Worst possible version of the Treaty of Versailles if Germany was defeated thoroughly

Sparked by some interesting discussions from the other thread.It's quite clear that the circumstances of AH and Russia's defeat was quite different from Germany.By the end of the war,they were still on foreign soil.If Germany was as decisively defeated as the other two however,with large parts of Germany overrun by Entente,what would be the worst possible version of Versailles?
 
Any alt-versailles where the victorious allies make even less effort to enforce it. IMO the failure of the victorious powers to keep the peace that they had won was the greatest crime they inflicted on Germany (and eventually on themselves). It meant there were no consistent rules and business and international trade was being constantly disrupted by one country or another trying to change the rules or the countries arguing with each-other about whose problem something was as the continent's economy had a mini melt down of some kind...

fasquardon
 
Any alt-versailles where the victorious allies make even less effort to enforce it. IMO the failure of the victorious powers to keep the peace that they had won was the greatest crime they inflicted on Germany (and eventually on themselves). It meant there were no consistent rules and business and international trade was being constantly disrupted by one country or another trying to change the rules or the countries arguing with each-other about whose problem something was as the continent's economy had a mini melt down of some kind...

fasquardon
Wouldn't France,Belgium and Poland have annexed quite a bit more stuff?There was also a request from Bavaria to negotiate a peace separately,how would that end?

Could Germany really make a comeback at all if important industrial regions like Saarland and Silesia are lost?
 
Last edited:
You can't do a Breat-Litovsk/Saint-Germain/Trianon on Germany because it was a pretty homogeneous country (specially comparated to Russia and Austria-Hungary), the maximum I can see is France outright annexing Saar (parts of it were French before the revolution) and Poland getting more of Upper Silesia and Southern East Prussia.
 
You can't do a Breat-Litovsk/Saint-Germain/Trianon on Germany because it was a pretty homogeneous country (specially comparated to Russia and Austria-Hungary), the maximum I can see is France outright annexing Saar (parts of it were French before the revolution) and Poland getting more of Upper Silesia and Southern East Prussia.

What about forcibly annexing more land and expelling the Germans like what they did after WWII?

As for being ethnically homogenous,how does it change things if the allies offered to accept Bavaria's offer to negotiate separately(pretty much a unilateral Declaration of Independence)?If the allies offer to be lenient on Bavaria,would some other states also want to break free.I've seen a timeline based on this scenario where Bavaria negotiated separately and Wurtemberg and Sigmaringen ended up joining Bavaria to form a south German federation allied to France to stop retaliation from the rest of Getmany.
 
Last edited:
Germany as a nation was not yet 50 years old in 1919...a blink of an eye in history. If the victorious allies had completely conquered and Germany and dictated peace at the Reichstag, that means the war was bloodier and even worse. I don't see why that might not result in a peace intended to undo the effects of the Franco-Prussian War. France of course takes Alsace-Lorraine. But Germany is first occupied by the Allies (GB, France , USA) and then partitioned. Prussia (the cause of all this mess in the Allies' eyes) is destroyed most of it goes to the new state of Poland, which is granted independence. Some of the old kingdoms such as Bavaria, Wurtemburg, etc are let go as independent German states. The North Germany (including parts of western Prussia) is established as a rump German confederation, and the Rhineland is occupied by France and Belgium for 10 years and then granted independence as a French protectorate.
 

Deleted member 1487

I don't know if Europe could afford to break up Germany after WW1, it was too important economically to pull off, just like after WW2.
 
What about forcibly annexing more land and expelling the Germans like what they did after WWII?

Impossible, ethnic cleasing wasn't the modus operanti in WWI, also the entire reason of the expulsion of the Germans east of the Oder-Neisse is absent, the wasn't caused by Pan-Germanism and Poland isn't being compesated by lost land with German one.

Well, France can try is they want, they'll not recieve any support from Britain, let alone the US.

Germany as a nation was not yet 50 years old in 1919...a blink of an eye in history. If the victorious allies had completely conquered and Germany and dictated peace at the Reichstag, that means the war was bloodier and even worse. I don't see why that might not result in a peace intended to undo the effects of the Franco-Prussian War. France of course takes Alsace-Lorraine. But Germany is first occupied by the Allies (GB, France , USA) and then partitioned. Prussia (the cause of all this mess in the Allies' eyes) is destroyed most of it goes to the new state of Poland, which is granted independence. Some of the old kingdoms such as Bavaria, Wurtemburg, etc are let go as independent German states. The North Germany (including parts of western Prussia) is established as a rump German confederation, and the Rhineland is occupied by France and Belgium for 10 years and then granted independence as a French protectorate.

