Britain has no interest in acquiring any part of Germany (bar just conceivably Heligoland) and won't support France in such a course. Se doesn't want a French-dominated Europe any more than a German-dominated one.
Britain has no interest in acquiring any part of Germany (bar just conceivably Heligoland) and won't support France in such a course. Se doesn't want a French-dominated Europe any more than a German-dominated one.
The House of Hanover were a different family to the House of Windsor/Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. Also the family renamed themselves, rather than “they” renaming “them”.
Yes, but you will need one hell of a POD for Germany to commit national suicide like that. That none of the politicians wanted to be the one who signed on the dotted line is predictable, at some point though someone will sign barring some astonishing turn of events.
Granted, if the Germany Army is defeted, that would take out a major point for the nationalists and the British and French may give less hostile terms if the Americans were going to pull out on them
Granted, if the Germany Army is defeted, that would take out a major point for the nationalists and the British and French may give less hostile terms if the Americans were going to pull out on them
People keep asserting that some more definitive end to WWI would kill the Dolchstobbelegende, but I don't really see it. The thing about politics is that people can talk themselves into believing all sorts of nonsense if there's a strong incentive to do so. And in this case, the motivation to believe the myth isn't based on an assessment of what happened in the field, but on the desire to defer responsibility for the defeat away from the army and onto civilian leadership, SPD in particular. So long as that's a consideration, the line will be trumpeted, and people will believe it because they want to believe it. The specifics of the propaganda will simply adjust some, saying that things only really went to hell after the Kaiser was forced out and those dirty socialists started sabotaging the national defense.
And even if the Entente were perceptive enough to notice and care about this - unlikely in and of itself, given how little consideration they gave IOTL about the credibility of the German government that ratified their treaty - they'd be highly unlikely to sympathize with German socialists against the army, so long as the latter accept the treaty provisions.
Given that there's no longer a Germany navy to oppose them, why not dust off the Baltic Plan and march right to Berlin rather than occupy the whole country?
Given that there's no longer a Germany navy to oppose them, why not dust off the Baltic Plan and march right to Berlin rather than occupy the whole country?
Berlin's not especially close to the coast, so that sounds like it could turn into a quagmire. At the least, it doesn't seem any more efficient than the direct approach.
What about the effect an enemy invasion and armed occupation would have on the German population?
World War 2 was caused in part by revanchism from the WW1 defeat plus the Treaty of Versailles, meant specifically to punish Germany. Actually taking over the country by force could lead to a far more aggressive WW2 with a more vicious regime in power (Nazi or otherwise). It could get worse if occupying British and/or French soldiers take revenge against armed partisans by taking and killing hostages in reprisal.
People keep asserting that some more definitive end to WWI would kill the Dolchstobbelegende, but I don't really see it. The thing about politics is that people can talk themselves into believing all sorts of nonsense if there's a strong incentive to do so. And in this case, the motivation to believe the myth isn't based on an assessment of what happened in the field, but on the desire to defer responsibility for the defeat away from the army and onto civilian leadership, SPD in particular. So long as that's a consideration, the line will be trumpeted, and people will believe it because they want to believe it. The specifics of the propaganda will simply adjust some, saying that things only really went to hell after the Kaiser was forced out and those dirty socialists started sabotaging the national defense.
This is absolutely true if the Entente invades Germany in mid-1919 following no German government agreeing to the Versailles terms, because the Stab-in-the-Back myth was peddled over the actions of the new SPD-dominated government signing the armistice in November 1918.
Even to this day there are people on this very web site that believe the German Army was not absolutely defeated in the field in 1918.
The argument would go 'Of course we can't fight now - the traitors in SPD stabbed Germany in the back agreeing to disband the Army to get the Armistice !'.
Given the state of the Heer and their love of political meddling, they are likely to play the “The politicians betrayed us! If only..!” card no matter how they’re defeated. The key is to shift blame, no matter the degree, to as many ‘opposition’ politicians as possible. If that weakens democratic parties and the Left at the same time, all the better.
