How would you have handled Versailles?

[Maur]

This is the sort of thing that makes me want a treaty that adjusts borders as little as possible, because any adjustments wind up badly.

Which is impossible, though, because by that time you have collapsed AH that's not coming back, collapsed Russia with plenty of "Greens" (of which Poles could be considered one), and Polish uprising in Greater Poland.

 

[Elfwine]

Which is impossible, though, because by that time you have collapsed AH that's not coming back, collapsed Russia with plenty of "Greens" (of which Poles could be considered one), and Polish uprising in Greater Poland.

Agreed. But frankly, if you think I'm actually going to support any of these minor states being carved out, you're crazy.

I am almost willing to say "Screw it, let there be anarchy." there. Almost. Its just that unsolvable.

 

[Snake Featherston]

Snake: It sounds like the stuff directed at Germany would be stuff that after things settle down to a state that nations can pretend to be reasonable people again can be approached again - maybe not specifically spelled out as such, but there's room for dealing with things when it comes up.

Germany really, really isn't in much of a position to maintain much beyond a Self Defense Force in 1918 anyway. Keeping a powerful offensive-bent force in existence would be a dreadful strain on a greatly overburdened by the war economy.

It'll recover, sure, but by that point, it can be worked out when that comes up, assuming things have generally held together.

Indeed. And leaving a Self-Defense Force makes it possible to let the Germans suppress their internal difficulties with real soldiers, not paramilitaries, and permits the Weimar Republic to keep its own military system unlike that of the Regime that preceded it.

Appeasing Bolsheviks is simply impossible with, say, Lloyd George at the helm. And Entente deciding Polish-Bolshevik borders is fantasy, they had practically no leverage there at all.

True, but then altering the political system to something workable in 1918 is really a no-go anyway. At least making it possible to propose drawing in the Bolsheviks makes it much easier for the Bolshies themselves to adopt a more integrated policy with the rest of Europe.

Happy convincing Romanians and Hungarians to cooperate. This is also borderline ASB.

I just said it had a chance to work, I never said it had a good chance.

Greek-Turkish... uh, what next? Polish-German economic union (well, that one would be more realistic, actually)? This is no go.

To be blunt the signers at Versailles were never really thinking about the interests of anyone but the Great Powers, and preventing a Greco-Turkish War clusterfuck would do much for the Balkans in its own right.

Kaiser in Holland, Ludendorff in Sweden, and treaty signed by what amounts to private citizens... interesting.

This treaty'd require the people that began the war to sign the end of it, meaning if the Dolchstosslegende does appear they'd be linked in with it as the November Criminals, meaning groups backing that Dolchstosslegende won't get anywhere near power by legitimate means.

 

[Altenate history diplomat]

This sort of thing would require the most rigid enforcement of the treaty to work. What if, at some later date, Germany decides to block transit across that transport route until Poland consents to some demands? Who would die for a railway, especially if Germany manages to rearm in before making such demands?

The League of Nations is there for a reason, although like any sensible person, I would not place too much trust on the LoN. Polish Guard units on the transportation artery would be more feasible but would insult and annoy the germans.

What to do, what to do...?

 

[Elfwine]

Indeed. And leaving a Self-Defense Force makes it possible to let the Germans suppress their internal difficulties with real soldiers, not paramilitaries, and permits the Weimar Republic to keep its own military system unlike that of the Regime that preceded it.

An important thing in managing to establish a state with authority, I think. If it has to rely on paramilitary type groups, its going to become dependent on them in all the wrong ways.

 

[Snaut]

The League of Nations is there for a reason, although like any sensible person, I would not place too much trust on the LoN. Polish Guard units on the transportation artery would be more feasible but would insult and annoy the germans.

What to do, what to do...?

A Polish Corridor does seem to be the simplest option. Fortunately with hindsight we know that Poland is capable of building Gdynia up to a decent size within two decades, so Danzig can revert to Germany/have a plebiscite at the termination of a period of comparable length (Edit: without really hurting Poland), which will at least solve the Danzig problem in a final way.
East Prussia would be accessible to Germany only by sea, but it seems to have survived IOTL. An exterritorial route through the corridor would have appealed to Germany, but had the potential of causing all sorts of unpleasant situations.

