Yet Another Treaty of Versailles Thread

[TheSaphireDragon]

I am, obviously, new here. I have pursued an interest in alternate history for several years now but only in the last few months have I really dove into this forum. I recently decided to make an account and post a new thread. Though I have several ideas that I think are interesting, this is the most popular one that I have thought about.
The treaty of Versailles was and is incredibly controversial, especially on this forum. I will share my own ideas on the subject. I hope that others will share their own and critique my own. These suggestions should be reasonable and enforceable. The Entente should be able to implement the treaty after the armistice. It should do as best a job as possible to prevent future conflict anywhere in Europe. Finally it should be possible to assume that the big 4 would be willing to sign it.

My Treaty:
Versailles was a failure, why and how is disputed but it was a failure. I believe that this was due to the treaty being too harsh for the Germans to not become revanchist but too lenient for them to be unable to take their revenge. Additionally, the treaty required too much oversight by the war weary or disinterested Entente powers, leaving a revanchist Germany to rebuild as soon as the west turned around.

Colonial Mandates

• German Territory in China will be annexed by China.
• German Pacific islands and Bismarck archipelago will be annexed by Japan.
• Kaiser-Wilhelmsland will be annexed by Australia.
• German Southwest-Africa will be annexed by South Africa.
• German East-Africa will be annexed by Britain.
• German Kamerun and Togoland will be annexed by France.

Domestic Policy

• Prussia will release the Rhineland, Hannover, and Schleswig-Holstein as Free states within Germany.
• Prussia will cede Prussian Hessen to the federal state of Hessen.
• Britain, France, and the USA will send delegations of political advisors and diplomates to assist in the writing of the German constitution. They will have no power to control the product but will be required to be allowed to read and critique it.
• Germany will hold an election to determine if Wilhelm III should become a monarchical figurehead to the new republic.
• The former heads of the military will be exiled from Germany and prevented from commenting on the treaty under threat of arrest.
• The Prussian war College will be closed and the general staff disbanded

European Territorial Changes

• Germany will cede Posen and Upper Silesia to Poland.
• Germany will cede Hultschiner, Neisse, and Glatz to Czechoslovakia.
• Germany will cede Memel to Lithuania.
• Germany will cede Schleswig to Denmark.
• Germany will cede Eupen-Malmady to Belgium.
• Germany will cede Elsass-Lorraine to France.
• Germany will release the Saar region as a protectorate of France (the Saar Protectorate).
• Austria will cede all lands south of the Drava River to Italy and Yugoslavia.
• Austria will cede Vorarlberg to Switzerland.
• Austria will become a constituent state of Germany.
• The Rhineland will be demilitarized and occupied by Entente forces for 40 years. They will use 10% of the industry in the occupied territories to help rebuilding in France and Belgium. This will stop if these areas are rebuilt to prewar levels before the end of the 40 year span.
• The regions of East-Prussia, West-Prussia, and eastern Pomerania will be demilitarized indefinitely or until the Polish government agrees to allow German forces into the region.
• The vistula river will be internationalized and tariffs in the city of Danzig will be controlled by Poland. A railway between Danzig and Poland will be administered by the Poles.

International Relations

• Germany, France, Belgium, Luxembourg, Poland, and Czechoslovakia will form a free trade economic block and military alliance called the European Cooperation Agreement. Italy, Romania, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and the Netherlands will be given invitations to join the block if desired.
• Germany will recognise all territorial changes to other states.
• Germany will revoke all claims on other nations territory.
• Germany will become a founding member of the League of Nations.

Military Limitations

• Germany will limited to a 400,000 man army.
• Germany will be prohibited from utilising any form of conscription except in times of war.
• Germany will be limited to a maximum of 500 aircraft.
• Germany will be prohibited from creating, owning, or using submarines.
• Germany will be limited to a battle fleet of no more than equal to 1/4 of the British navy.
• Germany will be prohibited from building ships heavier than 10,000 tons or longer than 300 meters.