“I have asked His Excellency to now bring those circles to power which we have to thank for coming so far. We will therefore now bring those gentlemen into the ministries. They can now make the peace which has to be made. They can eat the broth which they have prepared for us!”
Several people have mentioned the Entente being able to easily push into the Rhineland/Ruhr - but they didn't need to. As per the armistice agreement (here a translation from the German version into English):
V. Räumung der linksrheinischen Gebiete durch die deutschen Armeen. Die Gebiete auf dem linken Rheinufer werden durch die örtlichen Behörden unter Aufsicht der Besatzungstruppen der Alliierten und der Vereinigten Staaten verwaltet. Die Truppen der Alliierten und der Vereinigten Staaten werden die Besetzung dieser Gebiete durch Garnisonen bewirken, die die wichtigsten Rheinübergänge (Mainz, Koblenz, Köln) inbegriffen je einen Brückenkopf von 30 km Durchmesser auf dem rechten Ufer beherrschen und außerdem die strategischen Punkte des Gebietes besetzen. Auf dem rechten Rheinufer wird eine neutrale Zone geschaffen. Sie verläuft zwischen dem Fluß und einer Linie, die parallel den Brückenköpfen und dem Fluß gezogen wird, in einer Breite von 10 km von der holländischen bis zur Schweizer Grenze. Die Räumung der rheinischen Gebiete auf dem linken und rechten Ufer wird so geregelt, daß sie in einem Zeitraum von weiteren 16 Tagen durchgeführt ist, also im ganzen in 31 Tagen nach der Unterzeichnung des Waffenstillstandes
V. Evacuation of the areas left of the Rhine by the German armies. The areas on the left bank of the Rhine will be administered by local authorities under the supervision of the occupation troops of the Entente and the United States. The troops of the Entente and the United States will occupy these areas through garrisons, which will control a bridgehead with a diameter of 30 km on the right side of the Rhine at the most important crossings of the Rhine (Mainz, Koblenz, Köln), additionally these troops will occupy the strategic points of the region. On the right bank of the Rhine, a neutral zone will be created. It will extend between the river and a line parallel to the bridgeheads and the river, with a width of 10 km. It will extend from the Dutch to the Swiss border. The evacuation of the areas on the left and right banks of the Rhine will be organized such that it will be completed in a time period of another 16 days, that is a total of 31 days after the signing of the armistice.
So the situation isn't one in which a resisting Germany would rapidly lose the industrial western area - they already have.
As per Andreas Platthaus, in "18/19, Der Krieg nach dem Krieg, Deutschand zwischen Revolution und Versailles" (18/19, the War after the War, Germany between Revolution and Versailles):
Page 121 said:
Winterfeldt hatte aber auch keinen größeren Erfolg; er trat am 24. Januar 1919 zurück, nachdem Foch erklärt hatte, dass die französische Armee neben den drei bereits bestehenden Brückenköpfen auf den rechtrheinischen Reichsgebiet noch einen zusätzlichen vierten vor Straßburg besetzen werde. Noch kurz zuvor war der Waffenstillstand verlängert worden [...]
[General] Winterfeldt did not have any greater success either [in the international committee that was tasked with "ensuring the smoothest implementation of the existing agreement"]; on 24. January 1919 he resigned, after Foch declared that the French army would, in addition to the three already existing bridgeheads on right-Rhine Reich territory, occupy a fourth, in front of [that is, on the right side of the Rhine from] Straßburg. Shortly therefore, the ceasefire had been extended [...]
So, in addition to the existing bridgeheads and occupation of all territories left of the Rhine, you have the French expanding their bridgeheads before there's even a treaty to reject (the negotiations in Paris began on the 18th of January). This, and Foch's general disposition (it's remarked by Platthaus on page 120 that Foch's influence in the international committee mentioned above is a sign that "[...] in the case of actual or even only claimed laggardness by the implementation of the conditions, the German side could not hope for leniency") make it seem likely to me that the lead-up to any final refusal of the treaty by Germany would find the French in full readiness at the edge of their armistice-lines.
Furthermore, regarding the blockage...
