WI: Versailles Treaty no.1: Germany treated harsher than OTL

The main criticism of the infamous Treaty of Versailles seems to be that it was harsh enough on Germany to greatly anger them, but not harsh enough to prevent them from becoming a power again. This half of my WI asks what would happen if, for whatever reason Woodrow Wilson was not listened to as much and the conference went the direction of a harsher peace, completely beating Germany down.

As for what terms might be realistic, I will leave that to your own discretion, but I'd imagine that it wouldn't out of the realm of possibility that Poland would receive all of East Prussia and have outright control of Danzig. France might also claim larger amounts of German territory than Alsace-Lorraine, certainly outright annexing the Saar instead of putting it under League of Nations control as in OTL. Poland might also receive the eastern part of Germany as well, creating a Germany that bears a similar appearance to it's modern borders, maybe a little smaller. Hell, I've heard from some sources that returning to the old German Confederation was raised at some point, although that seems like an outside chance even under ideal conditions.

But what do you folks think?
 
The absolute worst you could do would be to split up Germany. Maybe a French-puppet Rhineland, Bavaria, and North Germany. France gets the Saar and Poland gets East Prussia. Good luck keeping the pieces apart come the Great Depression, though. This situation is very unlikely, though. A much more likely "harsher Versailles" would give France the Saar, more of Silesia to Poland, a demilitarized East Prussia and Rhineland, and more reparations.

My guess is that the Allies who occupy Germany have to face some kind of insurgency. Once the losses start to mount up, the Allies likely go home and leave Germany to its own devices through sheer war weariness. Some extreme right-wing or extreme left-wing government is going to arise in the vaccuum left by their departure. My bet is on the rightists. They will be even more extreme than the Nazis (if possible) and likely will start a WW2 sometime in the mid-30s. Once they get definitively beaten down, the splitting up of Germany as described above is definitely possible.

It gets really interesting outside of Germany. Without the Germans mucking up everything in Europe, the Japanese won't go for their surprise attack on the East Asian colonies. They will probably get involved in China and completely exhaust themselves there. If the commit a few widely publicized atrocities like the Rape of Nanjing, coupled with a Panay-like incident, the US will probably get involved and supply aid to the Chinese. At which point the Japanese either go home (ASB) or attack the US first (insanely stupid, but you never know). The European colonial powers probably keep their colonies for longer (maybe start to decolonize in the 1970s) due to the lack of a long, exhausting struggle like OTL WW2. Then you have all the butterflies of a much reduced Holocaust. A very interesting scenario.
 
Don't hold your breath on a insurgency of any real scale or duration; IE something lasting more than a few years. This is pre 1949 Geneva Convention, IE active reprisals on civilian population is still legal. Some Germans pick off a French trooper, the French round up 10 German civilians of military age, 15 - 65 and shoot them in public. Repeat as needed.

Reason WW2 Germans had problems with partisan activities was size of area compared to troop levels, active conventional fighting, supply drops by allied powers and the civilians knowledge that the Germans were going to kill them anyways so might as well be shot as wolves vs. sheep. Only troop levels would apply as France would have its hands full trying to occupy large sections of Germany for a long period of time, see the problems they had in the Ruhr vs. passive resistance.

Michael
 
Only troop levels would apply as France would have its hands full trying to occupy large sections of Germany for a long period of time, see the problems they had in the Ruhr vs. passive resistance.Michael

Also note that the Rhineland was evacuated five years earlier than required by the Treaty of Versailles.

The will to do long term occupation did not exist and couldn't be made to exist.
 
Versailles was no treaty between the Allies and Germany, but one between the Allies and their associates as to who would get what. So, not Germany stopped France from getting the Rhineland, but Britain and the USA, same thing goes for Poland.
It was the old game of 'Continental Equilibrium' played by the British for centuries. Once a coalition is successful, trust the Brits to turn their back on their former partner - because he might become too powerful after victory. Poland was France's replacement of Russia in the east, so it was British and US interest to keep both, France and Poland, from becoming dominating on the continent.
First, you need Britain to abandon their silly notion of 'Balance of Power' - then you can start cutting large swathes from Germany. The more German population you put under foreign rule, however, the more turbulent the 1920ies and 1930ies will be.
 
First, you need Britain to abandon their silly notion of 'Balance of Power' - then you can start cutting large swathes from Germany.

Look, I know you continentals all have a burning desire to create the Universal Monarchy and smash the Liberties of Europe, so its natural that our policy wrinkles your noses a bit, but in our defence it's been consistently succesful. Nobody has invaded us without an invitation since 1066. :p

Less facetiously, the policy does make sense from the British perspective; and there were other things motivating Britain, principally economic. Britain wanted to cultivate Germany as a stable and prosperous trading-partner, and lacking such urgent security concerns as France, we were quite uninterested in forcing the Germans to hand over Silesia and half of the Ruhr, which would have arsed up the European economy no end.
 
Thus leaving millions of Reichdeutche ouside of their country.:rolleyes:

I have to question whethere Poland would accept anything beyond Upper Silesia and Mazuria served to them on a silver platter. Pilsudski's policy was avowedly eastward-oriented, reducing the number of Germans in the state was an objective of the Poles (note the propaganda they did comparing the 1910 and 1931 censes), the Germans there would raise a fracas (the "selbschutz" did actually score a few local victories against the POW before the armistice was extended to cover them), and Germany itself wouldn't sit long with the arrangement (nor would Britain, quite frankly).
 
I have to question whethere Poland would accept anything beyond Upper Silesia and Mazuria served to them on a silver platter. Pilsudski's policy was avowedly eastward-oriented, reducing the number of Germans in the state was an objective of the Poles (note the propaganda they did comparing the 1910 and 1931 censes), the Germans there would raise a fracas (the "selbschutz" did actually score a few local victories against the POW before the armistice was extended to cover them), and Germany itself wouldn't sit long with the arrangement (nor would Britain, quite frankly).

They had no problem in fagocitating some thousands lithuanians.
and IIRC Poland delegates (not Pilsudski, though) at Versailles asked for East Prussia.
On the other hand you are right when you say that the Germans there would raise a fracas.
Possibly even a rumpus.

---------------------------------------------------------------
Words resemble fish in that some specialist ones can survive only in a kind of reef, where their curious shapes and usages are protected from the hurly-burly of the open sea. 'Rumpus' and 'fracas' are found only in certain newspapers (in much the same way that 'beverages' are found only in certain menus). They are never used in normal conversation.

Thank God for Terry Pratchett
 
They had no problem in fagocitating some thousands lithuanians.

Uh... "fagocitating"?

I think that beats "fracas", "rumpus", and indeed "bollockmongery".

I'd comment that interwar Poland contained barely any Lithuanians but, ah... "fagocitating"?

and IIRC Poland delegates (not Pilsudski, though) at Versailles asked for East Prussia.

All of it, or just Mazuria? In any case, Pilsudski was the military dictator, his opinion counted; and to overstate your claims so that you can pretend to make concessions is one of the first tricks of negotiation. Check out what the Armenians ostensibly wanted.

On the other hand you are right when you say that the Germans there would raise a fracas.
Possibly even a rumpus.

I'm British. If you check under Section XIV of the Rule Britannia, Clause Four (4), you'll find that I can say absolutely anything I like in the campest manner possible and still be taken seriously. :p
 
Last edited:
Top