War Reparations

• Germany will pay 20 billion marks, 6 billion to Belgium, 8 billion to France, 4 billion to Britain, and 2 billion to be split between the other members of the Entente depending on their participation in the war and the damage dealt to them by Germany. These payments will be made over a span of 50 years and the timeline can be extended by France and Belgium.
• Additionally, Germany will send 1/3 of its exported raw materials to France and Belgium for 15 years in compensation for the damage dealt to each nation's infrastructure and industry.
• The German High Seas Fleet will be auctioned off with the proceeds going towards paying the reparations.

Ideas this treaty is based on
- The Congress of Vienna was an ideal outcome and should be emulated in spirit.
- Though they do not lack any blame the Germans were not the primary cause of WW1 and should not be portrayed as such
- If Germany is a stable democracy, it will be highly unlikely that it will declare war on other nations.
- Germany is an important piece of the European balance of power and a valuable tool to counteract Soviet agression
I decided to go with a lenient treaty as the harsher it was, the less likely it would be that the German government would agree. Additionally, a unified Germany is an important counterbalance to Soviet aggression and a stabilizing force for central Europe. Without it there would be no great powers between France and the bane of Western civilization in Moscow. The German colonial empire would be divided up as Germany didn't need or really care about its colonies, making them the first thing to be given away. Alsace-Lorrain was necessary to France. Poland gets Posen and Upper Silesia, including its industrial center. We secure the Polish access to the sea by internationalizing the Vistula and demilitarizing Prussia to prevent Germany from easily snapping the connection. Additionally Danzig is a free trade harbor and Poland controls the railway between it and the city. This should secure Polish access to the sea. We allow Germany to annex an even more rump Austria to make them feel that they were treated with more respect.
Poland needs to be friendly with either the Russians or Germans to survive as having an enemy on either side is never good, especially for a relatively unindustrialized eastern European nation. The Soviets are a no go but a friendly Germany should offer not only protection but access to the Western powers too. Germany may have irredentist claims but that wont be as bad as OTL as East-Prussia is not an exclave.
We break the Prussian hegemony over the German states. Hopefully, political scientists and diplomats from already established democracies can help the Germans create a more stable constitution than they had OTL. Im split on the Monarchy though. Obviously anything more than a figurehead would be unacceptable but maintaining the monarchy in a token form would help to legitimize the new regime among the army and moderate German conservatives. However, Wilhelm III does not seem the type to be content with staying a figurehead. I think the either Wilhelm III's son or his brother, Eitel Frederich, might be better, but you would need to have Wilhelm III abdicate in a way that creates no doubt that he has no more right to the crown (so no threats). Otherwise we might have a nationalist coup using him as a figurehead.
The Rhineland is demilitarized like OTL but has a timer on it. By the time this timer is finished Germany should have been fully reintegrated into the European community. We are going to create a proto EU as if France and Germany are economically tied together then it will be in both of their interests to remain at peace. The military alliance is both to counteract Soviet aggression and to help normalize German-French relations. Germany should be treated as a respected great power, not a dangerous animal, so it will be given a seat at the league of nations. The German military will be reduced but not to the same level as OTL, as France and Germany are allies. German war reparations are greatly reduced as well. A more stable economy in Germany will help to ensure a long life for the Weimar republic. Hopefully, the fleet helping to pay for the Reparations will be incentive enough to prevent its scuttling.

 

[AltoRegnant]

As someone who tried this same issue, this won't fly. Germany uniting with Austria was a big no no they can't have happen. Plus the creation of a new democratic government wasn't in Versailles, but the entente recognized the weimar representatives.

And if you're going for a new Congress of Vienna you can't just get rid of the colonies or even only have the CP lose. Napoleon lost but France only lost gains from the wars. Austria lost more than France for Christ sake.

 

[Deleted member 94680]

It’s definitely interesting. I especially like the internationalised Vistula and Germany retaining West Prussia.

