What if the Treaty of Versailles in 1918 that ended WWI was the 14 points as opposed to punishing Germany harshly? How would that impact history? Maybe the Germans would not have attempted to avenge themselves in WWII.
WI Treaty of Versailles was the 14 points?
- Thread starter Pearlshire19
- Start date
The Fourteen Points proposed to punish Germany relatively heavily as it was. Access to the sea for Poland needed to come out of German territory. Alsace-Lorraine was going to go back to France.
What you're down to are arms restrictions, reparations and the removal of colonies.
1.) Reparations- Germany absolutely, utterly WRECKED Belgium and Northern France. The idea of reparations was completely reasonable. And in the end, Germany hardly paid any of the reparations.
2.) Arms Restrictions- 100,000 was admittedly a bit overboard, but arms restrictions were probably inevitable.
3.) Colonies- German colonies weren't worth much. Losing them might've hurt prestige, but wouldn't make the economy suffer any.
The fact is that the Treaty of Versailles was, in fact, a relatively fair treaty but failed due to the unwillingness of the Germans to acknowledge that they had been truly and fairly defeated and the unwillingness of allied nations to enforce its terms. It didn't help that the Allies never really got deep into Germany, even in the postwar period.
I suppose one could've taken the conciliatory route and tried to gain German friendship by any means possible, which might've been successful, but the ASBs required to make France, which had lost 1.5 million men and had probably a tenth of its national wealth destroyed, feel conciliatory towards Germany would be impressive indeed. The British and Americans were more moderate, but the prevailing mood was that Germany had been the primary aggressor, which it had, and that it was only right to secure reparations and assurances of security.
I do think, though, that Germany should've been admitted to the League of Nations sooner than it was.
Last edited:
The Treaty of Versaille was by no means fair.
Germany wasn't allowed to participate in the treaty negotiations, how can that be considered even reasonable. Most of the reparations that Germany agreed to were left over grudges that the French held over from their loss in the Franco-Prussian war. The Allies, in particular France were determined to utterly destroy Germany, making sure that they couldn't do anything politically, militarily or economically without asking France.
Really the one thing that made the treaty completely unfair was the War Guilt Clause. It was a matter of the victors enforcing their views on the vanquished. Not to mention the German military lost more men in combat than any other combatant, including France and the Russians.
If the Entente had been more reasonable in 1919 then Germany probably wouldn't have collapsed into Nazi rule in the 30's. Germany along with France has always been a key to European stability. Maybe if the Treaty had been more realistic instead of a revenge ploy, World War 2 might have been a battle between France, Germany and Britain on one end, and the Russians on the other.
Germany wasn't allowed to participate in the treaty negotiations, how can that be considered even reasonable. Most of the reparations that Germany agreed to were left over grudges that the French held over from their loss in the Franco-Prussian war. The Allies, in particular France were determined to utterly destroy Germany, making sure that they couldn't do anything politically, militarily or economically without asking France.
Really the one thing that made the treaty completely unfair was the War Guilt Clause. It was a matter of the victors enforcing their views on the vanquished. Not to mention the German military lost more men in combat than any other combatant, including France and the Russians.
If the Entente had been more reasonable in 1919 then Germany probably wouldn't have collapsed into Nazi rule in the 30's. Germany along with France has always been a key to European stability. Maybe if the Treaty had been more realistic instead of a revenge ploy, World War 2 might have been a battle between France, Germany and Britain on one end, and the Russians on the other.
Hnau
Banned
How would you get a Paris Peace Conference that would take a more conciliatory position to the Germans? If not Clemenceau, Poincare would have very likely chosen someone who would have sought negotiations for an armistice. How about President Wilson? Of the election of 1916, he was likely the one most likely to go soft on the Germans. If he died and Marshall became President, he would likely be less strong-handed than Wilson and let the Europeans dominate the conference and bring a quick withdrawal of American troops. Lloyd George was no hawk either... any change of the British PM is likely to bring a more aggressive leader, in my opinion.
