesn't directly force reparations out of the Rhineland, but binds it to France economically in a way that ensures wealth will flow out of the Rhineland and into France. Does losing its best industrial zone cripple Germany to the extent that it could never challenge France again?

Also, how plausible would it be that the French supported an independent Bavaria? Since France can't occupy Bavaria, Bavaria would only stay independent if the locals continued to support independence. Would they? Or would the call of Pan-German nationalism prove too great?

I don't think Germany without Bavaria could pose a threat to France with the Rhineland at all. But could it head east? Geography would make it very difficult for Germany to threaten Czechoslovakia without retaking Bavaria at the very least or even Austria. But what about Poland? If France was for some reason unable or unwilling to intervene, how well would a Germany without Bavaria or the Rhineland fare against a Poland with Upper Silesia, Warmia, and Masuria?
 
France cannot crush Germany at this point.

In 1921 after Germany has just been disarmed from Versailles? Like look man I get that the French military became a clown fiesta by the time of WWII so you might have a poor opinion of them, but how would it be physically possible for them to lose to an army of 100,000 men? They're guaranteed to steamroll to the Rhine within a week and after that it's still smooth sailing to Berlin unless Germany pulls some insane remobilization speed off.

Obligatory edit following discussion in this thread: okay, maybe they wouldn't have the "smooth sailing to Berlin" part.
 
Last edited:
Also to actually reply to the post I can't really see Germany recovering from losing Rhine-Ruhr and Upper Silesia if France is willing to put in enough troops to prop up the Rhenish Republic and keep anyone clamoring for reunification at bay. Just losing the Rhine is like a what, ~15-20% reduction in the population available to Germany and a 25% reduction to industry available to Germany? This combined with the loss of Upper Silesia means Germany has lost something like 30% of its industry and this lost industry made partially available to France. Combined with the fact France is now sitting on the east bank of the Rhine ready to walk into Germany means Germany will never be able to do anything ever because France is sitting there staring at it daring to do anything whatsoever. If France decides to separate Bavaria it's just total overkill honestly, since at that point metropolitan France probably has around the same population as Germany.

Assuming France isn't so pacifist as to let go of its hard won Rhenish protectorate, even if they absolutely fumble the entire next 15-20 years of diplomatic/military development they still win any future European war against Germany since you can't really outflank the Rhine, and assuming Germany goes for the same sort of "rapidly destroy our economy by funneling everything into military buildup and hopefully fix this later by plundering the financial reserves of the countries we conquer" strategy they only get a limited time to rearm.

Only thing I could see going wrong is the US/UK being opposed to a French protectorate in Europe, though whether or not they'd intervene to stop it from happening is questionable. Though of course, France being so politically clusterfucked they give up the Rhine for free within a few years is also possible (albeit unlikely), but even then these years of missing German industry might butterfly away the success they saw in 1940.
 

Deleted member 94680

This Rhenish Republic of yours would need to be occupied to the point of being, for all intents and purposes, part of France. Otherwise, they’d simply unify with Germany the minute the French troops leave.

Also, this scenario makes France the aggressor inasmuch they cross the border to carry out the ‘smooth sailing’ to Berlin. Which it wouldn’t be, by the way.

The suggestion that the Rhenish Republic would happily let its wealth ‘flow to France’ instead of supporting Germany is suspect as well.

FWIW, the “100,000 man army” is a paper figure as well as the existence of various Freikorps, militias, “Black Reichswehr” units and various other organisations attest.
 
This Rhenish Republic of yours would need to be occupied to the point of being, for all intents and purposes, part of France. Otherwise, they’d simply unify with Germany the minute the French troops leave.
This is of course true. What is debatable is the extent to which the occupation has to go. I doubt there would be risk of any significant revolt so long as French troops are present, to say the least.

Also, this scenario makes France the aggressor inasmuch they cross the border to carry out the ‘smooth sailing’ to Berlin. Which it wouldn’t be, by the way.
Especially with Belgium and Poland joining in on (at least part of) the conflict I fail to see what would stop the French from getting there. Maybe "smooth sailing" is an exaggeration, but I'd be hard pressed to believe the war would last much longer than a year or be particularly casualty-heavy for the French.

The suggestion that the Rhenish Republic would happily let its wealth ‘flow to France’ instead of supporting Germany is suspect as well.
I don't think it's suggested that it's a choice, though I might be misinterpreting this. My understanding is the Rhenish Republic is being turned into what amounts to a protectorate, which would require significant military investment of course, but given that it's giving France access to the Rhine I'd be surprised if they didn't put in this investment.

