A Quick Idea for a "Better" Treaty of Versailles

[AbeLincoln1865]

This debate has been done quite a bit, and I wanted to take a crack at it. Since this is such a complicated issue, don't take this too seriously.

1. No military restrictions, but the German fleet will be destroyed/distributed to the Entente.

2. Germany loses all the territory they historically lost, including the French occupation of the Saar.

3. Germany will be allowed to unify with Austria.

3. No war guilt clause, though Turkey will be forced to admit responsibility for the Armenian genocide.

4. Greece will not gain any territory from Turkey. However, the Turkish border with Armenia will be demilitarized for at least 10 years.

5. Reparations will be kept at a reasonable level.

How well do you think this version of the treaty would do?

 

[Bomster]

No Nazis perhaps, however you might see some sort of fascistic government in Turkey.

 

[Questerr]

Without looting Germany, do the Entente Powers collapse under the mountain of debt they built for themselves?

 

[UCB79]

Just by omitting the war guilt clause- which
Hitler was able to make such good use of-
makes your proposed treaty Abe infinitely
better than the one IOTL.

 

[Mikestone8]

4. Greece will not gain any territory from Turkey. However, the Turkish border with Armenia will be demilitarized for at least 10 years.

Where would the "Turkish-Armenian border" be? Along Turkey's present eastern frontier? If so, there seems no particular need for this. If not, who enforces it and how?

 

[Aphrodite]

There's not a chance in hell of such a treaty being ratified by the Entente.

1) So the British achieve their objective of destroying the German fleet but France is to face the might of Germany with only Poland as a sure ally? A Poland that would have to defend itself against both Germany and the Soviets?

2) So this new, more powerful Germany is going to lose territory to her neighbors. And why won't it seek the return of these lands like France sought Alsace and Lorraine for forty years?

3) Unite Germany and Austria so they can be even more powerful against the "victorious" Entente? Really, why would they ever agree to this?

4) Reparations kept to a "reasonable" level? Really, and how much of the reparations bill did the Germans actually pay? And what is a reasonable level?


Versailles was a disaster because the coalition that tried to impose it wouldn't last. The British liked a strong Germany to keep the French down and the Americans went home. It all just blew up in their faces

The only reason the Germans got such moderate terms OTL is that the Americans were at the table and the Russians weren't

 

[NoMommsen]

1. No military restrictions, ...

The germans would love it. But as said :
- no way the french would ever agree to it,
- nor the brits, as they claimed tht destruction of 'germen/prussian militarism' as one of their official main war aims.

However, the restrictions could be much milder than OTL with a kind of only token control, IF ... some of the Entente members might see it as a necessity/convenience to keep Germany as a "continental rapier" against Bolshevism ... might depend on how things would/could develop ITTL in the east.

but the German fleet will be destroyed/distributed to the Entente.

Erhmmm, ... what fleet ? The pile of scrap on the bottom of Scapa Flow ?

2. Germany loses all the territory they historically lost, including the French occupation of the Saar.

Fair enough esp. in the west, to some degree even for at least parts of the german establishment ... bearable. But the eastern border "humiliation" would be something of constant strains.

3. Germany will be allowed to unify with Austria.

The germans ... german-austrians would love it. The germans ... might have some 'mixed' feelings about it, though it might/could be seen as kind of a ... compensation for eastern losses.

"Acceptance" of such a solution ? ... might perhaps depend on other economic 'demands' put upon the then united Bigger Germany in terms of payments/develpoment to and of the other post-habsburgian states.
... as well as such demands by the Entente members.

3. No war guilt clause, ...

The germans - and esp. the republicans, if informed of its deletion beforehand - would love it, taking an awfull mighty propagandistical and political burden from the Weimar Republik, greatly weakening the anti-republican forces in Germany.

... though Turkey will be forced to admit responsibility for the Armenian genocide.

The turks will hate it ... with quite possible an outcome for Turkey and the armenians for a regime much more similar to what happened IOTL in Germany ... and its jews ...

4.snip ...

see above in general

5. Reparations will be kept at a reasonable level.

What is 'reasonable ' ?
Definitly NOT, what the Entente powers demanded. This was off limits anything that happened before in history.

 

[NoMommsen]

There's not a chance in hell of such a treaty being ratified by the Entente.

I'm inclined to largly agree.

Versailles was a disaster because the coalition that tried to impose it wouldn't last. The British liked a strong Germany to keep the French down and the Americans went home. It all just blew up in their faces

The highlightened is MHO the most important if not decisive reason, why any 'solution' of a peace treaty would have failed as IOTL.

What ever ToV would have been agreed upon in an ATL, with the US participation in european and world politics - beside dealing with single countries only about their repayment of debts only ... and some 'consolidation' of their now great power position (naval treaties) - would have had the potential - if even in the name of profit only - to prevent the worst declines of politics in european states, germany at first but also Italy, Poland, France, etc.

The only reason the Germans got such moderate terms OTL is that the Americans were at the table and the Russians weren't

'Moderate' compared to what ?
IMHO a VEERY arguable judgement at best.