It looks like the you gotta end the conditions of the armistice. Perhaps Wilson or Marshall pulls out the American troops early on when the European leaders reject their views, and the German military is able to recoup and threaten a return to hostilities, forcing the Allies to accept them in the Conference and demanding minute reparations, much less arms restrictions, but they lose their colonies.
It looks like the you gotta end the conditions of the armistice. Perhaps Wilson or Marshall pulls out the American troops early on when the European leaders reject their views, and the German military is able to recoup and threaten a return to hostilities, forcing the Allies to accept them in the Conference and demanding minute reparations, much less arms restrictions, but they lose their colonies.
Point: Australia actually lost a larger percentage of our army. 68% dead, injured and missing.
Versailles, as it was applied after numerous changes ( though maybe not as it was first drafted ), was not worse - or not better - than the treaties Germany had imposed on its defeated foes ( sole possible exception, the war guilt clause ), for exemple Frankfuhrt ( to say nothing of Brest-Litovsk ). It was in the spirit of the times.
Avoing WWII after the german capitulation in 1918 would, IMO, require and extremely lenient or an extremely harsh peace treaty. However, Versailles going for either requires a working crystal ball ( and would be a though sell even then ).
This may be true if one limits economic results to money actually received by the Allies:
Germany paid something between 35 billion Gold Marks (US estimates) and 100 billion Gold Marks (German estimates) compared to about 5 billion Gold Marks France agreed to pay at Frankfurt.
But the extraction of these reparations caused far greater damage than the amount received by the Allies. A simple example: German merchant ships were seized at scrap metal value (which was very low after WWI), but the German shipping lines had to replace them at much higher costs. It took nearly 15 years of haggling and Allied occupation (causing massive damages in Germany with no benefit to the Allies) to reduce the payments,
- Germany was not present at the peace talks - during which the likely illegal starvation blockade continued - and had to sign dictates that basically allowed the victors to unilaterally do as they wished.
- It included new and deliberate humiliations never used before, e.g. patent transfers, arms limitation, limits on technology, disarmament of its civilian population and police.
- One should not underestimate the War Guilt Clause.
- Another reason for the German hatred of the Treaty of Versailles was the arrogant way in which the Allies themselves routinely violated it, e.g. the little Belgian farce or re-defining voting districts in the East - after (!) too voters many had dared to vote the wrong way.
etc. pp
Compare this with the way in which France was treated after it lost a war: It was an accepted partner at the peace talk, signing a treaty as an equal and knowing its obligations at once . France was treated as major European power, getting the respect it deserved. Germany fulfilled all its obligations under the Treaty of Frankfurt.
One might argue that Brest-Litovsk was as harsh as Versailles, but this ignores the fact that it included no reparations clauses and no limitations on Russian sovereignty. Russia lost territory, but losing territory itself was not the main problem of Versailles.
Germany paid something between 35 billion Gold Marks (US estimates) and 100 billion Gold Marks (German estimates) compared to about 5 billion Gold Marks France agreed to pay at Frankfurt.
But the extraction of these reparations caused far greater damage than the amount received by the Allies. A simple example: German merchant ships were seized at scrap metal value (which was very low after WWI), but the German shipping lines had to replace them at much higher costs. It took nearly 15 years of haggling and Allied occupation (causing massive damages in Germany with no benefit to the Allies) to reduce the payments,
- Germany was not present at the peace talks - during which the likely illegal starvation blockade continued - and had to sign dictates that basically allowed the victors to unilaterally do as they wished.
- It included new and deliberate humiliations never used before, e.g. patent transfers, arms limitation, limits on technology, disarmament of its civilian population and police.
- One should not underestimate the War Guilt Clause.
- Another reason for the German hatred of the Treaty of Versailles was the arrogant way in which the Allies themselves routinely violated it, e.g. the little Belgian farce or re-defining voting districts in the East - after (!) too voters many had dared to vote the wrong way.
etc. pp
Compare this with the way in which France was treated after it lost a war: It was an accepted partner at the peace talk, signing a treaty as an equal and knowing its obligations at once . France was treated as major European power, getting the respect it deserved. Germany fulfilled all its obligations under the Treaty of Frankfurt.
