WI: The Entente occupies Germany after it rejects the Treaty of Versailles


In June 1919, the German government was split between accepting and refusing the Treaty of Versailles. The Entente expected the Germans to sign it and would not negotiate with the German delegation. German Foreign Minister Brockdorff Rantszau attempted to gain support from the internationalist left to convince the Entente to speak with the Germans face to face. If he could not achieve this, he would reject the Treaty, as would Chancellor Phillip Scheidermann.

However, cabinet member and Reich Finance Minister Mathias Eartzberger feared what would happen if they refused the Treaty and advocated for signing the Treaty.

The Germans attempted to convince the Entente to accept a less, harsh version of the Treaty, but the Entente outright refused. The German delegation, in response, recommended that their government refuse to sign the Treaty.

Instead, the German government dissolved itself. Scheidermann was replaced by Gustav Bauer, whose government decided to sign the treaty, after the Entente had given the Germans 24 hours to sign it or face an Entente invasion.

But what if the German government persisted in refusing to sign the Treaty and the Entente invaded, followed by a occupation?
 

thorr97

Banned
Civil war, of some nature, in Germany. The German people and the troops were beyond exhausted from the fighting. When word comes that the German government refused to end the war it won't go over well at all. That will quickly escalate and there'll be entire units simply refusing to fight and when the Wehrmacht command cracks down it'll just get worse. The Entente, at that point, could simply sit back and watch it all implode. Then, when it's gotten bad enough, renew its offensive. Yes, that'd cause some degree of cohesion among the Germans facing them but only some. I think there'd be a succession of governments formed in Germany until one arose that had sufficient staying power to enact the surrender. How far into Germany the Entente had gotten by then would be anyone's guess.
 
Civil war, of some nature, in Germany. The German people and the troops were beyond exhausted from the fighting. When word comes that the German government refused to end the war it won't go over well at all. That will quickly escalate and there'll be entire units simply refusing to fight and when the Wehrmacht command cracks down it'll just get worse. The Entente, at that point, could simply sit back and watch it all implode. Then, when it's gotten bad enough, renew its offensive. Yes, that'd cause some degree of cohesion among the Germans facing them but only some. I think there'd be a succession of governments formed in Germany until one arose that had sufficient staying power to enact the surrender. How far into Germany the Entente had gotten by then would be anyone's guess.

Only Nazi Germany's military was called the Wehrmacht.
 

Jack Brisco

Banned
Believe you'd see the French go right in. They still had a major bone to pick with the Germans. We and the British would soon follow. My guess - head straight for Berlin and prove once and for all that the German Army had been beaten. Remember, the naval blockade of Germany was still in place, and things were very tough in Germany. Food would be very short, as would be fuel and other supplies. The German Army would have already largely demobilized, making the invasion rather easier.

Then there would be a military occupation of the entire country, until the Germans agreed to terms and selected a government acceptable to the Allies.
 
Britain and France might go and invade Germany, but the US won't. The US Congress was already up in arms over the terms of the Treaty of Versailles, they'll refuse to support an invasion and occupation to impose it. Wilson will be under massive pressure to make a separate peace and to pull out of Europe, he'll hold out as long as he can, but I doubt his health will hold out under the strain of trying to get an even more hostile Congress than IOTL to cooperate. Congress might even enact measures to directly hinder the war effort, which Wilson would veto, but Congress might just override his veto in such a scenario.

I don't see the US continuing to support the Entente for more than a few months at most before either Wilson dies or caves in, with the US finally making a separate peace afterwards, complete with US troops and other support being withdrawn. Without the US to back them, the Entente war effort will collapse in on itself. Depending on how long the Entente try to win on their own, it's likely revolution erupts across France, and to a lesser degree in Britain. Ireland will almost certainly go up in flames, possibly as early as a resumption of hostilities.
 
I highly doubt that the entant war effort will collapse - they have a minimum effort option of blockade on the table alongside absolute superiority in effective tanks (fr and br) at this point.

How do the allies go from a position of winning, pausing whilst stockpiling and logistical build up continues. Occupation of abandoned German defensive positions etc. To collapsing and tearing defeat from the jaws of victory?

The paper ORBAT of the Germans in 1919 looks formidable but the real figures are not.
 
Last edited:

Ian_W

Banned
Believe you'd see the French go right in. They still had a major bone to pick with the Germans. We and the British would soon follow. My guess - head straight for Berlin and prove once and for all that the German Army had been beaten. Remember, the naval blockade of Germany was still in place, and things were very tough in Germany. Food would be very short, as would be fuel and other supplies. The German Army would have already largely demobilized, making the invasion rather easier.

Then there would be a military occupation of the entire country, until the Germans agreed to terms and selected a government acceptable to the Allies.

I've highlighted the bit that is actually a problem.

OK. Lets assume some Workers Soviet or other results in a train strike, and food and coal run short in, I don't know, Munich.

This is now the problem of the military occupation forces. They can't point at the German government and tell them to get the Reds back to work. They have to do it.

