I notice this include land that, IOTL, voted to remain in Hungary. Which was legally a seperate country from Austria when the Union broke down. Also, Alsace-Lorraine hated the Prussians for how they treated them since the day they annexed them and had them as a military run zone . Heck, during WWII the Germans thought they should deport the entire population to settle Eastern Europe, because they treated the Nazis with scorn and according to many Nazis were too set in their French were just waiting to be liberated. And if we are going just by ethnicity, the southern third of East Prussia should go to Poland or be independent. We also should allow the enclaves Switzerland surrounded to join Switzerland (some areas had 97% vote to join the Swiss, but the Germans required land in exchange for any switch) as well as letting Voralburg join Switzerland as they voted to do.
Better Versailles Treaty
- Thread starter Bobby Martnen
- Start date
No. All Allies knew that was the only reason France was in - and France had taken the worst of the losses and damage in the Entente. Proportionally, Belgium might have been worse, I don't remember the numbers, but the war was fought on French soil.
If any power deserved its pound of flesh, it was France. And France wanted Alsace-Lorraine which was the focus of French Nationalism ever since 1870 because it had built the national unity around that.
If France ended up without all of Alsace-Lorraine, it would likely have gotten fascists. Like the OTL myth of a mutilated peace in Italy, it would be just that.
It's called Poznania, or Greater Poland.
Because it belongs to a winning power. No winning power ceded any land.
Last edited:
@Bobby Martnen
Twice I showed you proof that A-L was not happy under Germany and twice you simple answered the equivalent of ''nuh-hu'' without bringing anything to back it up
Furthermore, your point of this so call ''love'' dont hold any water when you see stuff like the Zabern affair
Twice I showed you proof that A-L was not happy under Germany and twice you simple answered the equivalent of ''nuh-hu'' without bringing anything to back it up
Furthermore, your point of this so call ''love'' dont hold any water when you see stuff like the Zabern affair
You posted a lot of weird stuff, but as I am on my iPad it would be far too difficult to do editing with text boxes. I will therefore just point out that the Picts, Scots, moved back and forth a lot and the Gaels supposedly came FROM Ireland and settled in Scotland were they mixed, with centuries later returning to Ulster. Maybe a thousand years later. Basically Irish people invaded Scotland, who later returned the favor. And have you hear of Hiberno-Normans? No, not the Vikings who founded Dublin and other cities. I mean those from Normandy who came over and became to act 'more Irish than the Irish'.
Oh, and being British is less about ethnicity and more about culture, nationality, etc. I feel you should apologize.
Wrong. France was "in" because Russia decided to back Serbia and then mobilized, and France had handcuffed herself to Russia.
France had no absolute need to start a war over A-L, no more in 1914 than in 1912 or 1903 or 1885. There were lots of people who resented Germany's reconquest of A-L, but they weren't exactly shrieking for war over it.
And Germany would GLADLY have let France stand aside, except France's pact with Russia wouldn't permit.
And forget the "Germany invaded France first" garbage -- the Franco-Russian agreement called for both France and Russia to commence attacks into Germany by Day 15 of mobilization. If Germany hadn't invaded, France would have.
And Alsace-Lorraine was the reason France had handcuffed itself to Russia.
Sulemain
Banned
And none of that explains why the Germans decided invading Belgium was somehow a good idea.
That "foreign occupying force" has lived there for centuries, and no one has the right to throw them out of their homes.
Having said that...this principle isn't even consistently applied. The Germans in Prussia, the Sudetenland, western Hungary and many other territories weren't exactly plonked down onto those lands by God himself; they migrated there in past centuries. So if you believe in that brand of native supremacy, why doesn't the treaty give Prussia "back" to the native Prussians (or their first cousins, the Lithuanians? Pomerania to the Poles? Western Hungary to, well, Hungarians (from which it was separated for no reason)?
It's also strange that the treaty doesn't concern itself with non-native Americans, whose presence is surely no more "just" then the presence of Protestants in Ulster.
Well, it makes sense from a strategic POV. Short frontier with Germany, long frontier with France, and a lot of it goes through flat lands.
1. Oh, it makes plenty of sense alright, but Britain cannot and should not be compelled to do anything it does not agree to.
2. France had to get it back. Was it ethically sound? Maybe not but that national obsession was too strong. I would give it to Italy even though I really wouldn't want to because of the defensibly of the Brenner Pass and because Austria can't be too revanchist while Italy getting insulted is more dangerous. Besides, they did commit massive resources to the war and hundreds of thousands died. They're going to want things in return. On the other hand, I think Italy would be willing to take only Trentino if it got the section of the Dalmatian coast promised in the London Pact and that might be a better deal anyway. This way, Italy will be satisfied and the chance of Austrian Union with Germany going unopposed by Italy is greatly reduced.
3. No, it's not an unreasonable concession but I would leave it with Germany anyway, out of principle, that is, the principle of not slicing any of Germany up on behalf of Poland.
4. Perhaps, in which case Poland is more secure, but the possibility of it holding out is low and Russia has already made huge territorial concessions in spite of vontributing significantly to the allied cause.
5.Because it's French territory, most people there re starting to speak French and France won! The only thing I can see France giving Italy as compensation, besides permission to take part of Dalmatia, is its colony of Tunisia, which Italy had long coveted.
6. It is thoroughly Turkish at this point. While I understand the Greek irredentist spirit, this is the longtime capital of the Ottoman empire and a core part of Turkey. Furthermore, Turkey has already lost its empire and certain territories as well. There is already going to be a huge population transfer between Greece and Turkey. Finally, to have two different powers in control of the area around the straits is a bit risky given their importance.
And the Germans kept deceiving themselves with the idea the British were spineless and wouldn't go to war over a "scrap of paper".
Of course, they were completely wrong.
Treaty can say whatever it likes. Doesn't mean this one will be any more likely to be ratified by the Senate.
Really, what I want is to know who benefits from this in Germany leadership wise. Do people still go on about it being imposed by the Entente? Do the Entente and Americans still insist upon it being signed by democratic representatives? Or, instead of discrediting the democrats while letting lousy general's get off scot free, they give the triumph of this treaty to the Germans High Command themselves in a surrender ceremony.
Indeed. Never really a good idea to tell someone that nothing you say or promise to weaker people matters to you and that they should fuck off or you would break their wrists.
Faeelin
Banned
I'm pretty okay with killing Hitler in 1919. As for their fascism, have you never heard of the silent dictatorship?
The treaty had many problems but the true issue is that it was unenforceable. The USA was never going to care, England is only going to bother about the parts they think relevant and France won't do it on it's own.
So to get workable treaty terms for the long term you should consider what England is willing to enforce then add what France can, the extraneous terms don't give any true advantage to France(the main one worried) while giving other countries a view of it being exaggerated/unfair and creating problematic issues that will just keep getting in the way of diplomacy.
Another possibility would be go all in and commit to the kind of change Germany and Japan went through after WW2, it would be even better but I just don't see people at the time making that kind of decision.
So to get workable treaty terms for the long term you should consider what England is willing to enforce then add what France can, the extraneous terms don't give any true advantage to France(the main one worried) while giving other countries a view of it being exaggerated/unfair and creating problematic issues that will just keep getting in the way of diplomacy.
Another possibility would be go all in and commit to the kind of change Germany and Japan went through after WW2, it would be even better but I just don't see people at the time making that kind of decision.
Thinking militarily only and with their limited knowledge/plans it was the best option to be fair. Should have planned for east offensive and west defensive starting a few years earlier if they wanted a better option.
Sulemain
Banned
Thinking war is a "military only" affair caused Germany's defeat in both world wars.