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

Well, sure.

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.

"Nonsense, we'll bring in our workers, and they'll get to talking with the German's, and they'll get ideas, and pretty soon I'll look out my window at an angry mob waving red flags!"
 
Well, sure.

But what happens if they both don't sign and don't fight ?

Then you have a rerun of 1923 which ended very badly for Germany.

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, they don't have to occupy the whole of Germany, just take the bits specified in the treaty and maintain the blockade. Germany is on the brink of revolution anyway. Either the business and Army leaders play ball with the Entente or they wait to get put up against the wall by the Bolsheviks.

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 yet in that exact time frame the British, French and Americans sent troops into the USSR to try and help overthrow the Bolsheviks, I don't think they will have any difficulty finding elements in Germany more afraid of the Reds than the Entente.

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.

And yet they continued to squeeze reparations out of a decidedly non-functional Germany throughout the 1920's, in fact that was one of the issues that infuriated Germany during that decade, the demands that Germany make its reparations payments while blocking German goods from world markets.

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.

And so what? The French were quite prepared to do that and why exactly do you think German workers are going to be prepared to starve for what amounts to little more than the 'glory of the fatherland'? Why are they less tired of the endless deprivations of the war than the British or French? Are they really going to be going on strike when the Entente are the only ones who can put food on the table for their families? As for the 'workers committee', well as pointed out already the Bolsheviks are the one group the Entente including the USA were willing to take military action against. The Entente won't go around having the leaders of the Soviet 'shot while escaping', but they won't be standing around while they declare a Ruhr Soviet either.

As far as debt to the USA goes, well that is actually a weapon in the hands of the British and French. In the simplest of terms they will make it clear that to pay their debts to the USA Germany must pay them their reparations or they will have to default. Germany actually used this tactic in reverse to get reparations curtailed. During the 20's they borrowed money from the USA, a large part of which they used to make reparation payments, then essentially turned around and claimed that if the USA wanted to see its money they needed to do something about reparations and it worked, the US banks applied pressure and the Americans brokered a deal to alleviate reparations. I see no reason why the far stronger British and French can't do the same in 1918-19.
 
Then you have a rerun of 1923 which ended very badly for Germany.

As I recall, didn't it also cause something of a political crisis in France?

Again, they don't have to occupy the whole of Germany, just take the bits specified in the treaty and maintain the blockade. Germany is on the brink of revolution anyway. Either the business and Army leaders play ball with the Entente or they wait to get put up against the wall by the Bolsheviks.

Since the premise of the thread is that the Germans refuse to sign and get occupied, Communists will be lining up Army leaders to get shot, followed by the French government by Communards.

And yet in that exact time frame the British, French and Americans sent troops into the USSR to try and help overthrow the Bolsheviks, I don't think they will have any difficulty finding elements in Germany more afraid of the Reds than the Entente.

Except once the Whites were clearly lost, the Allies also gave up and accepted Red Russia as fait accompli, with only Japan willing to keep on fighting, and even then the Allies put pressure on Japan to stop.

And yet they continued to squeeze reparations out of a decidedly non-functional Germany throughout the 1920's, in fact that was one of the issues that infuriated Germany during that decade, the demands that Germany make its reparations payments while blocking German goods from world markets.

Germany is even going to be more non-functional ITTL. If revolution doesn't break out (which I strongly doubt), the only way the Entente are going to get anything out of Germany is to go Nazi on them, i.e. loot everything not bolted down (if even that) and forcing the Germans to work at gunpoint.

And so what? The French were quite prepared to do that and why exactly do you think German workers are going to be prepared to starve for what amounts to little more than the 'glory of the fatherland'? Why are they less tired of the endless deprivations of the war than the British or French? Are they really going to be going on strike when the Entente are the only ones who can put food on the table for their families? As for the 'workers committee', well as pointed out already the Bolsheviks are the one group the Entente including the USA were willing to take military action against. The Entente won't go around having the leaders of the Soviet 'shot while escaping', but they won't be standing around while they declare a Ruhr Soviet either.

They did in 1923.

