WI the Entente demanded German demilitarization of eastern border in WWI armistice or Versailles?

WI Allies demanded demilitarized *eastern* border for Germany at end of WWI

  • If demanded as armistice condition, Germans would reject armistice, get beaten more, then agree

    Votes: 4 22.2%
  • If demanded as above, Germans would reject terms, Allied troops would mutiny if ordered to attack

    Votes: 3 16.7%
  • If demanded as above, Germany would accept it, because they had no choice

    Votes: 2 11.1%
  • If demanded at Versailles, Germany would accept, because they had no choice

    Votes: 8 44.4%
  • If demanded at Versailles, Germany would reject it, get beaten more, then accept under duress

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • If demanded at Versailles, Germans would reject, Allied troops would mutiny if ordered to attack

    Votes: 2 11.1%
  • The Polish-German border would be same as OTL Versailles

    Votes: 3 16.7%
  • The Poles would take all Upper Silesia, but the rest of border would be same

    Votes: 2 11.1%
  • The Poles would annex all of Pomerania and Silesia

    Votes: 1 5.6%
  • Demilitarization would stick

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Demilitarization would be reversed later

    Votes: 7 38.9%

  • Total voters
    18

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Let's say that as extra insurance against German resurgence and domination of Central Europe, Germany east of the Oder-Neisse Line (Pomerania and Silesia) were demilitarized on the same terms as the Rhineland.

This is *not* German cession of those eastern areas to Poland in the political or demographic sense, there are no authorized population transfers.

The motive is outlined above, to keep the new states relatively protected from Germany and able to concentrate on defending against the Bolsheviks.

The occasion to issue the demand is either a) at the armistice, or b) as part of the Versailles Treaty.

If this happened, obviously this is conducive to Polish success in border disputes. Would the border be the same as OTL's Versailles border? Would the Poles annex all of Danzig and/or the Upper Silesian plebiscite zone? Or would the Poles annex even more of Pomerania and Silesia, despite their German populations, including possibly up to the Oder-Neisse demilitarization line?

Or would such an Entente demand simply blow up the armistice agreement or peace treaty?

If it did cause the Germans to reject/walk, could the Germans make their rejection stick, or would they be crushed and forced to accept the terms discussed, or worse ones, after a short bout of renewed fighting?

If the Germans rejected/walked out over the eastern terms and made it explicit that was their reason, would the French be able to resume their advance into Germany, or be faced with severe troop mutinies or strikes that could force them to soften their demands?
 

The Avenger

Banned
The Poles refused to annex Danzig in 1923 when France was occupying the Ruhr. Thus, I don't think that they would've used this opportunity to settle border disputes with Germany in their favor.

Also, I think that Germany will still accept these peace terms; after all, it knew that it was hopeless to fight at this stage. If it doesn't, though, then I don't think that French troops are going to mutiny; rather, they'd sympathize with Poland's demands for security considering that France itself would have similar demands in the West.
 
Inasmuch as the Versailles Treaty (theoretically) limited the Reichswehr to 100,000 soldiers, one could say that it did demilitarize the eastern border--and the rest of Germany as well--given that such numbers would be no match for the Polish army...
 

The Avenger

Banned
Inasmuch as the Versailles Treaty (theoretically) limited the Reichswehr to 100,000 soldiers, one could say that it did demilitarize the eastern border--and the rest of Germany as well--given that such numbers would be no match for the Polish army...
If Germany violates the Versailles Treaty and expands its army, though, then Poland is screwed.

Expanding the German Army isn't as good of a casus belli as remilitarizing a formerly demilitarized territory is.
 
I still want to point out that the limits on Germany's demilitarization and the way in which it was formatted made it possible for re militarization in a way in which they actually invaded Poland without breaking any restrictions until about 1938-39.
 
If Germany violates the Versailles Treaty and expands its army, though, then Poland is screwed.

Expanding the German Army isn't as good of a casus belli as remilitarizing a formerly demilitarized territory is.

Why not, though? I've always felt that the time France should have intervened against Nazi Germany (and yes, I know how difficult it would have been in view of French internal politics and the lack of British support--but that was true later, too!) was when Hitler announced resumption of conscription, not when he remilitarized the Rhineland. Indeed, the very fact that it had not intervened at the earlier date helped reassure Hitler that he could safely move into the Rhineland.