Not sure about Austria joining the Reich, but that might be seen as enough of a ‘gain’ to offset the ‘loses’...

 

[TheSaphireDragon]

Thanks for your input! I am aware that the Weimar government was not created by Versailles but it was early enough that it was still in flux. While Austria unifying with Germany was not ideal for France, the loss of the upper Silesian industrial region and the positioning of Germany as valuable asset to the European economy should be enough to get it through. Besides, Austrian integration with Germany will make it seem that they are following the principles that were (perceived to be) promised in the 14 points. What are your

 

[DracoLazarus]

Back again to this subject...

First of all, Germany lost unequivocally the war. The Germans were starving, their army had gotten shredded in the Hundred Days Offensive, the country was in the throes of revolution, and there was an Entente army coming from the South after the massive successes of the Salonika Front.
Therefore, you don't need to balance gains and losses for Germany. Once Germany has signed the 11nd November Armistice, their army has no tooth left, and the Allies have the capabilities even after demobilisation to just walk all the way to Berlin.

So, what are the attitudes of the powers coming in ?
Well, to start with, France and Belgium. Massive devastation, massive war debt. Can essentially shoulder either the reconstruction costs or the war debts, but not both.
Britain ? Officially they're in at Versailles "Until the Pips Squeak". De facto, like the USA, they're here for the war debts, to make sure that the French pay their war debts.

From this problem, you have two paths. Due to the fact that France and Belgium have taken much more middle-to-long term damage than Germany (France lost the same amount of men as Germany, while Germany had 50% more population than France; two of France's four industrial basins are ruined by the German ones are intact) either you ensure that there will be no future war, or that Germany is crippled going into the next war.
The French had a proposal to tie Germany and France at the hip in a proto-ECSC. This would have the advantage of exploiting the German dependence on French iron ores in now-French Thionville, and still-French Briey Longwy. The British didn't want it, because it went with low reparations, and they wanted the pips to squeak, dammit.
Then you had splitting off the Rhineland. Either to France or as an international protectorate or Belgium-ized country. Advantage, you restore the balance of power between France and Germany by depriving Germany of its primary industrial region, forcing it to rely on the Silesian basin, and provide France with a proper shield line on the Rhine. Problem, as far as Britain is concerned, this gives France too much of an advantage on the short term and diplomatically medium term.
The final solution - reparations officially "so high you'll never be able to repay them" with demilitarisation - relied on the will of the Allied powers to maintain the statu quo.
Other options, like an arbitrarily massive amount of reparations - that would still fall short of the German effective damage - or just dumping the war debts on the shoulders of Germany, were opposed largely by the Anglo-Saxon Powers.

In none of those solutions, "rewarding" Germany by giving it core German territories, while removing from it lands with vocal, hostile minorities or majorities, would have represented in this war a major alteration of the balance of power... in favor of Germany.
In other words, you keep Germany about as strong, but you've let it get away with shattering the power of all its neighbors. Not a good idea.

The real problem with Versailles is that, outside of being a flawed solution to a problem which did not have a good answer, it required on the will of the winners to enforce it, and of those winners, neither Britain and America had it.
The French were willing to enforce it. After the Germans sabotaged their economy to pay the reparations in the most stupid way possible, the French occupied the Ruhrgebiet, in the Northern Rheinland. Just as the occupation was starting to turn in a profit, the Anglo-Saxons forced France to abandon the occupation. This is why the 1936 remilitarisation of the Rhineland was unopposed... mostly because the French were unwilling to get shanked in the back by the British again.

The treaty of Versailles being "too harsh" is mostly a consequence of German propaganda, hindsight being a bitch, and lost-causers.
That being said, the internationalisation of the Vistula is a very good treaty term that should've been implemented IOTL.

 

[Garrison]

Back again to this subject...