As far as debt to the USA goes, well that is actually a weapon in the hands of the British and French. In the simplest of terms they will make it clear that to pay their debts to the USA Germany must pay them their reparations or they will have to default. Germany actually used this tactic in reverse to get reparations curtailed. During the 20's they borrowed money from the USA, a large part of which they used to make reparation payments, then essentially turned around and claimed that if the USA wanted to see its money they needed to do something about reparations and it worked, the US banks applied pressure and the Americans brokered a deal to alleviate reparations. I see no reason why the far stronger British and French can't do the same in 1918-19.

The USA is just going to play hardball, with the new Republican administration telling the British and the French that if they can afford to keep troops in Germany, they can afford to pay their debts, and if they don't, the US will just seize Anglo-French assets in the Western Hemisphere in lieu of cash payments.
 
Sorry but the idea that a Germany that has been crushed on the battlefield, is half starved and faced with street fighting between extremists on both sides will somehow translate all this into some sort of victory by refusing to sign on the dotted line at Versailles is bordering on the ASB. On top of this the situation requires the USA turning on its allies, the Freikorps and their friends somehow losing to the Reds, despite having a freer hand than OTL and the British and the French basically throwing up their hands and giving into the Germans who have wrecked half of France and inflicted huge casualties on the British. Frankly it seems that people are actually proposing a variation of the stab in the back myth, implying that if a few politicians had kept their nerve Germany could somehow have wrung out better terms.
 

Ian_W

Banned
Sorry but the idea that a Germany that has been crushed on the battlefield, is half starved and faced with street fighting between extremists on both sides will somehow translate all this into some sort of victory by refusing to sign on the dotted line at Versailles is bordering on the ASB. On top of this the situation requires the USA turning on its allies, the Freikorps and their friends somehow losing to the Reds, despite having a freer hand than OTL and the British and the French basically throwing up their hands and giving into the Germans who have wrecked half of France and inflicted huge casualties on the British. Frankly it seems that people are actually proposing a variation of the stab in the back myth, implying that if a few politicians had kept their nerve Germany could somehow have wrung out better terms.

Not at all.

I'm assuming the Occupation of the Rhineland happens in 1919, not 1923.

It's just that that, the attempted Rhenish Republic and the move to the 'natural borders' of France didn't end as well for the French as hoped.

OTL Germany had both the extremists on the Left and Right losing between 1919 and 1923, with the failure of the Spartakists and the Kapp Putsch. I can't see a foriegn military occupation helping the cetrists, at all ...
 
Does this not hurt US as they get a few cents on the dollar and cant claim anything in future as they are the ones who defaulted?

It's a dicey time politically. Keeping in mind that Russia had just gone red and defaulted on its own debt payments, the prospect of Britain and/or France following suit can't be so easily ignored, given the labor unrest present in both countries at this time. In that context, cutting losses may not seem like such a bad idea. Also, I understand the pre-1917 loans were collateralized, so there's a pretty significant amount of money that could still be recouped. If nothing else, the threat of doing this could be used as a bargaining chip. And a reality check, since having foreign creditors tell you to your face that they don't trust you not to get put up against a wall in the next few years can really ruin your weekend.
 
The USA is just going to play hardball, with the new Republican administration telling the British and the French that if they can afford to keep troops in Germany, they can afford to pay their debts, and if they don't, the US will just seize Anglo-French assets in the Western Hemisphere in lieu of cash payments.

A bunch of socially stratified sugar isles does not come close to repaying British and French Wall Street loans. The Entente powers by this point are far to chained together economically

They did in 1923.

No they didn't the Weimar government was paying them under the table to keep striking and thus make more trouble for the French

Since the premise of the thread is that the Germans refuse to sign and get occupied, Communists will be lining up Army leaders to get shot, followed by the French government by Communards.

Last time I checked there was no Communist revolution in France when the army marched into the Rhine 1923 I doubt there would be one in 1919. I also doubt the German right is going to go quietly into the night treaty or no treaty.

If revolution doesn't break out (which I strongly doubt), the only way the Entente are going to get anything out of Germany is to go Nazi on them, i.e. loot everything not bolted down (if even that) and forcing the Germans to work at gunpoint.

Didn't the French make close to a billion marks worth money from the occupation of the Ruhr even factoring in the cost of maintaining the troops?
 
Didn't the French make close to a billion marks worth money from the occupation of the Ruhr even factoring in the cost of maintaining the troops?