FWIW, the “100,000 man army” is a paper figure as well as the existence of various Freikorps, militias, “Black Reichswehr” units and various other organisations attest.
Again true, but how effective relatively disorganized militias would be against the actual French army is questionable. I'm also not sure how many people were actually enlisted in these units, but from a brief wiki-skimming I think the number is <100,000 by a significant margin. So at best Germany can immediately field a maybe ~175,000 man army? I might be totally wrong here though so correct me if I am.
 
Let's the invasion happens as foreseen: France, Belgium and Poland jointly occupy Germany. German Army could not stop them but Freikorps quickly turn in violent resistance movements. For French the Kapp Coup proves that Germany'll not accept disarm and that all treaties that a German civil goverment could sign will not be accepted by militaries. It's clear, especially with Freikorps bombs everywhere, that Germany is too large and too populated to be occupied forever. It's clear too that every partition of Germany in littler states, as originally France planned in 1914, will finish the second after French retirement. So the only solution I can see is a sort of French Morgenthau Plan:
- France and Belgium take Left Side of Rhine, then they'll concentrate all their forces to make this river a wall between them and Germans. Maginot Line, I suppose.
- Poland could take every territory it wants to East of Oder but Soviets are coming and could be hard face revolting Germans and advancing Soviets together.
- all heavy industries, steel, iron, metallurgy, siderurgy, cars, all industrial center are disbanded or destroyed. Bridges and airports are demolished, population forced to return in countryside. A famine could quickly develop in Germany.

At the end French leaves Germany but it returned to an agricultural state and it will take decades before Germans will be able to put together an economy and an industry and an army strong enough to threat French.
 
Let's the invasion happens as foreseen: France, Belgium and Poland jointly occupy Germany. German Army could not stop them but Freikorps quickly turn in violent resistance movements. For French the Kapp Coup proves that Germany'll not accept disarm and that all treaties that a German civil goverment could sign will not be accepted by militaries. It's clear, especially with Freikorps bombs everywhere, that Germany is too large and too populated to be occupied forever. It's clear too that every partition of Germany in littler states, as originally France planned in 1914, will finish the second after French retirement. So the only solution I can see is a sort of French Morgenthau Plan:
- France and Belgium take Left Side of Rhine, then they'll concentrate all their forces to make this river a wall between them and Germans. Maginot Line, I suppose.
- Poland could take every territory it wants to East of Oder but Soviets are coming and could be hard face revolting Germans and advancing Soviets together.
- all heavy industries, steel, iron, metallurgy, siderurgy, cars, all industrial center are disbanded or destroyed. Bridges and airports are demolished, population forced to return in countryside. A famine could quickly develop in Germany.

At the end French leaves Germany but it returned to an agricultural state and it will take decades before Germans will be able to put together an economy and an industry and an army strong enough to threat French.

And promptly turn France into the most hated country on the planet. Both the US and UK would see this as going way too far, particularly when photos of starving Germans hit every newspaper in the US and UK.

The Germans are the largest ethnic group in the US even now https://www.worldatlas.com/articles...s-and-nationalities-in-the-united-states.html . Are they going to be happy that their people are starving in peacetime because of France? Wartime is another matter but by that time the war is over and the French would look bloodthirsty and extremely vindictive if Germans starve because of French policies.
 
Yep, but then what? British starved Boers, Turkey massacred Armenians, Japan do the same with Chinese and Russians invented Pogroms but alliances were made and keep without any problem. US and UK are not going to declare war to France for that. They could protest, sure. They could also break the Anglo-French Alliance but with Soviets moving quickly toward Central Europe France, with its fundamental assistance to Poland and its troops in Germany, is the only nation that could stop them. They could use war debts to put pressure on French Goverment but if they put too much and break France could decide to not paying nothing anymore, a move that could lead to US banking collapse. Maybe US could decide to reduce German debts (but they can't really eliminate them if they don't want pay debts for themselves) and put higher interest on French debts but France could sell French Indochina, as they proposed IOTL. France could use "They break Versailles, they had a radical militar dictatorship that was going to attack us for revenge, it was necessary to assure Europe a durable peace" excuse and many will be ready to believe it. After France retires from Germany and some radical goverment take power here, many will think "Thank God they have not weapons" and France "Not God, thank me".
 

