WI: Successful Kapp Putsch crushed by France

I've often wondered why the allies didn't break Germany up completely at Versailles.

It wasn't like other empires weren't being broken up, was it? The Ottoman Empire - gone. Austo-Hungarian Empire - gone. Russian Empire - goneish.

"Germany" had only been an empire for less than 50 years. For centuries Germany was a collection of smaller kingdoms, principalities, duchies and electorates. The lines were there to recreate some of those older states - Prussia, Bavaria, Hannover, Westphalia, Baden, Saxony and so on. Keep the governments separate and forbid them from re-uniting.

The reality is, although Germany was forced OTL to pay heavy reparations and limit it's armed forces, it was still left as a larger and economically and industrially more powerful nation than France. It was the diplomatic equivalent of tying Germany's hands behind it's back and hoping it will never be able to slip the rope.
 
To digress; I wonder if the Communists, or any others would have actively opposed a revanchist Kapp regime, taking Germany to another war?
They did. Which is one reason why the Putsch failed.
If the OP states that the Coup succeeds, then by definition the Left has lost somehow, so the most you could hope for would be Sabotage and destabilisation.
 
I've often wondered why the allies didn't break Germany up completely at Versailles.

It wasn't like other empires weren't being broken up, was it? The Ottoman Empire - gone. Austo-Hungarian Empire - gone. Russian Empire - goneish.

None of those were broken up by peace treaty, though. The Austro-Hungarian Empire was de facto dissolved by the time of St. Germain, the Russian Empire was of course not broken up by the Entente-and-Co., and if I recall correctly, the Ottoman Empire wasn't 'broken up completely', either.

You're also making the mistake of lumping all of the parties on one side of the table together. If you see it as one beast with however-many heads, the actions of the Allied Hydra seem ridiculous - but when taken as a number of nations with non-identical interests, political goals, and so on? Of course the French and Belgians will push for heavy reparations, the Americans will be worried about anything that interferes with business, the Italians will have their focus on Germany's allies, etc. and they won't push for the same outcome, especially when domestic political pressure is taken into consideration.

---

Regarding the question of the OP, I'd bring up two things that don't seem to have come up elsewhere in the thread, yet:

Firstly, the Putsch was hamstrung by opposition in the administration even more than by the strike. You can organize politically reliable student brigades and so on to keep the street cars and utilities running if need be, but good luck replacing the Verwaltung. If the Putsch can convince the administration that they are an actual, legal government, and organize political support, then they have tools to actually take action with, which they lacked historically (to the point where they couldn't even pay the Freikorps men who were set up in Berlin what they had promised).

Secondly, it seems like the easiest angle for both internal opposition to the Putsch, and for external forces worried about Prussian Militarism 2: Bride of the Kaiserreich, would be to simply not acknowledge the coup government. I think it would be an easier case to make - the moderate German republicans, the legal government, have been kicked out by radical militarists, let's reinstate them (especially if they ask for help) and ensure compliance with the treaty and peace etc.; this'd rule out some of the wilder suggestions (though I doubt Poland could do much of anything to secure majority-German parts of Silesia while they're already fighting in the east anyways) as well, sidestepping the whole matter of whether France could occupy X or split off Y and how angry it would make London and Washington DC, etc.
 
None of those were broken up by peace treaty, though. The Austro-Hungarian Empire was de facto dissolved by the time of St. Germain, the Russian Empire was of course not broken up by the Entente-and-Co., and if I recall correctly, the Ottoman Empire wasn't 'broken up completely', either.

You're also making the mistake of lumping all of the parties on one side of the table together. If you see it as one beast with however-many heads, the actions of the Allied Hydra seem ridiculous - but when taken as a number of nations with non-identical interests, political goals, and so on? Of course the French and Belgians will push for heavy reparations, the Americans will be worried about anything that interferes with business, the Italians will have their focus on Germany's allies, etc. and they won't push for the same outcome, especially when domestic political pressure is taken into consideration.
Yes, but all that highlights is why Germany wasn't broken up, but not why it couldn't.

For all the rights and wrongs of Versaille, not enough thought was given to stopping a future revanchist war waged by Germany, save artificially keeping it's armed forces small. This was never going to be a long term solution.
 