XXVI. Die Blockade der alliierten und assoziierten Mächte bleibt im gegenwärtigen Umfange bestehen. Deutsche Handelsschiffe, die auf hoher See gefunden werden, unterliegen der Wegnahme.
Die Alliierten und die Vereinigten Staaten nehmen in Aussicht, während der Dauer des Waffenstillstands Deutschland in dem als notwendig anerkannten Maße mit Lebensmitteln zu versorgen.
XXVI. The blockade of the Entente and associated powers will remain standing in its current scope. German merchant vessels that are found on the high seas will be confiscated.
The Entente and the United States will take into consideration the supplying of Germany with foodstuffs during the ceasefire, to the extent that is recognized as necessary.
So the Entente won't need to reimpose their blockade - that's still there. The only "hole" is that they're sending in food to keep Germany from outright starving during the ceasefire.
Now, regarding army plans in the event of a continuation of the fighting...
page 113 f. said:
Die deutsche Armeeführung hatte zwar bereits Pläne für einen Rückzug aller verfügbaren Kräfte nach Ostdeutschland aufgestellt, wo dann in einigermaßen sicherer Entfernung ein verteidigungsfähiges Widerstandszentrum hätte gebildet werden können, doch der Westen des Reichs wäre damit kampflos preisgegeben worden, und man wusste, dass man damit den Franzosen in die Hände spielen würde, die nur durch den Widerstand von Amerikanern und Engländern daran gehindert worden waren, im Versailler Vertrag die Loslösung sämtlicher linksrheinischen deutschen Gebieten aus dem Reichsverbund festschreiben zu lassen.
The leadership of the German army did already have plans for a retreat of all available forces to eastern Germany where, at a somewhat safe distance, a center of resistance capable of defending itself could be formed. However, the western areas of the Reich would thereby be given up without a fight. Further, it was known that this would play into the hands of the French, who were only kept from writing the splitting of all territories left of the Rhine from the Reich into the treaty by the resistance of the Americans and English.
Given other bits I've read elsewhere, here's what I think the military "roadmap" would look like:
Germany rejects peace; German army withdraws forces to the Elbe
French advance along the Main, splitting southern Germany off from the rest of the Reich
French pressure on the southern states; potentially to leave the Reich in exchange for peace (or more generous peace terms)
French push through the north, reaching the Elbe
At this point, a total collapse of the remaining German forces would either come soon or have already happened - who knows if the groups firmly against the Republic and Versailles would continue to support a military leadership who just gave up about half of Germany to the French. Further, it's unclear to what extent British and American forces would join the offensives; I imagine they'd be happy to push in and apply pressure on Germany, but whether they would want to fight it out on the Oder is unclear.
There's also the food question. I don't actually know if losing most of its population but retaining the east-of-the-Elbe agricultural regions would mean Germany becomes self-sufficient in terms of food, and if the existing famine could be stopped, given that IIRC there was also a potato blight starting up which requires lots of copper to stop (said copper was highly useful for war materiel, however, so...). If they can't actually feed their people, I'd honestly expect a collapse of German resistance by the time the French even got to their defenses.
I'd also expect that we wouldn't see a WWII-esque full occupation and creation of a new regime. Keep in mind, this is the war in which Romania was reduced to a small slice of its territory, the Belgians lost something like 90% of their country and became a small slice at the northern end of the front, and in the end peace was made with their official governments (Romania is a bit of an odd example, true, since peace was made with one Romanian government and not accepted by others, who continued to fight - though I'd say this would establish the "peace with the friendly government as you occupy" strategy to be a "bad guy" move for the Entente).
Finally, looking at the potential occupying powers, we have
Belgium, largely destroyed or occupied for the last 4 years
France, the scene of most of the Western Front, nose-deep in debt
Britain, nose-deep in debt
The United States, about to go back to "don't call unless you're paying me back the money you owe me"
So I'd expect there to not be the political will, or financial means, to properly occupy Germany. Especially since occupying Germany means you have to take over all the things you could otherwise let the Germans do - feeding people, dealing with hundreds of thousands of freshly demobilized angry Germans, etc.