In fact, it is comparatively easy, when you have enough armed men, to "unofficially" remilitarize a demilitarized area--which the French felt Hitler had already done by the time of the Rhineland crisis. As I wrote in an old post, "Moreover, the French army believed that the Rhineland had really been militarized for a long time--they counted, besides the newly introduced troops, 30,000 members of the labor service and 30,000 members of the Landespolizei and other police organizations as combat forces. They also counted over 200,000 "auxiliaries"--all Germans in the Rhineland who belonged to such organizations as the SA, SS, and NSKK (motorized corps of the SA). These, the French believed, would put up a stiff resistance in familiar terrain, certainly for as long as would be required for Blomberg to bring in his reinforcements..." https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...nto-the-rhineland-fails.433566/#post-16280876

In any event, if the Western Allies weren't going to take action against the violation of a demilitarized zone (the Rhineland) immediately connected with their own security (and one guaranteed not only by the Versailles "diktat" but by the Locarno treaty as well) they are hardly likely to do so with one in far-off eastern Germany. The truth is that by the 1930's the Western Allies had pretty much given up on enforcing the military provisions of Versailles.
 

The Avenger

Banned
Why not, though? I've always felt that the time France should have intervened against Nazi Germany (and yes, I know how difficult it would have been in view of French internal politics and the lack of British support--but that was true later, too!) was when Hitler announced resumption of conscription, not when he remilitarized the Rhineland. Indeed, the very fact that it had not intervened at the earlier date helped reassure Hitler that he could safely move into the Rhineland.

In fact, it is comparatively easy, when you have enough armed men, to "unofficially" remilitarize a demilitarized area--which the French felt Hitler had already done by the time of the Rhineland crisis. As I wrote in an old post, "Moreover, the French army believed that the Rhineland had really been militarized for a long time--they counted, besides the newly introduced troops, 30,000 members of the labor service and 30,000 members of the Landespolizei and other police organizations as combat forces. They also counted over 200,000 "auxiliaries"--all Germans in the Rhineland who belonged to such organizations as the SA, SS, and NSKK (motorized corps of the SA). These, the French believed, would put up a stiff resistance in familiar terrain, certainly for as long as would be required for Blomberg to bring in his reinforcements..." https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...nto-the-rhineland-fails.433566/#post-16280876

In any event, if the Western Allies weren't going to take action against the violation of a demilitarized zone (the Rhineland) immediately connected with their own security (and one guaranteed not only by the Versailles "diktat" but by the Locarno treaty as well) they are hardly likely to do so with one in far-off eastern Germany. The truth is that by the 1930's the Western Allies had pretty much given up on enforcing the military provisions of Versailles.
Good points.

Also, Yes, France should have overthrown Hitler and the Nazis at the earliest possible opportunity. It's a huge shame that it did not do this. :(
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Which border would get remilitarized first in this scenario, the Rhineland or Oderland?

Would French or Polish “peer pressure” make either or both more firm in opposing remilitarization?

Would France be amenable to a Locarno Pact that does not cover the eastern borders in this scenario?

I figure Poland has no incentive to sign a nonaggression pact with Germany unless and until Germany brings the military back east of the Oder.

For some of its history in the 1920s and 1930s Poland will feel more secure from Germany than OTL. Will that extra security encourage any Polish recklessness against Lithuania, Czechoslovakia, the Danzig Free State or USSR?
 
Inasmuch as the Versailles Treaty (theoretically) limited the Reichswehr to 100,000 soldiers, one could say that it did demilitarize the eastern border--and the rest of Germany as well--given that such numbers would be no match for the Polish army...

We must remember how the Freikorps were used to get around this implied restriction in 1919 & 1920. "Reichwehr soldiers here? Mein Herr there is no such thing, those are bands of some sort of citizens mobbed together. We'd dispers them except the outnumber the police very badly and as you know were have a army even smaller than the police. Sorry, were are trying but, can do so little to keep order."

Post 1920 Black Reichwehr in the form of 'Police Auxilliaries' ect... served as a hidden reserve in the demilitarized Rhineland & elsewhere in Germany.

When the Franco Belgian occupation of the Ruhr started in 1923 the French were proactive in discouraging a Freirkorps revival in the Ruhr. I don't know how successful they were, but the angry mobs that kept forming may not have all been local factory employees.

Later the SA of the nazi party were sometimes considered as a sort of take off or revival of the Freikorps, tho not so well armed or trained.
 
Top