As for the OP:
Regarding the question of the OP, I'd bring up two things that don't seem to have come up elsewhere in the thread, yet:

Firstly, the Putsch was hamstrung by opposition in the administration even more than by the strike. You can organize politically reliable student brigades and so on to keep the street cars and utilities running if need be, but good luck replacing the Verwaltung. If the Putsch can convince the administration that they are an actual, legal government, and organize political support, then they have tools to actually take action with, which they lacked historically (to the point where they couldn't even pay the Freikorps men who were set up in Berlin what they had promised).

Secondly, it seems like the easiest angle for both internal opposition to the Putsch, and for external forces worried about Prussian Militarism 2: Bride of the Kaiserreich, would be to simply not acknowledge the coup government. I think it would be an easier case to make - the moderate German republicans, the legal government, have been kicked out by radical militarists, let's reinstate them (especially if they ask for help) and ensure compliance with the treaty and peace etc.; this'd rule out some of the wilder suggestions (though I doubt Poland could do much of anything to secure majority-German parts of Silesia while they're already fighting in the east anyways) as well, sidestepping the whole matter of whether France could occupy X or split off Y and how angry it would make London and Washington DC, etc.
Basically. You'd have an externally-supported counter-coup most likely. If not, it certainly won't the the divide-and-conquer suggested in the OP (and the thread has proven infeasible due to both internal and external factors). Maybe even someone in the Entente will wise up and cotton on to the fact that a stable government needs to be respected. And start paying some respect to the german republicans instead of "payera tous".
I read Wikipedia a bit more and apparently the French occupation of the Rhine was actually quite profitable:

"According to Sally Marks, the occupation of the Ruhr 'was profitable and caused neither the German hyperinflation, which began in 1922 and ballooned because of German responses to the Ruhr occupation, nor the franc's 1924 collapse, which arose from French financial practices and the evaporation of reparations'. Marks suggests the profits, after Ruhr-Rhineland occupation costs, were nearly 900 million gold marks."
Marks...not really, no. I wouldn't count her as an unbiased source - after reading her "The myth of reparations" and about her, she is at least an entente apologist if not outright anti-german (The main charge for this point is that she tends to assume deliberate action absent proof of such by the germans. May be some sort of iteration of "its the germans - they don't do things not deliberately). Mind you, the source is from '78 (which means it is still pre-reconsideration of the Entente actions and reconsideration of Fischer) - I couldn't find any other sources for her claim. Do you have some?

Also, this begs the question why the occupation was not resumed when possible? The Young-Plan was only 100 million more...
Unrelated to that, the assertion that a French-backed Rhenish Republic would become a European Vietnam seems questionable to me. It's not like Germany was in a particularly good position at this point either, so as long as France lets the Rhine stay relatively economically and politically independent I don't see where the political will to destroy developed, well-off European cities just to get the French out comes from. As per usual I might just be totally wrong though.
Yes, you got it wrong. The deciding factor would not be the pull-factor (i.e. Germany wants Rhineland) but the push-factor (i.e. Rheinland wants Germany). Its a bit like the OTL Anschluss, the first thing Austria decided on after proclaiming its statehood was to ratify that it wants to join Germany.
The political will to destroy "developed, well-off European cities" in this case comes entirely from the French. They could just let the Rhineland return to Germany. No destruction neccessary.
Although, we had a few iterations of the "independent Rhineland" idea (all propped up/perpetrated by the French). I don't think you want to go down the road of "if it happens to the germans its ok".
I don't think anyone actually suggested that the UK would openly back France in such a conflict, just that they wouldn't go out of their way to prevent France from doing whatever it does in such a conflict.
There were a lot of "hint, hint" posts on the especially first page that could be interpreted that way. Also, as the USA taught us in WWII, there is neutrality and "neutrality". For example this:
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've often wondered why the allies didn't break Germany up completely at Versailles.

It wasn't like other empires weren't being broken up, was it? The Ottoman Empire - gone. Austo-Hungarian Empire - gone. Russian Empire - goneish.

"Germany" had only been an empire for less than 50 years. For centuries Germany was a collection of smaller kingdoms, principalities, duchies and electorates. The lines were there to recreate some of those older states - Prussia, Bavaria, Hannover, Westphalia, Baden, Saxony and so on. Keep the governments separate and forbid them from re-uniting.