BigBlueBox

Banned
Yep, but then what? British starved Boers, Turkey massacred Armenians, Japan do the same with Chinese and Russians invented Pogroms but alliances were made and keep without any problem. US and UK are not going to declare war to France for that. They could protest, sure. They could also break the Anglo-French Alliance but with Soviets moving quickly toward Central Europe France, with its fundamental assistance to Poland and its troops in Germany, is the only nation that could stop them. They could use war debts to put pressure on French Goverment but if they put too much and break France could decide to not paying nothing anymore, a move that could lead to US banking collapse. Maybe US could decide to reduce German debts (but they can't really eliminate them if they don't want pay debts for themselves) and put higher interest on French debts but France could sell French Indochina, as they proposed IOTL. France could use "They break Versailles, they had a radical militar dictatorship that was going to attack us for revenge, it was necessary to assure Europe a durable peace" excuse and many will be ready to believe it. After France retires from Germany and some radical goverment take power here, many will think "Thank God they have not weapons" and France "Not God, thank me".
I agree. If the Germans tear the Versailles Treaty treaty to shreds a year after signing it, I think the international community will let France have a free hand in keeping the Germans down.
 
I agree. If the Germans tear the Versailles Treaty treaty to shreds a year after signing it, I think the international community will let France have a free hand in keeping the Germans down.
The UK is not going to allow France to own all of Western Europe, period.

The UK was willing to enter ww1. Simply because allowing Germany to slightly subvert Belgium's sovereignty, by marching though it ( the Germans had no plans to annex Belgium). Was considered too far of a shift in Western Europe's balance of power.

Now your telling me that Britain is going to just shrug its shoulders. Over France Annexing the Rheinland (a piece of land larger and more valuable than Belgium is) putting Belgium and Cezhsolakia into a perpetual alliance and partitioning the rest of Germany on top of that?
 

BigBlueBox

Banned
The UK is not going to allow France to own all of Western Europe, period.

The UK was willing to enter ww1. Simply because allowing Germany to slightly subvert Belgium's sovereignty, by marching though it ( the Germans had no plans to annex Belgium). Was considered too far of a shift in Western Europe's balance of power.

Now your telling me that Britain is going to just shrug its shoulders. Over France Annexing the Rheinland (a piece of land larger and more valuable than Belgium is) putting Belgium and Cezhsolakia into a perpetual alliance and partitioning the rest of Germany on top of that?
So launching a war of aggression against Belgium and ripping apart the Treaty of London is just "slightly subverting Belgium's sovereignty"? It's ridiculous to think that because they had no plans to annex Belgium in 1914 means that they wouldn't be puppeting or annexing Belgium at the end of the war if they had won. The British public will cheer on the French for teaching the Germans a lesson for breaking the ToV. British politicians tried to let Germany off easy at the ToV, but with the Germans themselves rejecting that they won't be helping Germany again. At most they'll just ask the French to "show restraint", but they'll accept whatever the French do as a fait accompli.
 
So launching a war of aggression against Belgium and ripping apart the Treaty of London is just "slightly subverting Belgium's sovereignty"? It's ridiculous to think that because they had no plans to annex Belgium in 1914 means that they wouldn't be puppeting or annexing Belgium at the end of the war if they had won. The British public will cheer on the French for teaching the Germans a lesson for breaking the ToV. British politicians tried to let Germany off easy at the ToV, but with the Germans themselves rejecting that they won't be helping Germany again. At most they'll just ask the French to "show restraint", but they'll accept whatever the French do as a fait accompli.
If The British statesman have to choose between following the TOV and France ruling over continental Western Europe.

The British state will choose to Abaddon the Treaty. Their OTL actions prove this, that the British elite care far more about preserving the status quo than they do about Germany being a future threat against France.
 

BigBlueBox

Banned
If The British statesman have to choose between following the TOV and France ruling over continental Western Europe.

The British state will choose to Abaddon the Treaty. Their OTL actions prove this, that the British elite care far more about preserving the status quo than they do about Germany being a future threat against France.
Except British politicians won’t get to choose anything. France won’t be asking the UK for permission. Any British politician who suggests war against France to help Germany will be lynched by his own constituents.
 