Given the state of the Heer and their love of political meddling, they are likely to play the “The politicians betrayed us! If only..!” card no matter how they’re defeated. The key is to shift blame, no matter the degree, to as many ‘opposition’ politicians as possible. If that weakens democratic parties and the Left at the same time, all the better.
“I have asked His Excellency to now bring those circles to power which we have to thank for coming so far. We will therefore now bring those gentlemen into the ministries. They can now make the peace which has to be made. They can eat the broth which they have prepared for us!”
And, imho, the Dolchstoss legend owed more to events in the first half of 1918 rather than the second.
Until well into July, the Germans were (or at least appeared to be) getting the better of it. Hindenburg himself wrote that as late as July 15 he thought that very soon "our opponents would ask us for terms". The abruptness with which the tide turned must have left many Germans wondering "What went wrong?", and so very receptive to intimations of treachery or betrayal.
Many Germans must have felt rather like Faulkner's famous Southern boy, for whom it would always be "a July day in 1863" - or in their case 1918. What stuck in their minds was not that they lost but that they had (apparently) so nearly won - which left them easy prey for the "stab in the back" merchants
There was never any doubt the Entente could destroy the Germans militarily. The problem is that - as per the thread's premise - if the Germans absolutely refuse to sign the treaty, there is no way the Entente can really force them to. They either have to renegotiate, or they keep trying to impose it until revolution erupts across continental Europe, Britain's ass gets set on fire by the Irish, and Congress/the Republicans crucify Wilson (or he dies first/a Republican gets into the White House) and the Americans just leave Europe disgusted at and swearing never to get involved in European troubles ever again.
There was never any doubt the Entente could destroy the Germans militarily. The problem is that - as per the thread's premise - if the Germans absolutely refuse to sign the treaty, there is no way the Entente can really force them to. They either have to renegotiate, or they keep trying to impose it until revolution erupts across continental Europe, Britain's ass gets set on fire by the Irish, and Congress/the Republicans crucify Wilson (or he dies first/a Republican gets into the White House) and the Americans just leave Europe disgusted at and swearing never to get involved in European troubles ever again.
And again you seem to be conflating the reluctance of a few politician to take personal responsibility for signing the treaty with a willingness on the part of the German people to fight practically to the death rather than sign. Germany in 1919 was barely being held together and was in no position to resume the fight. By far the most likely scenario is a repeat of what happened in to the USSR in 1918, recalcitrance in signing up to peace terms leading to further military defeats followed by a government of whichever hue signing up to save what's left of the country. BTW as far as harsh terms goes its worth comparing Versailles to Brest-Litovsk, the Germans got off easy compared to what they imposed on Russia.
Germany will implode first, before the Entente even starts an offensive. Besides, I doubt the average German soldier would continue to fight a guerilla war, considering the fact if they just drop their arms they can go home, since the central authority just more or less commited political suicide.
And again you seem to be conflating the reluctance of a few politician to take personal responsibility for signing the treaty with a willingness on the part of the German people to fight practically to the death rather than sign. Germany in 1919 was barely being held together and was in no position to resume the fight. By far the most likely scenario is a repeat of what happened in to the USSR in 1918, recalcitrance in signing up to peace terms leading to further military defeats followed by a government of whichever hue signing up to save what's left of the country. BTW as far as harsh terms goes its worth comparing Versailles to Brest-Litovsk, the Germans got off easy compared to what they imposed on Russia.
But what happens if they both don't sign and don't fight ?
Someone has to run Germany, and if France and the UK sign up to militarily occupy Germany, that someone is France and the UK.
Again, look at the situation on the ground in Germany in late 1918 to early 1919. I wouldn't want to be in charge of that.
And to get anything out in the way of reparations, you need a working Germany - they spent everything they had on trying to win the war.
I mean you *could* say 'The Ruhr is part of France'. It's on strike. And needs about twenty million gold francs to repair equipment. And another thirty million gold francs to buy raw materials. And their work force is on strike, and the Workers Committee is debating whether to call itself a Soviet.