The reality is, although Germany was forced OTL to pay heavy reparations and limit it's armed forces, it was still left as a larger and economically and industrially more powerful nation than France. It was the diplomatic equivalent of tying Germany's hands behind it's back and hoping it will never be able to slip the rope.

It isn't as simple as that.

For one thing while Germany was beaten down in WW1, it wasn't totally prostrate as they would be after WW2. If the Entene declared Germany would be wiped from the map, it would re-ignite the war. That is a war the Allies could win, of course, but there was no stomach for further fighting, even to cement peace terms. Look at the failure of the Allies to back up their treaties in Eastern Europe and the Middle East for example. Re-invading Germany was simply not on the table.

But even more critically, there was no appetite to dis-member Germany anyway. The United States would never go for it, Wilson would never agree to divy up a European power with obvious ethnic lines, it runs entirely contrary to his ideals. The United Kingdom would be highly reluctant to remove Germany as a possible bulwark against Russian Communism (or even a strong France). Only in France itself would you see support for this, but even there it is unlikely. Even the French understood the limitations they had.

Breaking up Germany was never really on the table.
 
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.
France owes substantial debts to Britain.
 

longsword14

Banned
Germany" had only been an empire for less than 50 years. For centuries Germany was a collection of smaller kingdoms, principalities, duchies and electorates. The lines were there to recreate some of those older states - Prussia, Bavaria, Hannover, Westphalia, Baden, Saxony and so on. Keep the governments separate and forbid them from re-uniting.
WW1 and the subsequest revolution proved this to be false.
Each state fought on from the beginning until the last offensive.
Not so sure about that. If France manages to wreck Germany to an extent that would make General Sherman proud, Bavarians might be happy to not be a part of the broken Germany that remains.
If in OTL American and British reaction was negative, then this would definitely get France diplomatically badly burnt.
You could try and hand waive it away, but that is not realistically happening.

As for Sherman, only Americans think that Sherman did a lot of damage. By the standard of wars around the world Sherman was positively mild.
Germany has brazenly provoked French intervention. Passive support of France by the US and UK is implied.
Not it does not, and implicit US and UK support for a blank cheque won't show up.
 
Last edited:
Yes, but all that highlights is why Germany wasn't broken up, but not why it couldn't.

For all the rights and wrongs of Versaille, not enough thought was given to stopping a future revanchist war waged by Germany, save artificially keeping it's armed forces small. This was never going to be a long term solution.

In addition to what @The Tai-Pan said:

A revanchist war by Germany is far from inevitable, though. The rise of the Nazis, far from a given, and no one but an aggressive ideological regime is going to pull the kind of massive gamble Hitler&Co pulled historically - and without that kind of gamble, Germany isn't the kind of potential-show-stopping threat it ended up being. Even though I'd agree the treaty undermined the new republic, and that a democratic republic in Germany would be a major guarantor of peace in Europe, I wouldn't say "it didn't gut Germany's military power forever" is a major flaw.

Then there's the fact that the only major accomplishment of dismantling Germany would be to ensure that they're very angry when they inevitably reunify. Because breaking Germany apart would only stick for as long as sufficient external pressure could be applied, and that is something that will probably fall off very rapidly. It's basically taking one of the major issues of Versailles and ballooning it beyond belief - "Each and every government that follows this one will be totally willing to go all-in on enforcing this treaty and not budge on the terms we decided on" wasn't even true for something as simple as getting Germany to pay reparations, it would be a disaster to expect absolute continuity of policy for "dismantle and forcefully split up Germany for the foreseeable future", especially when other matters (such as actually getting reparations for the damage done in the war) will be hurt by it.
 
I think this discussion has skipped over an interesting part of this divergence, namely, how did the putsch succeed? It's hard to just butterfly away a twelve million man general strike.

After spending some more time to think about it, the only way I can see the putsch succeeding is via French intervention:
  1. The putsch moves a little quicker, gets lucky, and captures the existing government.
  2. With nobody to call for a strike, opposition to the putsch remains disorganized for a critical week or two.
  3. Some French military leader utters the contemporary French equivalent of "fuck it, I'm going in" ("Allons-y!"?) and starts marching towards Berlin.
  4. The populace rallies behind the putsch government in response.
Like others, I'm having trouble envisioning how you get from there to having France crush all resistance and partition the country.
 