Similarly, they need to ensure that enough food, fuel and other supplies come into the country to feed the civilians in the occupied zones - they can't tell the German government to do it, because they are the government.

Demobilised bands of soldiers ? Now the problem of the occupation authorities.

And so on.
 
Most of what @Jaenera Targaryen wrote. The price for "going in" without the USA is internal unrest and ultimatively handing the Germans total victory about 10-20 years later. Whether these germans are the ultra-nationalist or communist variety doesn't matter much. Plenty of you seem to forget that we just barely moved past "tanks and americans" at this point. When the USA decides to end that preferential treatment - or even worse, becomes any shade of hostile - Britain and France are suddenly up against a very tight clock.
At this point in time a german "no" leaves two options:
  1. Force the issue. Ignore the americans and invade. Ignore the internal unrest. Ignore that if the americans yank their support, your economy will faceplant. Ignore that this is not 1945 and the germans are not too horrified/tired/scared of the russians to start a guerillia war. Ignore that the USA may decide to contest the blockade. Ignore that you just created an ideal starting point for a communist revolution. In hindsight, this is merely a very complicated way of surrendering to the germans.
  2. Renegotiate the treaty into something the USA will support and the Germans will accept. Create a solution in which everyone saves more face than OTL. That one is kind of easy. In some cases you literally only have to change the translation.
Believe you'd see the French go right in. They still had a major bone to pick with the Germans. We and the British would soon follow. My guess - head straight for Berlin and prove once and for all that the German Army had been beaten. Remember, the naval blockade of Germany was still in place, and things were very tough in Germany. Food would be very short, as would be fuel and other supplies. The German Army would have already largely demobilized, making the invasion rather easier.
Ever heard the term "guerillia"? Unless you are willing to pull some nazi-kind of shit, there is no way in hell this is going to fly. For reference: OTL the UdSSR and USA provided most of the manpower for the occupation after WW2. And there was litte-to-no guerillia activity since there was no support for it. You are proposing that two states, which are beset by internal problem, exhausted by war and dependent on external supply are going to occupy a third state which is larger than either of them against the passive or active resistance of the inhabitants? Especially if said external support may take umbrage to said occupation and cut off? Seriously? There is a reason why this didn't happen OTL.
Then there would be a military occupation of the entire country, until the Germans agreed to terms and selected a government acceptable to the Allies.
Very american thinking. Cute. But no. Participating in any occupation government in that time is asking for either an assassination or being lynched when the occupiers have left.

Ask yourself this: If the Entente had the ability to do as you suggest, why didn't they do OTL after the germans didn't say "Yes, master" to anything they proposed? Why didn't the Ruhr occupation not result in a police action which exchanged the truculent government in Berlin with one more "acceptable to the Allies"?
I highly doubt that the entant war effort will collapse - they have a minimum effort option of blockade on the table alongside absolute superiority in effective tanks (fr and br) at this point.
And all that ends with "due to american money/support". You are seriously underestimating how much the Entente was dependent on the USA at this point. The blockade itself only became tight once the USA decided to enforce it with economic means. If that enforcement suddenly ends (or the UK is told that food is no longer considered a "war material") its back to leaking like the sieve it was before.
The allies go from a position of winning, pausing whilst stockpiling and logistical build up continues. Occultation of abandoned German defensive positions etc.
You mean "barely holding together while the internal pressure cookers threaten to flare up"? Without support by the USA, the Entente may move in the defense, but offences or enforcements are...problematic.
The paper ORBAT of the Germans in 1919 looks formidable but the real figures are not.
The whole of the Imperial German Army could be the militia platoon from Obertupfingen-Ost. A collapse due to internal factors is mostly independent of external factors.
 
Wait... what? So the Americans suddenly fall out of love with highly lucrative debt issuance?start playing power politics on behalf of an enemy state that just sent thousands of their boys to the grave?

Whilst US naval assets did make the blockade watertight it's specious in the extreme to suggest that a royal navy, massively reinforced because it doesn't have to keep light cruiser assets on fleet escort duty, is somehow unable to maintain an effective blockade. Sorry they 'decide to' . Moreover a leaky blockade is enough to offset a Nationwide calorific deficit?

Please don't use the term cute in a historical debate. It makes you sound like an over agressive West Pointer.
 
Last edited:
I think Germany would have collapsed into a civil war while the Entente would move in and occupy the Ruhr and parts of Southern Germany.
 

Ian_W

Banned
I think Germany would have collapsed into a civil war while the Entente would move in and occupy the Ruhr and parts of Southern Germany.

Yep.

And - unless you want a German Revolution to go with the Russian Revolution - this is a major reason why you don't do it.
 