 

[NoMommsen]

A... 'few' more thoughts on reparations :

The "one-off" payment of 20 billion Goldmarks to be payed within a year was - if we would 'measure' 1 Goldmark = 1 Gold Franc (quite in advantage for the Franc) was already 4-times the complete payment (5 billion Gold-Franc) demanded from France in 1871 over the period of 3 years.
How 'heavy' a burden for France's whole economy it was might be a bit highlightened by the fact, that they could well afford its premature repayment, as this also was the prerequisite to end german occupation of territory hold as security ... a regulation maybe for parts of 'seized' territory which was NOT granted to Germany in 1919.
And compared to the - so often here cited - financial german demands from August 1918 (6 billion Goldmarks), I would render 20 % increase a rather small overall inflation rate for over 40 years of industrial revolution.

At the Ententes first conference about reparations (June 1920) they fixed it at 269 billion Goldmarks to be payed in annual payments more than what Germany had demanded overall from Russia for 42 years.
I compare here 'simply' contemporary regulation, not some 'hindsight' wisdom or economic-statistical comparision values (like GNP or simmilar 'statictical' more obscuring than IMHO enlightening ... inventions).

OTOH, how 'reasonable' was the managing of 'reparation' after WW 2 in western europe and western Germany ? (how ineffective and rather costly also for the "winner" the 'harsh' variant execute in the GDR was revealed 1990)
Not payment but investment, shifting even more money over the Atlantik was the quite effective and profitable approach of the US this time.

 

[yulzari]

A useful POD would be a better Treaty of Frankfurt which the French IOTL saw as a model in 1918.

 

[Aphrodite]

'Moderate' compared to what ?
IMHO a VEERY arguable judgement at best.

To what the terms would have been if the French and Russians were at the table and the Americans were home. The terms would be more like the French get the Rhine and the Russians the Oder

The Reparations would be much large to give Russia her share and with the Russians in the East and the French in the West, the Germans are going to actually pay

 

[Whiteshore]

Erhmmm, ... what fleet ? The pile of scrap on the bottom of Scapa Flow ?

The first-generation drednoughts Germany was initially allowed to keep (the Nassaus and Helgograds) until Scapa Flow led to their confiscation, presumably.

 

[NoMommsen]

To what the terms would have been if the French and Russians were at the table and the Americans were home. The terms would be more like the French get the Rhine and the Russians the Oder

The Reparations would be much large to give Russia her share and with the Russians in the East and the French in the West, the Germans are going to actually pay

IIRC the russians were NOT part even of the negotiations of the paris suburbian treaties (Versailles-Germany, Saint-Germain-Austria, Trianon-Hungary, Neuilly-Bulgaria, Sèvres-Ottoman Empire).
Probably not at least because the troops of quite some bourgeois, reactionary, capitalistic Entente members (France, Britain, Japan and not at least - on behalf of these Entente powers - Germany) were actually occupying parts of the russian empire.

Therefore I don't see some the possibility (beside ASB and wishfull thinking) of any kind of 'concerted enforcement action' embracing France and Russia ... not to forget, that there is Poland in the way.
... or was the polish-Soviet war part of such an action ?
... or only a big 'misunderstanding' of such ?



However, I can agree, that without the US on the table the ToVs provisions might have been even more outlandish than IOTL.

 

[AbeLincoln1865]

Where would the "Turkish-Armenian border" be? Along Turkey's present eastern frontier? If so, there seems no particular need for this. If not, who enforces it and how?

The territory Armenia (temporarily) gained after the Treaty of Sèvres.

 

[Whiteshore]

However, I can agree, that without the US on the table the ToVs provisions might have been even more outlandish than IOTL.

Will they look as if a British Space Bat had imposed it?

 

[NoMommsen]

As I know @Aphrodite it would have more a ... french taste to it

edit:
Sry @AbeLincoln1865 just came across the pic and ... couldn't help it.

 

[Mikestone8]

The territory Armenia (temporarily) gained after the Treaty of Sèvres.

Who's gong to make the effort to enforce that? Aside from Lloyd George (who can't hope to carry the Commons with him on that issue) who really cares enough?

 

[Mackus]

Any alternate treaty of Versailles after Russia drops out and collapses would ultimately be a draw, no matter how harsh it nominally is on Germans.
Franco-Russian alliance is broken, so even totally defeated Germany manages to achieve her single most important foreign policy objective.
Only France would have reason to enforce the treaty, but no means to do it all alone, due to it's military and political weakness (French internal weakness made Stresa front collapse, and ruined an opportunity to contain Germany while still weak). Poland would be too weak, and always vulnerable to German alliance with whatever government would be in Moscow. USA would go back to splendid isolation. UK would want to maintain balance of power, and would gladly help Germans stick it to the French, as long as Germans would promise to keep substantially weaker navy.

 

[AbeLincoln1865]

Who's gong to make the effort to enforce that? Aside from Lloyd George (who can't hope to carry the Commons with him on that issue) who really cares enough?

The French maybe?

 

[Mikestone8]

The French maybe?

The French had got Syria which was all they cared about. They didn't even bother pursuing the "sphere of influence" in Cilicia that Sykes-Picot promised them. They certainly hadn't the faintest interest in Armenia.