After spending some more time to think about it, the only way I can see the putsch succeeding is via French intervention:
  1. The putsch moves a little quicker, gets lucky, and captures the existing government.
  2. With nobody to call for a strike, opposition to the putsch remains disorganized for a critical week or two.
  3. Some French military leader utters the contemporary French equivalent of "fuck it, I'm going in" ("Allons-y!"?) and starts marching towards Berlin.
  4. The populace rallies behind the putsch government in response.
Like others, I'm having trouble envisioning how you get from there to having France crush all resistance and partition the country.

It seems like the operating assumption is that Germany repudiating the TOV by itself will be enough to engender 1945-level attitudes where almost anything to solve the German question once and for all at least saw consideration.
 
It seems like the operating assumption is that Germany repudiating the TOV by itself will be enough to engender 1945-level attitudes where almost anything to solve the German question once and for all at least saw consideration.
There are entirely too many people who think Morgenthau was right. And not a genocidal, counterproductive fuckwit. As for
After spending some more time to think about it, the only way I can see the putsch succeeding is via French intervention:
  1. The putsch moves a little quicker, gets lucky, and captures the existing government.
  2. With nobody to call for a strike, opposition to the putsch remains disorganized for a critical week or two.
  3. Some French military leader utters the contemporary French equivalent of "fuck it, I'm going in" ("Allons-y!"?) and starts marching towards Berlin.
  4. The populace rallies behind the putsch government in response.
Like others, I'm having trouble envisioning how you get from there to having France crush all resistance and partition the country.
Never ever underestimate the effect of a common enemy (the only people going against the coalition goverment in WWI were the hard-corest communists).
I can't see public support for a protracted occupation in France, nevermind the USA or the UK. I don't think that either of those will get involved if the germans take revenge on the participants later. Of course, this would be a wonderful France-screw.
 
Also, this begs the question why the occupation was not resumed when possible? The Young-Plan was only 100 million more...
I think you missed my later post about how the occupation ending was primarily because of Anglo-American economic pressure because Germany had won their sympathy.

Yes, you got it wrong. The deciding factor would not be the pull-factor (i.e. Germany wants Rhineland) but the push-factor (i.e. Rheinland wants Germany). Its a bit like the OTL Anschluss, the first thing Austria decided on after proclaiming its statehood was to ratify that it wants to join Germany.
Austria was prevented from joining with Germany in the ToV and absolutely nothing of note happened there. Had history played out differently and Italy continued its support of Austrian fascists I doubt an Anschluss would've happened organically. Of course it's a bit different here in the case of the Rhineland which had been part of Germany as opposed to being German, but a similar principle applies. If France is determined to prevent the reunification through military force, I don't see the population fighting it to a degree it would become a problem for France's continuing occupation.

Although, we had a few iterations of the "independent Rhineland" idea (all propped up/perpetrated by the French). I don't think you want to go down the road of "if it happens to the germans its ok".
Forgive me for sounding rude but what the hell does this sentence even mean?
 
I think you missed my later post about how the occupation ending was primarily because of Anglo-American economic pressure because Germany had won their sympathy.
So, do it again after the UK and USA have stopped looking. Its just the Germans after all. You make a lot of money each time and you humiliate the germans. Also, you failed at adressing the main point and not just the snarky addon.
Of course it's a bit different here in the case of the Rhineland which had been part of Germany as opposed to being German, but a similar principle applies. If France is determined to prevent the reunification through military force, I don't see the population fighting it to a degree it would become a problem for France's continuing occupation.
You miss out on that the Weimar Republicans actively worked to keep the lid on during Rheinland. I fail to see how basically something that wasn't contested at all is to be indicative of an all-out separatism fight. But hey, if you really think just chopping of a piece of land, getting a bunch of collaborators and then basically annexing it for the next generation is going to fly without significant resistance then be my guest.
And we are not getting into the small matter that profitable or not, the rhenish occupation wasn't sustainable even if UK and USA had held still. <irony>But hey, its just the germans. Its not like they need to be treated as equals. Or that they would seek revenge.</irony>
Forgive me for sounding rude but what the hell does this sentence even mean?
Then don't be rude. Take a walk around the block.