First of all, Germany lost unequivocally the war. The Germans were starving, their army had gotten shredded in the Hundred Days Offensive, the country was in the throes of revolution, and there was an Entente army coming from the South after the massive successes of the Salonika Front.
Therefore, you don't need to balance gains and losses for Germany. Once Germany has signed the 11nd November Armistice, their army has no tooth left, and the Allies have the capabilities even after demobilisation to just walk all the way to Berlin.

This is what so many people don't get, just because there was an Armistice and the ToV rather than unconditional surrender doesn't not mean Germany was in any position to get better terms. The Entente dictated the terms of the Armistice which were designed to ensure that in the event Germany changed its mind the Entente would have an overwhelming advantage. Germany got off easy over all, especially in being allowed to have its armies march home with their weapons, a serious mistake that would play into the 'stabbed in the back' myth.

 

[fasquardon]

This treaty does nothing to address the problems of Versailles.

The Entente are still committing to a long occupation of the Rhineland, which if economic history goes as OTL, they will likely abandon due to cost. The German right will still want to embrace the "stab in the back" myth since Weimar poses a threat to their cultural values and branding the democrats traitors is a good way to undermine that "threat". There will still be rich junkers displaced from the territories lost to Poland agitating for the destruction of Poland (only this time Weimar Germany's economic war against Poland will be far more brutal for the Poles). The internationalization of the Vistula is as likely to be enforced as the status of Memel as an international city (so not very likely). At the same time, Germany and Czechoslovakia will be more upset by Poland getting all of upper silesia. Germany will still be upset at "not getting a peace based on the 14 points" as will everyone else, because the 14 points were a set of aspirations, not a blueprint. And the countries of Europe all had conflicting aspirations. National self determination for Poland directly clashes for national self determination for Ukraine since there's a big area where the two peoples live along side each-other. (This of course goes for all of the land Germany loses in this treaty, and you can ask why they aren't gaining a whole bunch of land here. There's plenty here for German anti-treaty advocates to complain about.)

And then of course this treaty does nothing for the victorious powers. Lloyd George doesn't come home with the vastly inflated reparations that included all the British war pensions, the French have fought a brutal war of national survival and emerged with her main enemy not only angered but also strengthened, the US has not secured lasting peace and economic freedom in Europe, Italy has not gained the Illyrian coast.

- Though they do not lack any blame the Germans were not the primary cause of WW1 and should not be portrayed as such

That's not what happened in OTL. What happened in Versailles is that the decision was taken to limit reparations to a just and proportionate amount, since if all the Entente powers took the amount of revenge they wanted, Germany would be a smoking hole in the ground. Therefore, reparations were limited to the damages that Germany inflicted by starting the war with France and Belgium. The clause specifying what exactly Germany was paying reparations for was then miss-represented to be a "war guilt clause" basically loading Germany with the moral responsibility for the whole war. Of course, it is fine to consider alternate ways of settling the reparations problem, but keep in mind that without setting some underlying guiding principals, this is going to turn into a messy argument between the victorious powers about what they want. Or, I should say, messier than OTL, since OTL was already pretty messy, with an absolutely massive British pension bill getting wedged into the demands on Germany's ability to pay at the last minute (and British historians have then spent the last century blaming the French for the bill being so high).

Overall, this treaty does even less to resolve the issues of the post-war world than OTL's Versailles treaty does. It does, however, place Germany in a vastly more powerful position in deciding what the post war world looks like. It's also interesting to speculate on how and why such a treaty came about.

Colonial Mandates

• German Territory in China will be annexed by China.
• German Pacific islands and Bismarck archipelago will be annexed by Japan.
• Kaiser-Wilhelmsland will be annexed by Australia.
• German Southwest-Africa will be annexed by South Africa.
• German East-Africa will be annexed by Britain.
• German Kamerun and Togoland will be annexed by France.

So there are no mandates here? The US is approving straight annexation of the German colonies?

fasquardon

 

[Falk]

It could be argued that the treaty of Brest-Litovsk was more consequential for post war Germany since it convinced the German public that they were winning the war when in reality Germany was on the verge of defeat.