German identity was strong enough to reject the French in the Ruhr Uprising. Also no "German" will accept being a French puppet, the supporters of the "Rhenish Republic" had to be protected by the French Army from being lynched by the local population.
 

shiftygiant

Gone Fishin'
Worst possible Versailles would be seeing the German Empire completely dismembered into numerous states with varying degree's of autonomy from the Entente and League of Nations. Think of what happened with Austo-Hungary; the states are completely dissected, with annexations and messy territory wars abound. France and Belgium gain complete control of the Rhineland, which becomes a Satellite State if not outright annexed and divided. Prussia looses a large swath of territory in order to nullify it's power. All these states are enforced neutrals, their armies reduced to a glorified police force, infrastructure severally crippled, and financially dependent on the Entente, who enforce all this and make sure there are no more German Reunification, backing Annexation's for neighboring states, like Denmark, Switzerland, Poland and anyone else who wanted a slice.

Now part of the issue with this would be Germany's hegemony, so a great deal of effort would be bought about to break the idea of a pan-Germanic state. Prussia will be blamed for most of what had happened, in an attempt to turn the German states against the central Kingdom. Others will be given a new ethical identity, such as 'Bavarian' or 'Rhenish', and be played off one another by the controlling powers to create competition that would keep the states so busy they don't expand outwards.

Of course, this will all apart like a house made of mash potato on a rainy day depending on A) How dedicated the Allies are to avoiding a new German State and B) If they can successfully pacify Germany.
 
Last edited:
The problem is: You can't dismember Germany like Austria-Hungary because 90% of the population is German speaking, whereas A-H was 45% German-Magyar, there were no nations (save Poland) to release based on ethnical borders. Such dismembering would face massive resistance, people overrate a lot the "German disunity", even though it never was part of Germany, the first thing the Austrians did after kicking the Habsburgs was calling for union.

Also, if Wilson is on the board any atempt towards it will fail, he was propaganding himself as the saviour of self-determination.
 
I actually think it would have been the other way around. If Germany had fought to a bloody end, as in WW2, or been turned into a chaotic revolutionary mess, the need to contain and weaken her would have been less pressing.
The fact that Germany seemed, to allied eyes, to have escaped the worst, made her appear both as a potential threat and punishable.
 
I actually think it would have been the other way around. If Germany had fought to a bloody end, as in WW2, or been turned into a chaotic revolutionary mess, the need to contain and weaken her would have been less pressing.
The fact that Germany seemed, to allied eyes, to have escaped the worst, made her appear both as a potential threat and punishable.

There's the issue of compensation if Germany remained defiant till the end,causing much more casualties than OTL.France for certain would be hellbent on revenge.The British public would also demand the government to act tougher.
 
Last edited:
Could Germany really make a comeback at all if important industrial regions like Saarland and Silesia are lost?

I think it could - if it could also access international trade. Being able to access international credit would also speed any recovery, but isn't necessary.

Germany had a large and well-educated population and a good rail network - even if the Entente annexed every coal mine in the country, those advantages wouldn't go away. Much as Germans made both East and West Germany leading countries after WW2 after WW2 (so East Germany was weaker than West Germany by a long way, but she was the second most important member of the Warsaw Pact), the size and education of the population would tell after an alt-Versailles.

Now, if an alt-Versailles prohibited Germany from engaging in trade, that would be worse than my first suggestion - I don't see why any of the Entente would want to do that though (even France would not wish to lose her considerable trade with Germany, to say nothing of America, Britain and Italy) nor how any of them could enforce a permanent blockade on Germany.

fasquardon
 
I think it could - if it could also access international trade. Being able to access international credit would also speed any recovery, but isn't necessary.

Germany had a large and well-educated population and a good rail network - even if the Entente annexed every coal mine in the country, those advantages wouldn't go away. Much as Germans made both East and West Germany leading countries after WW2 after WW2 (so East Germany was weaker than West Germany by a long way, but she was the second most important member of the Warsaw Pact), the size and education of the population would tell after an alt-Versailles.

Now, if an alt-Versailles prohibited Germany from engaging in trade, that would be worse than my first suggestion - I don't see why any of the Entente would want to do that though (even France would not wish to lose her considerable trade with Germany, to say nothing of America, Britain and Italy) nor how any of them could enforce a permanent blockade on Germany.

fasquardon
Except wouldn't that mean they would require much more years to rearm and rebuild?In otl,Hitler was close to bankrupting the country prior to WWII even with Saarland and other areas of heavy industry.
 
Top