One might argue that Brest-Litovsk was as harsh as Versailles, but this ignores the fact that it included no reparations clauses and no limitations on Russian sovereignty. Russia lost territory, but losing territory itself was not the main problem of Versailles.
Faeelin
Banned
Alsace-Lorraine was oddly never an issue; but you could, theoretically, have given the Poles a corridor through (or as part of) Lithuania.
Of course, it's not clear that Germany would've lost in the Corridor, so the 14 points might not have led to the same account; and is Hungary so badly off, being land locked?
Australian army may have lost 68% of their numbers, a hefty price for sure, but Germany suffered 2.2 MILLION casualties, thats 500 000 more than the next, which was Russia.
Germany would have had to be in a better position at the end of the war to make any possibility of the Treaty of Versaille more realistic and less crippling.
Germany would have had to be in a better position at the end of the war to make any possibility of the Treaty of Versaille more realistic and less crippling.
A real aplication of the 14 points would actually strenght Germany in the long time: They might lose Alsace-Lorraine and northern Schleswig, but they would gain Sudetenland and Austria under the issue of national self determination... nobody would go for that in the aftermath of WW1.
If anything, I would blame Willson for the killing of Austria-Hungary and its subsequent destruction of the European equilibrium, which put Central Europe on the hands of a revanchist Germany. A reduced, federalized and monarchist empire under Karl I would act as a proper counterweight to an expansionist Germany and prefer the former enemy before Hitler and co.
Germany's economy was doomed by the enormous debt piled up, the German tradition being to make the enemy pay off the debt in reparations. Even a peace among equals would have seen Germany's economy collapse.
Had Germany early on made a virtue of necessity and practicality terms might have been different. Surrendering the disgraced High Seas Fleet which would inevitably be obsolete soon, the expensive and burdensome colonies, Alsace-Lorraine...And less 2% of the reparations were ever actually paid.
Had Germany early on made a virtue of necessity and practicality terms might have been different. Surrendering the disgraced High Seas Fleet which would inevitably be obsolete soon, the expensive and burdensome colonies, Alsace-Lorraine...And less 2% of the reparations were ever actually paid.
Susano
Banned
I cant remember Frankfurt internationalising rivers, setting up occupied zones or limiting army numbers, or limiting the economy. Not Brest-Litovsk, either, come to think of it.
And, SE, those things, the loss of German souvereignity inside its remaining territory, was the real problem, not the amount of territory lost. Especially since comparing one horrible peace (Versailles) with anothe rhorrible peace (the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire) really is saying nothing at all.
And GR, your number of only 2% of the repreations actually being paid has been numerous times shown to be wrong here.
Susano, no, it has not. 133 billion demanded, 2 billion paid.
Other items were one shot items whose effect didn't last long, or, in the case of the Saar coal basin, justified.
Not to mention that Germany never did pay off most of her own debts...
Other items were one shot items whose effect didn't last long, or, in the case of the Saar coal basin, justified.
Not to mention that Germany never did pay off most of her own debts...
Well, personally I think that one of the biggest, yet unavoidable, points of the Treaty of Versailles was the massive reduction and limitation of German armed forces. Whereas the Treaty of Versailles could have left a reasonably-sized army (reasonably) loyal to the social-democratic leaders of Germany, instead hundreds of thousands of career-soldiers were left without their livelihood and ended up in paramilitary organisations like the Freikorps and the Sturmabteilung.
What's your source you're basing this statement on? The lowest calculation of reparations paid by Germany after WW1 I am aware of is 20 billion goldmarks. Are you sure you didn't missed out a 0 ?
Faeelin
Banned
Aye, Weimar and Nazi Germany: Continuities and Discontinuities gives the number as 22.3 billion Reichsmarks; a small amount, as it was only 3% of the national income in this period, but still far more than 2 billion.
Susano
Banned
Eh. IMO that point gets overblown. There was little chance of a democratic army anyways, and as much as this was an issue for German national pride, it didnt hurt Germany in any substantial points. The presence of the French troops, and the restrictions on the economy were far worse...