Over three years of occupation. For comparison, that’s slightly less than what they were paid under the Dawes Plan for 1924 alone. And Dawes was the result of the French caving from their initial demands. Does that really sound like an adequate substitute for reparations? Especially since looting isn’t all that sustainable in the long run, and will complicate their political position?
 
People are always willing to continue war, if everything else fails. Imperial Russia collapsed out war fatigue, that didn’t stop years of wars afterward. Of course Germany in OTL was willing to sign the Versailles agreement, so what change here, what demand do the Entente make, which makes the Germans decide this is a step to far? Do the Entente demand Oder and Rhine borders and demand them to remove all Germans in the lost territories?
 
People are always willing to continue war, if everything else fails. Imperial Russia collapsed out war fatigue, that didn’t stop years of wars afterward. Of course Germany in OTL was willing to sign the Versailles agreement, so what change here, what demand do the Entente make, which makes the Germans decide this is a step to far? Do the Entente demand Oder and Rhine borders and demand them to remove all Germans in the lost territories?

Maybe reparations are explicitly stated to be paid in perpetuity? I agree we could use more context for this, especially on the German end in terms of their political strategy. It could be something as simple as demanding that the Treaty be renegotiated with German representatives in the room instead of the OTL fiat, but they need to be challenging something specific about the treaty, because they can’t change the larger reality that the war is lost.
 
Some information on Allied deployments at the time in case anyone wants to further develop such a scenario and see what Allied units would have been available:

https://www.abmc.gov/sites/default/files/publications/Section13.pdf

http://www.vicstamps.com/displays/2018nov22_occupation/img01.html

https://scholars.wlu.ca/cgi/viewcon...le.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1651&context=cmh (Note that the British bridgehead across the Rhine around Cologne in 1918 initially included a Canadian Corps and a New Zealander division bu the Canadians were withdrawn by February 1919, not sure when the New Zealanders were withdrawn.....if war restarts the question then arises do the Canadians return? Or would the occupation of most of Germany happen before the Canadians could call up the men who had been demobilized and send them to Germany again?)

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/59/ADVANCE_OF_AMERICAN_THIRD_ARMY,_WW1.png

https://www.longlongtrail.co.uk/battles/the-armistice-and-the-occupation-of-the-rhine/
 
Last edited:
People are always willing to continue war, if everything else fails. Imperial Russia collapsed out war fatigue, that didn’t stop years of wars afterward. Of course Germany in OTL was willing to sign the Versailles agreement, so what change here, what demand do the Entente make, which makes the Germans decide this is a step to far? Do the Entente demand Oder and Rhine borders and demand them to remove all Germans in the lost territories?

Britain will never allow a French border on the Rhine. Not sure about a Polish border on the Oder, but I'm leaning towards unlikely.
 
Did the U.S. really have the appetite to occupy a country with over 60 million people in 1918? If not, and the U.S. withdrawals, do the British and the French alone have the appetite to advance to and take Berlin?
 
Did the U.S. really have the appetite to occupy a country with over 60 million people in 1918? If not, and the U.S. withdrawals, do the British and the French alone have the appetite to advance to and take Berlin?

They don't. The US Congress didn't even have the appetite for the Treaty of Versailles, and all but crucified Wilson when he kept on pushing it IOTL. In this scenario, it's likely the US Congress will slash the military budget as soon as it can to force the Army to leave Europe, the President's wishes and ideals be damned.
 
I'm surprised that some posters consider revolution in France and Britain more likely than a balkanization of Germany.

I mean it's not like the two major imperial powers on the continent have never successfully played divide and rule when it suited them.

There are millions of people alive in Europe at this point to whom a unified Germany is a strange and terrifying polity where they have intense sympathy for jovial Bavarians crushed under the yolk of Prussian militarism....
 
I'm surprised that some posters consider revolution in France and Britain more likely than a balkanization of Germany.

I mean it's not like the two major imperial powers on the continent have never successfully played divide and rule when it suited them.

There are millions of people alive in Europe at this point to whom a unified Germany is a strange and terrifying polity where they have intense sympathy for jovial Bavarians crushed under the yolk of Prussian militarism....

That's a very good point, there are plenty of people alive in 1918-19 who can remember the time before there was a Germany, if it breaks apart politicians and historians could simply see it as failed political experiment only held together by the wily diplomacy of Bismarck and now returning to a more natural state.
 
Top