 

[Snake Featherston]

An important thing in managing to establish a state with authority, I think. If it has to rely on paramilitary type groups, its going to become dependent on them in all the wrong ways.

Given the Allies gave their blessing to use of the Freikorps here, giving the blessing to use of real troops permits the Germans to keep themselves an army, but the Allies to be able to know when the Germans are shifting from a defensive to an offensive army. It's a lot harder when one already has the ability to handsomely defend oneself to justify an offensive navy and air force, as if one only wants to defend oneself one has no need of them.....

 

[BlondieBC]

A Polish Corridor does seem to be the simplest option. Fortunately with hindsight we know that Poland is capable of building Gdynia up to a decent size within two decades, so Danzig can revert to Germany/have a plebiscite at the termination of a period of comparable length (Edit: without really hurting Poland), which will at least solve the Danzig problem in a final way.
East Prussia would be accessible to Germany only by sea, but it seems to have survived IOTL. An exterritorial route through the corridor would have appealed to Germany, but had the potential of causing all sorts of unpleasant situations.

At least by the late 1950's, the technology existed to economically build 20 mile long elevated highways (autobahn). An elevated railroad/autobahn for either the German's to connect East Prussia or for the Polish to connect to the new port would provide limited/no contact between the two sides. A new port and the associated roads would provide jobs for returning soldiers.

 

[Magnificate]

Again: OTL is any different? Having a larger state didn't do Poland much good OTL in the next twenty or so years.

Well, you might take it for granted, but even 20 years of statehood, freedom and being able to govern oneself has tremendous value.

The alternative, as I understand your proposals, is sacrificing such privilege for one or several groups in exchange for the stability of the rest. If so, then what reason is there not to put that burden on the Germans? After all much more could be taken from Germany and it still would remain strong enough to be considered an European power as evidenced by post-WWII Europe.

 

[Xgentis]

I feel that in the end the Versailles treaty was the best solution. What started WWII was not the treaty but Hitler himself. Even with a more lenient treaty any lunatic in power would denounce it and saying how awfull it is for the ntional pride or some nonsense like that. Versailles failed not becuse it was a bad treaty but because nobody had the politic will to enforce it.

 

[BlondieBC]

I feel that in the end the Versailles treaty was the best solution. What started WWII was not the treaty but Hitler himself. Even with a more lenient treaty any lunatic in power would denounce it and saying how awfull it is for the ntional pride or some nonsense like that. Versailles failed not becuse it was a bad treaty but because nobody had the politic will to enforce it.

Even without the Nazi, Germany is likely to want to "right the wrongs" of the ToV. If the Communist are able to take over Germany, then the Soviets and Germany alliance is likely to go to war. Even if Germany is ruled by the peace party, the Soviet Union is likely to try to regain lost land. The ToV created lots of trigger points for war. And the war continue in the East after the ToV.

I agree that the lack of will to enforce the ToV was part of the cause of WW2. If the UK maintains a large standing army, and France is willing to make sure the Rhineland stays demilitarized, then any German leader will have trouble starting the next war.

As an interesting side note, the only CP power to reject the Entente treaty is the only CP power not to fight in WW2. I suspect Muslim minorities under Armenian and Greek rulers leads to Turkey fighting in WW2.

 

[Xgentis]

I disagree WWII is not unavoidable you say it like Germany was fated to start WWII no matter what government is in power.

 

[BlondieBC]

I disagree WWII is not unavoidable you say it like Germany was fated to start WWII no matter what government is in power.

I believe likely, but not unavoidable. Too many potential trigger points. It would not have necessarily been a world war, but yes a war in Europe is much more likely than not. They players may be different, the year will likely will be different.

Especially if the French keep the Rhine demilitarized and the British keep a much longer standing army, Germany may be neutral. But how does the UK and France react to an expansionistic Soviet Union attacking Finland or annexing the Baltics or attacking Poland?

 

[Maur]

I believe likely, but not unavoidable. Too many potential trigger points. It would not have necessarily been a world war, but yes a war in Europe is much more likely than not. They players may be different, the year will likely will be different.