 

[cjc]

One thing, who's going to impose this "harsher" peace treaty? France which couldn't even enforce the treaty as is? Britain who wanted out of Europe and actively wanted Germany to help fight the USSR? Or the US of which the only person who liked the treaty as is, was Wilson. Taken to gether and arguing that the treaty of Versailles wasn't harsh enough is all well in good but the treaty was already so harsh as to be unenforceable already.

 

[DracoLazarus]

One thing, who's going to impose this "harsher" peace treaty? France which couldn't even enforce the treaty as is? Britain who wanted out of Europe and actively wanted Germany to help fight the USSR? Or the US of which the only person who liked the treaty as is, was Wilson. Taken to gether and arguing that the treaty of Versailles wasn't harsh enough is all well in good but the treaty was already so harsh as to be unenforceable already.

In General, France can enforce a harsher peace treaty as long as it is not being stabbed in the back actively by America and Britain recalling the French war debts.

 

[Tonrich]

This got me to thinking about the Great depression. Because of the large war debt it owed didn't the German Government start manipulating their currency in order to devalue the payments? That fluctuation wiped out the German middle class and created the impetus for the rise of Hitler and the Nazi's. But did it also trigger off the world fluctuation issues that ultimately led to the Great depression? (I know it's not that simple but...just asking)

Your scenario might prevent that from happening. What would the world look like if the Great depression hadn't happened? At least not the depth of real life.

 

[DracoLazarus]

This got me to thinking about the Great depression. Because of the large war debt it owed didn't the German Government start manipulating their currency in order to devalue the payments? That fluctuation wiped out the German middle class and created the impetus for the rise of Hitler and the Nazi's. But did it also trigger off the world fluctuation issues that ultimately led to the Great depression? (I know it's not that simple but...just asking)

Your scenario might prevent that from happening. What would the world look like if the Great depression hadn't happened? At least not the depth of real life.

Well, there will be an economic collapse...
When France reneges on its war debts.

 

[Cubert]

If this treaty was followed to the T, it'd work. If Versailles had been followed to the T and properly enforced, it also would have worked.

It is very difficult to give the UK a vested interest in shedding more blood to protect any WWI treaty. This treaty makes Germany stronger than it was historically, and as such the UK will be even less interested in properly enforcing the treaty. Because of this, in my opinion (though I might very well be wrong) a better Versailles must necessarily be harsher so that France can enforce it by herself (with maybe a bit of help from Belgium) - whether or not you could get the UK to agree to this is another issue entirely.

 

[TheSaphireDragon]

If this treaty was followed to the T, it'd work. If Versailles had been followed to the T and properly enforced, it also would have worked.

Agreed on both points.

It is very difficult to give the UK a vested interest in shedding more blood to protect any WWI treaty. This treaty makes Germany stronger than it was historically, and as such the UK will be even less interested in properly enforcing the treaty.

The goal is to make it so there will be no need to enforce it. The biggest problems with the Versailles treaty (besides the aforementioned lack of desire to enforce it) are, imo...
- The reparations, resulting in German economic instability, they left Weimar's economy vulnerable to collapse if strained, which happened during the Great depression. A population in such a crisis will be desperate for an answer, which is seized on by extremists. Germany was extra vulnerable to such due to their relatively young democracy, making the people extra willing to discard it if it was perceived to fail.
- The dividing of East Prussia from the rest of Germany. This helped to radicalize the already conservative population of East Prussia as it lived under the treat of Polish invasion (not particularly irrational considering that, not only had Poland claimed much of East Prussia at Versailles, but it had a large army and had spent much of the early interwar period fighting its neighbors and annexing its claimed territory, Lithuania, Ukraine, Belarus/Russia).
- The perceived hypocrisy of Versailles and the 14 points. This made good relations with the west a very difficult thing, and as such swayed Germany away from democracy. This is the main reason I gave Austria to Germany, it will help to normalize relations between the west and the Germans.