I agree, what Lloyd George could do? Starting a Second World War Two years after the first? People were so sick and tired of fighting who pushed loudly to retire troops for Russia although all anti-communist propaganda. And for what? For saving Germans, a people who started a world war then signed a treaty promising peace only to form a militar dictatorship and threat a new war? France could play the victim's role and many will be ready to believe it. I remember crowds chanting "Hang the Huns! Hang the Kaiser!" while British diplomats departed for Versailles. The British position during the Chanak Crisis in 1922 seems be very clear: George and Churchill were ready for a war with Turkey but public opinion, Commonwealth, all other European nations, generals and Conservatives refused to back this. Conservative Party preferred breaking the coalition and then winning the ensuing election that support warmongering position of Prime Minister. Also London proposed quickly a mediation when French invaded Ruhr and I can bet that would happen the same. Surely that will change British foreign policy and British relationship with France but that will not change French actions.
 
er a ToV to scapegoat.This Kapp Putsch pretty much waives away any foundation for sympathy and support for Germany in the 1920s. By 1925 a lot of Americans, British, italians.. saw the flaws in the ToV & no longer saw the relatively weak German republic as a threat. With a early revival of German militarism & aggression that sympathy does not develop, and there is no longer a ToV to scapegoat.

Also to actually reply to the post I can't really see Germany recovering from losing Rhine-Ruhr and Upper Silesia if France is willing to put in enough troops to prop up the Rhenish Republic and keep anyone clamoring for reunification at bay. Just losing the Rhine is like a what, ~15-20% reduction in the population available to Germany and a 25% reduction to industry available to Germany? This combined with the loss of Upper Silesia means Germany has lost something like 30% of its industry ...

Closer to 40% of Germanies industry un the Ruhr region. Add in Silesia & you are way past half of the industrial base.

...
FWIW, the “100,000 man army” is a paper figure as well as the existence of various Freikorps, militias, “Black Reichswehr” units and various other organisations attest.

... Again true, but how effective relatively disorganized militias would be against the actual French army is questionable. I'm also not sure how many people were actually enlisted in these units, but from a brief wiki-skimming I think the number is <100,000 by a significant margin. So at best Germany can immediately field a maybe ~175,000 man army? I might be totally wrong here though so correct me if I am.

Assorted foreign intelligence services estimated the Black Reichwehr far higher. Some of the numbers that pop up in the histories of interwar Europe or Germany peg it as anywhere from 300,000 to one million. Dr Klien-Albrandht taught 20th Century European history at Purdue Unniversity mid to latter 20th Century. He had examined this question directly in the 1960s, culling through assorted German & European sources, and interviewing a couple of former Reichwehr senior officers. His estimate came to 500,000 trained men minimum.

First there was the Reichwehr allowed by the ToV, 100,000 men. By 1924 that was in theory set, but Kline-Albrandt found good evidence the muster was padded with extras, another five or ten thousand minimum.

2. The Reichswehr had moved its staff and supporting functions to the 'civilian' war dept. That is the uniformed men were all in combat units. The bulk of the supporting units were trained soldiers, often war veterans in civilian clothes, & paid by a civilian agency. They all understood were Germany invaded they'd instantly be back in uniform. On of the officers K-A interviewed explained this support organization was aimed towards supporting a target of half a million men. Far more than the 100,000 of the Reichswehr.

3. The Reichswehr was prohibited a organized reserve. This was neatly sidestepped by the Weinmar government funding Police reserve or Auxilliary units in every city. Technically these wee part time policemen to be called up for emergencies, natural disasters, riots, ect... & they did function that way. But K-A found confirmation these were well armed with military weapons, the K98, machine guns, and mortars. Most towns had one of these police reserve battalions and larger cities usually had several. This hidden reserve constituted the bulk of the Black Reichswehr. Armed as infantry, continuing training, and very heavy with combat veterans.

4. Sports clubs, veterans organizations, & residual free corps type groups. K-A tended to dismiss this lot. Stale training, political agendas, uneven leadership & discipline. My take is at best this group represented a pool for individual augmentation and casualty replacements. This not directly incorporated into the army would be a deadly annoyance to a invader, but no more than a annoyance.

5. By 1925 the Entente had effectively disarmed Germany of its heavy weapons. A few remained, but the 100,000 Reichwehr was limited to light artillery for seven inf div & one cavalry div. No corps heavy cannon. Communications equipment was problematic for additional divisions, training included using the civilian telephone and radio for military communications. Transportation could be requisitioned from the civilian sector. Exactly what was organized in numbers K-A did not mention.