Especially if the French keep the Rhine demilitarized and the British keep a much longer standing army, Germany may be neutral. But how does the UK and France react to an expansionistic Soviet Union attacking Finland or annexing the Baltics or attacking Poland?

It doesn't since USSR doing that is borderline ASB without R-M.

 

[Elfwine]

Well, you might take it for granted, but even 20 years of statehood, freedom and being able to govern oneself has tremendous value.

The alternative, as I understand your proposals, is sacrificing such privilege for one or several groups in exchange for the stability of the rest. If so, then what reason is there not to put that burden on the Germans? After all much more could be taken from Germany and it still would remain strong enough to be considered an European power as evidenced by post-WWII Europe.

Why should much more be taken from Germany? Because the victors have the power to fuck things up?

I'm in favor of a situation that tries to avoid putting burdens on any state. WWI was burdensome enough, a treaty that adds more is not something I'd support.

 

[Mikestone8]

I feel that in the end the Versailles treaty was the best solution. What started WWII was not the treaty but Hitler himself. Even with a more lenient treaty any lunatic in power would denounce it and saying how awfull it is for the ntional pride or some nonsense like that. Versailles failed not becuse it was a bad treaty but because nobody had the politic will to enforce it.

Isn't that a distinction without a difference?

If you draw up a treaty which requires more effort to enforce than successor governments are lilely to possess, then you have made a bad treaty. Saying "It would work if only people were different from what they are" is a nonsnse.

 

[Xgentis]

Isn't that a distinction without a difference?

If you draw up a treaty which requires more effort to enforce than successor governments are lilely to possess, then you have made a bad treaty. Saying "It would work if only people were different from what they are" is a nonsnse.

No any treaty would have been feel unfair and denounced by any lunatic because it hurted their nationnal pride. The great depression played a bigger part in the rise of the nazis then the treaty. They needed something to blame everything and the treaty was an obvious choice.

 

[Snaut]

I don't think OTL's Versailles could be significantly improved upon, except by some minor changes which may slightly reduce the potential for local disagreements, largely due to hindsight:

Allowing Danzig to decide its fate in a plebiscite, or simply revert to Germany, after a period of 30 years as a free city. This resolves an obvious future point of contention in a very awkward place.

Either the plebiscites in eastern Germany should be done away with altogether, or some clear prior arrangement should be made concerning the division of the plebiscite zones BEFORE the plebiscites actually take place.

Try to avoid permanent League control of any regions, instead adding places like Memel to other states.

While the treaty in its entirety was clearly unenforceable, I believe there was a reasonable chance that future war could have been avoided without any major changes to the borders drawn at Versailles, besides Danzig.

No any treaty would have been feel unfair and denounced by any lunatic because it hurted their nationnal pride. The great depression played a bigger part in the rise of the nazis then the treaty. They needed something to blame everything and the treaty was an obvious choice.

A good point.

The only solution I can think of which might guarantee constant willingness of a great power to enforce the treaty more completely then IOTL is awarding the whole Rhineland to France. If the French do not believe that Germany can be appeased solely by territorial revision in the east, they will be much more motivated to act.

 

[Snaut]

At least by the late 1950's, the technology existed to economically build 20 mile long elevated highways (autobahn). An elevated railroad/autobahn for either the German's to connect East Prussia or for the Polish to connect to the new port would provide limited/no contact between the two sides. A new port and the associated roads would provide jobs for returning soldiers.

An interesting idea. Actually I think construction of the first such highways began well before the 1950s, but I'm hardly an expert on the subject.

Sadly I'm afraid it won't do much to limit the possibility of blocking such a highway.

 

[Jotun]

No any treaty would have been feel unfair and denounced by any lunatic because it hurted their nationnal pride. The great depression played a bigger part in the rise of the nazis then the treaty. They needed something to blame everything and the treaty was an obvious choice.

So you're basically saying the majority of the German population was a bunch of lunatics, good one . The Versailles treaty was a travesty. It was vindictive, petty and went way beyond what would have been reasonable. A bunch of humuliations visited upon Germany more than any other of the CP. Take a look at what was done to the HSF on its way to internment as one of the prime examples of how NOT to treat a losing power.