These, in addition to the instability of the Weimar government, were, as I can see it, the primary reasons that Germany fell to fascism. Fixing these issues, in addition to trying to stabilize the German government (the advisors), legitimizing it in the eyes of the conservatives (the Kaiser), and further increasing ties to the west (the Proto EU) would hopefully be enough to prevent the fall of Democracy in Germany, and, (adhering to the theory that Democratic nations don't go to war with each-other, which I mostly agree with) should prevent a future war between Germany and the western Entente. If relations are friendly between Germany and France, why would there be a need to enforce the treaty through military might.

Because of this, in my opinion (though I might very well be wrong) a better Versailles must necessarily be harsher so that France can enforce it by herself (with maybe a bit of help from Belgium)

The issue with that is it very well may push Germany into the Soviets sphere. If a treaty is harsher, particularly if it artificially divides Germany against the will of its population (not even the most ardent supporters of the Rhenish Republic wanted complete independence from Germany, only from Prussia) we may see the failed revolutions of 1919 and 1920 find more success. The only reason they were suppressed was due to the Freikorps, who may have decided to side with them out of desperation. A Soviet Germany would be even worse than what we got, as they would work with the Soviets, and not even the US could defeat that.

whether or not you could get the UK to agree to this is another issue entirely.

That is one of the major reasons why i find the harsher treaty proposals to be incredibly unrealistic. The British and Americans would both be against it, and the Italians would be fairly neutral, leaving the French as the only of the big 4 that really wanted such a thing. The Brutish wanted a counterbalance to France (keep in mind that for most of history France had been the repeated aggressor in European politics and Napoleon was not forgotten), a stabilizing force in Central Europe to prevent Russian dominance, and to prevent German economic dominance. The Americans wanted a large and stable market to sell to, which an even more unstable or divided Germany would not accomplish. Neither would want such a harsh treaty. And the Italians main goals were to grab some land, control the Adriatic, and end their Austrian rival, none of which directly pertained to Germany.

 

[TheSaphireDragon]

This got me to thinking about the Great depression. Because of the large war debt it owed didn't the German Government start manipulating their currency in order to devalue the payments? That fluctuation wiped out the German middle class and created the impetus for the rise of Hitler and the Nazi's. But did it also trigger off the world fluctuation issues that ultimately led to the Great depression? (I know it's not that simple but...just asking)

Your scenario might prevent that from happening. What would the world look like if the Great depression hadn't happened? At least not the depth of real life.

It most likely wouldn't prevent the Great Depression but would soften the blow for Germany and (hopefully) for the other powers inside of the Proto EU.

 

[TheSaphireDragon]

It could be argued that the treaty of Brest-Litovsk was more consequential for post war Germany since it convinced the German public that they were winning the war when in reality Germany was on the verge of defeat.

That is an interesting idea, though I thing the collapse of the German economy, partially caused by the war debts and the subsequent American bank loans to Germany were more important.

 

[TheSaphireDragon]

This is what so many people don't get, just because there was an Armistice and the ToV rather than unconditional surrender doesn't not mean Germany was in any position to get better terms. The Entente dictated the terms of the Armistice which were designed to ensure that in the event Germany changed its mind the Entente would have an overwhelming advantage. Germany got off easy over all, especially in being allowed to have its armies march home with their weapons, a serious mistake that would play into the 'stabbed in the back' myth.

Would Germany be able to win? No, never, not in the slightest, at that point they were utterly doomed. What I argue was that there wasn't the will among the Entente powers to continue the war to force Germany into total surrender, If the Germans refused a treaty as harsh as the French right wanted (not rejecting it would be political and possible actual suicide for whoever in the German government did so) there would be no interest from the Americans or British to resume fighting for something that they didn't even want in the first place (as I have stated before both wanted a reasonably strong Germany to counterbalance France and Russia on the continent and to act as a large market to sell to). France might not even have the stomach to do so. The treaty could only be so harsh before the Germans wouldn't accept. And the German army, though decimated and defeated, was still capable of putting up a desperate fighting retreat and a possible holding of the Rhine, especially if they believed they were fighting for the survival of their nation. It would be a slower version of what happened in the west in 1944 and 1945, which the soldiers wouldn't want and may mutiny.