The point of the Armistice terms in 1918 was to make sure that if the Germans tried to renege then the Entente could resume the fighting from a favourable position. If the Germans refuse to sign the treaty then the Entente will reimpose the blockade, not that the Germans have anything left to pay for imports with anyway, and conduct an operation similar to the occupation of the Ruhr in 1923. I suspect though the threat alone will be enough to get the Germans to see sense, the leaders have no desire to see the Bolsheviks in power and for all their whining they will sign in the end.
 
How likely is it that Bavaria, Baden, et al attempt to declare (or more accurately, regain their) independence in an attempt to get more lenient terms?
 
The Entente will certainly be able to occupy the Ruhr, if not the whole Rhineland. They also will likely crush any organized attempt at resistance by the German Army. The problem will be dealing with the partisans and guerrillas that will resist the occupation, and the fact that they'll be fighting on a clock.

The fact is, with the premise of the thread being the Germans will never sign the treaty, they win by default. Oh, there won't be German soldiers marching down the Champs Elysees, or German battleships anchored in the Thames, but simply the fact that the Entente populations are tired of the war, and that the American population was disillusioned by the Treaty of Versailles, as instead of a grand struggle for democracy and peace, WWI turned out to be just another European squabble that really got out of hand.

The Entente economies are completely dependent on the USA, a USA whose populace wants nothing more to do with Europe, and whose primary governing body is ready to tear into the President for insisting on a treaty that is unacceptable to their voter base. This is not 1945 USA, committed to crushing Germany once and for all, this is the 1918 USA, where isolationism is surging up, and where Congress and the voter base are raging for the troops to come home.

But back to Europe...the war-weary French and British populace will not support an occupation that is not only dragging out with no end seeming in sight, and which is continuing to bleed them out, and the politicians can only appeal to 'national honor and pride' to keep them going, all of which is proven hollow by the sheer slaughter of the war. Add in the Spanish Flu, and the only result of this is revolution. We might see French (or even British) troops simply shooting their officers, and forming Soviets of their own and negotiate peace independently of the government, while similar developments occur in the industrial regions of France.

In Britain revolution is less likely, but Ireland is almost certainly going to erupt in revolt by 1920 at the latest, from frustration at the constant delays (thanks to the war) to Home Rule, and hoping to capitalize on the US elections taking place that year, by generating sympathy from the Irish-American community who will be courted by the candidates at the time. We'll also see frustration at the never-ending war and its demands on civilian life causing mass strikes from workers in Britain itself.

At the latest, the USA is going to leave Europe by 1921, after an election that is practically guaranteed to be won by the Republicans. Assuming Europe is in the flames of revolution, they'll probably just seize Anglo-French assets in the USA as payment for war debts that will likely never be paid otherwise, possibly even colonies and islands in the Caribbean, though that last is admittedly a very unlikely scenario.
 
The Entente will certainly be able to occupy the Ruhr, if not the whole Rhineland. They also will likely crush any organized attempt at resistance by the German Army. The problem will be dealing with the partisans and guerrillas that will resist the occupation, and the fact that they'll be fighting on a clock.

The fact is, with the premise of the thread being the Germans will never sign the treaty, they win by default. Oh, there won't be German soldiers marching down the Champs Elysees, or German battleships anchored in the Thames, but simply the fact that the Entente populations are tired of the war, and that the American population was disillusioned by the Treaty of Versailles, as instead of a grand struggle for democracy and peace, WWI turned out to be just another European squabble that really got out of hand.

The Entente economies are completely dependent on the USA, a USA whose populace wants nothing more to do with Europe, and whose primary governing body is ready to tear into the President for insisting on a treaty that is unacceptable to their voter base. This is not 1945 USA, committed to crushing Germany once and for all, this is the 1918 USA, where isolationism is surging up, and where Congress and the voter base are raging for the troops to come home.

But back to Europe...the war-weary French and British populace will not support an occupation that is not only dragging out with no end seeming in sight, and which is continuing to bleed them out, and the politicians can only appeal to 'national honor and pride' to keep them going, all of which is proven hollow by the sheer slaughter of the war. Add in the Spanish Flu, and the only result of this is revolution. We might see French (or even British) troops simply shooting their officers, and forming Soviets of their own and negotiate peace independently of the government, while similar developments occur in the industrial regions of France.

In Britain revolution is less likely, but Ireland is almost certainly going to erupt in revolt by 1920 at the latest, from frustration at the constant delays (thanks to the war) to Home Rule, and hoping to capitalize on the US elections taking place that year, by generating sympathy from the Irish-American community who will be courted by the candidates at the time. We'll also see frustration at the never-ending war and its demands on civilian life causing mass strikes from workers in Britain itself.

At the latest, the USA is going to leave Europe by 1921, after an election that is practically guaranteed to be won by the Republicans. Assuming Europe is in the flames of revolution, they'll probably just seize Anglo-French assets in the USA as payment for war debts that will likely never be paid otherwise, possibly even colonies and islands in the Caribbean, though that last is admittedly a very unlikely scenario.
There is also the possibility that France and Britain, once they occupy the Ruhr and Rhineland, just declare peace and annex the regions they occupy.
 
Top