The weakness of the Black Reichwehr was in artillery & communications. The companies of the Reichwehr were trained and organized to be turned into command and staff elements for larger formations, that is the captains and majors commanding them were trained as Lt Cols or Colonels, so with a few days or weeks each regiment could be turned into a new division or corps, using the police reserves and individual volunteers. However as noted here such formations would be very thinly provided with artillery.

Of course all five items above apply to post 1924. The Kapp Putsch came earlier, in March 1920. While the Rechwehr was reduced it was still out of compliance with the 100,000 mark, the FreeKorps were still a thing, the artillery & other military equipment was not yet fully confiscated. Much was still in Germany, parked in poorly guarded depots. Finally & perhaps most important is the several million war veterans were still fresh from combat, most still fit for service, and the majority relatively easily motivated to defend the homeland. Klein-Albrandt estimated filed armies totaling far above 500,000 could have been stood up in 1919 or 1920. Better equipped if not as well organized as in the Reichwehr of a few years later.
 

Deleted member 94680

I think in this scenario the French will have their hands more than full establishing the “Rhenish Republic”, which has more than a possibility of turning into an “European Vietnam” for France 35 years ahead of schedule
 
In 1921 after Germany has just been disarmed from Versailles? Like look man I get that the French military became a clown fiesta by the time of WWII so you might have a poor opinion of them, but how would it be physically possible for them to lose to an army of 100,000 men? They're guaranteed to steamroll to the Rhine within a week and after that it's still smooth sailing to Berlin unless Germany pulls some insane remobilization speed off.

It was not meant to be any sort of a dig at France, but rather a statement of the military situation that existed at the time. The Kapp Putsch occurred in early 1920, prior to the implementation of the Treaty of Versailles, by which point the blockade was over and the Americans had firmly withdrawn from the continent for the most part. More importantly, Germany still had under arms 400,000 men on the official roles and at least that many in the Freikorps.

Paris 1919: Six Months That Changed The World, Pg 159:
And the Allied forces were shrinking were shrinking. In November 1918, there were 198 Allied Divisions; by June 1919, only 39 remained. And could they be relied upon? There was little enthusiasm for renewed fighting. Allied demobilization had been hastened by protests, occasionally outright mutiny. On the home fronts, there was a longing for peace, and lower taxes. The French were particularly insistent on the need to make peace while the Allies could still dictate terms.

MacMillan, further down on that same page, further notes that:

While his pessimism was premature, it is true by the spring of 1919 Allied commanders were increasingly doubtful about their ability to successfully wage war on Germany. The German Army had been defeated on the battlefield, but its command structure, along with hundreds of thousands of trained men, had survived. There were 75 Million Germans and only 40 million French, as Foch kept repeating. And the German people, Allied observers noticed, were opposed to signing a harsh peace. Who knew what resistance there would be as Allied armies moved farther and farther into the country? They would face, warned the military experts, a sullen population, perhaps strikes, even gunfire. It was very unlikely the Allies could get as far as Berlin.

If that last one sounds like hyperbole, it's literally what happened in 1923 when the French resumed the occupation of the Rhineland and then gave up on it after a matter of months due to the issues noted; France wanted peace and did not think highly of its propsects for dictating to the Germans by itself as far back as late 1918.
 
TIL before Versailles was fully implemented Germany was still pretty strong. So I'm totally wrong about that.

I guess there's no way to really get to Berlin in the face of this, though I'd still be surprised if they can't push to the west bank of the Rhine. Whether or not they could hold it in the sense of "getting the Germans to admit that they've lost it" is questionable, but assuming for some reason the Germans lose the will then they'll almost certainly lose any future conflict with France. But with France only on the west bank I could definitely see somewhat aggressive foreign policy by the Germans later on, since crossing a Rhine that's undoubtedly been fortified on both sides is probably no easy task.
 
TIL before Versailles was fully implemented Germany was still pretty strong. So I'm totally wrong about that.

I guess there's no way to really get to Berlin in the face of this, though I'd still be surprised if they can't push to the west bank of the Rhine. Whether or not they could hold it in the sense of "getting the Germans to admit that they've lost it" is questionable, but assuming for some reason the Germans lose the will then they'll almost certainly lose any future conflict with France. But with France only on the west bank I could definitely see somewhat aggressive foreign policy by the Germans later on, since crossing a Rhine that's undoubtedly been fortified on both sides is probably no easy task.

If they take the West Bank of the Rhine, they'll be out of it within a year; they tried the same tactic in 1923 to force compliance on reparations but it proved untenable even in the face of just civilian resistance.
 
Top