I did my best to nip the stabbed in the back myth in the bud by removing the largest source of it, Ludendorff.

 

[TheSaphireDragon]

This treaty does nothing to address the problems of Versailles.

The Entente are still committing to a long occupation of the Rhineland, which if economic history goes as OTL, they will likely abandon due to cost. The German right will still want to embrace the "stab in the back" myth since Weimar poses a threat to their cultural values and branding the democrats traitors is a good way to undermine that "threat". There will still be rich junkers displaced from the territories lost to Poland agitating for the destruction of Poland (only this time Weimar Germany's economic war against Poland will be far more brutal for the Poles). The internationalization of the Vistula is as likely to be enforced as the status of Memel as an international city (so not very likely). At the same time, Germany and Czechoslovakia will be more upset by Poland getting all of upper silesia. Germany will still be upset at "not getting a peace based on the 14 points" as will everyone else, because the 14 points were a set of aspirations, not a blueprint. And the countries of Europe all had conflicting aspirations. National self determination for Poland directly clashes for national self determination for Ukraine since there's a big area where the two peoples live along side each-other. (This of course goes for all of the land Germany loses in this treaty, and you can ask why they aren't gaining a whole bunch of land here. There's plenty here for German anti-treaty advocates to complain about.)

The treaty isn't perfect, there is no perfect treaty, like everything else in WW1, Versailles was a mess. It does elevate some of the worst points.
- German right will be weakened with a smaller base, the only reason it was able to seize power was the desperation of the Great Depression which should be eased by the lower reparations and proto EU. Additionally, they will lose some of their base with the monarchists being somewhat assuaged by the Kaiser and the military being happier (also see my above point on a less radical East Prussia)
- The stab in the back myth might be nipped in the bud with the removal of many of the higher officers, especially Ludendorff.
- Poland will still be given access to the sea, and even if that fails the proto EU gives them free trade through Germany, which will elevate the issue somewhat. And they have a larger industrial base in Upper Silesia.
- Czechoslovakia actually got more than it did OTL, look at the map I provided.
- The fourteen points will appear to have been heeded more as Austria will be annexed by Germany, making it seem that the Entente tried to adhere to them.
- Yes, all the European nations had clashing aspirations, the goal is to balance between them, giving each enough to feel fairly satiated and to prevent one from being powerful enough to crush the others without opening itself up to being crushed by its own rivals (If Germany attacks Poland than France has an opening).

That's not what happened in OTL. What happened in Versailles is that the decision was taken to limit reparations to a just and proportionate amount, since if all the Entente powers took the amount of revenge they wanted, Germany would be a smoking hole in the ground. Therefore, reparations were limited to the damages that Germany inflicted by starting the war with France and Belgium. The clause specifying what exactly Germany was paying reparations for was then miss-represented to be a "war guilt clause" basically loading Germany with the moral responsibility for the whole war. Of course, it is fine to consider alternate ways of settling the reparations problem, but keep in mind that without setting some underlying guiding principals, this is going to turn into a messy argument between the victorious powers about what they want. Or, I should say, messier than OTL, since OTL was already pretty messy, with an absolutely massive British pension bill getting wedged into the demands on Germany's ability to pay at the last minute (and British historians have then spent the last century blaming the French for the bill being so high).

Overall, this treaty does even less to resolve the issues of the post-war world than OTL's Versailles treaty does. It does, however, place Germany in a vastly more powerful position in deciding what the post war world looks like. It's also interesting to speculate on how and why such a treaty came about.