For the separated rhineland, take your pick: Reunions-Chambers by the Sun-King, The Rhenish Republic by Napoleon...
For the latter part: Sometimes it seems to me that forcibly splitting a country, installing a collaboration government, propping said government by force against the will of the locals and threating military force against any nation which may disagree with being split is percieved as all-right if it happens to be germans so subjugated. If its somebody else (say...A-L) its a horrible crime etc. pp. Its a horrible double-standard which in practice contributed a lot that WWII followed WWI - see the rest of this thread for examples.
 
First off:
For the latter part: Sometimes it seems to me that forcibly splitting a country, installing a collaboration government, propping said government by force against the will of the locals and threating military force against any nation which may disagree with being split is percieved as all-right if it happens to be germans so subjugated. If its somebody else (say...A-L) its a horrible crime etc. pp. Its a horrible double-standard which in practice contributed a lot that WWII followed WWI - see the rest of this thread for examples.
I don't think I've ever justified France occupying and subsequently propping up a protectorate in the Rhineland as something right to do (though for the record if this doesn't butterfly away Nazis/Notzis it certainly is the right thing to do). My argument is simply that in my opinion it is absolutely possible, and would prevent Germany from winning any future conflict against France (or for that matter even undertake any aggressive diplomacy in Europe).

So, do it again after the UK and USA have stopped looking. Its just the Germans after all. You make a lot of money each time and you humiliate the germans. Also, you failed at adressing the main point and not just the snarky addon.
My point is that the French occupation of the Ruhr only ended because of Anglo-American financial pressure. In this case I would doubt such pressure would exist on a similar scale, if at all, because Germany within a year of signing the ToV has decided to repudiate it. This is of course up for debate, but I haven't really addressed this point because my source is Wikipedia and I have yet to see anyone with a good, reliable source I can discuss.

Edit:
Forgot about addressing the "main point". I really don't see why a biased historian (assuming Marks is significantly biased to begin with) would intentionally overestimate profits from the occupation of the Ruhr. What's the point? I unfortunately don't really have a better source other than Wikipedia because I'm lazy, but I'd love to see any source other than Wikipedia stating that the occupation was decidedly unprofitable. I'm not arguing that Wikipedia is a particularly good source, but without another source arguing otherwise I don't see the point of asking me for a source.

And we are not getting into the small matter that profitable or not, the rhenish occupation wasn't sustainable even if UK and USA had held still.
To begin with the Franco-Belgian occupation of the Ruhr wasn't meant to be a permanent thing, just until the French had extracted their equivalent reparations. But I'd certainly like you to elaborate on this point.
 
Last edited:
Britain won't be happy if France took this action, but it will probably not act against them while grumbling about it. As others have mentioned, however, France might find itself in the middle of a quagmire. Can it financially support such an effort by itself?
 
Been a lot of focus here on the Rhineland, & a late mention or two of Austria. My question here is how attached are other 'German' states to what was originally a imperial Prussian dominated super state or empire? I understand there had been near fifty years of a drawing together as a German nation, and the idea of a German national entity long predated 1871, but times had changed. Was there any separatist discussion worthy of the name in Bavaria or any other state?
 
Been a lot of focus here on the Rhineland, & a late mention or two of Austria. My question here is how attached are other 'German' states to what was originally a imperial Prussian dominated super state or empire? I understand there had been near fifty years of a drawing together as a German nation, and the idea of a German national entity long predated 1871, but times had changed. Was there any separatist discussion worthy of the name in Bavaria or any other state?

The obvious problem with this is that separatist movements in Bavaria or elsewhere in Germany will be tainted by association if the Entente tries encouraging them, much less mandating the dissolution of Germany. Bavarian nationalism will be seen as Francophilia. Also, Bavarian separatism was centered around restoring the monarchy, but the Crown Prince refused to affiliate with political parties or associations as a matter of principle. I don't think he'd be any more willing to tie himself to Germany's external enemies.
 
If the French were smart they'd negotiate a accommodation & neutrality with a separatist Bavaria. OTL the pre nazi governments of the Republic could have had more success had the French been willing to make a few concessions. Doing so with a speratist group can save a lot of military effort and pay political dividends internationally.
 
Top