-Yes, I know. What happened was the allies said "Since Germany was the aggressor, they pay us this much" it was just a hand waved reason to make the Germans for over the cash (though most of the Entente did believe the Germans were the aggressors) there was nothing in the treaty that says Germany must take the blame for the war. I was simply saying that such language should be avoided, as to prevent such a thing from being construed by the enemies of the treaty.
- People assume that a Germany with an equal say to the rest of Europe is a bad thing. This seems to imply that either they believe that the rise of the nazis was inevitable, or that the Germans are naturally predisposed to war. Both of which I find absurd, the latter I find racist. If the weimar government remains intact, or is succeeded by a democratic or only semi authoritarian (see late Weimar) government than war should be preventable. This treaties primary purpose is to hinder the rise of extremism in Germany, not to weaken it enough that it will be unable to exact revenge for what was done to it.

So there are no mandates here? The US is approving straight annexation of the German colonies?

That was poorly phrased on my part. Outside of China all of the colonies are mandates, not annexed.

 

[Cubert]

The goal is to make it so there will be no need to enforce it.

Where is the incentive for Germany to abide by its terms if it will not be enforced?

 

[fasquardon]

- German right will be weakened with a smaller base, the only reason it was able to seize power was the desperation of the Great Depression which should be eased by the lower reparations and proto EU. Additionally, they will lose some of their base with the monarchists being somewhat assuaged by the Kaiser and the military being happier (also see my above point on a less radical East Prussia)

I don't see why the German right would be much weakened. WW1 was a war of tremendous sacrifices, there was no feasible peace that would repay those sacrifices, not for Britain, Italy, France, the USA and for sure not for Germany. So you still have millions of young men coming home from the comradery of the trenches to find their sacrifices in vain. You still have Baltic Germans fleeing the former Russian empire, you still have Transylvanian Germans fleeing Romania, you still have Junkers fleeing Poland all coming to Germany and sitting together in coffee shops and grousing. And most important of all, you still have the German revolution, which is what really upset and scared the German - Poland will still be given access to the sea, and even if that fails the proto EU gives them free trade through Germany, which will elevate the issue somewhat. And they have a larger industrial base in Upper Silesia.right. Not only was the Kaiser forced to abdicate, but there were honest to gosh Communist uprisings establishing a hold on parts of Germany territory.

The people who live in this ATL don't know that in another world it could have been even worse, and I suspect that even if they did know, they wouldn't much care. Anschluss was not a big motivator for most of these people.

- Poland will still be given access to the sea, and even if that fails the proto EU gives them free trade through Germany, which will elevate the issue somewhat. And they have a larger industrial base in Upper Silesia.

Poland had free trade through Germany in OTL, for as long as the western powers enforced it. When that ended, Weimar Germany began its economic war against Poland. In this TL, Poland basically has no option. The moment French and British interest (and it must be BOTH - one alone can't cut it) wanders Poland becomes a German satellite state. Almost certainly Poland will have to give up its lands west of the 1914 Russo-German border. After that... Well, it might translate to a happier TL for Poland since the double-invasion of OTL's WW2 is now very unlikely.

Germany, France, Belgium, Luxembourg, Poland, and Czechoslovakia will form a free trade economic block and military alliance called the European Cooperation Agreement. Italy, Romania, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and the Netherlands will be given invitations to join the block if desired.

I missed this first read around... So you expect France, Italy, Belgium, the US and UK to think it is a good idea to form an economic block in which Germany is the largest in economy and population? That's nuts. There is absolutely no way the French agree to become a secondary power in the German sphere after almost 2 million have died defending the country from a German invasion and absolutely no way the British allow Germany to gain such power over France and Belgium since that puts British control of the English channel in serious danger.

Remember that Prussia's unification of Germany, less than 50 years prior to Versailles, had also started with a customs union.

- The fourteen points will appear to have been heeded more as Austria will be annexed by Germany, making it seem that the Entente tried to adhere to them.

But large German populations have been given to Czechoslovakia and Poland, Alsace-Lorraine has been given to France, Eupen and Malmady to Belgium, Memmel has been given to Lithuania, Tyrol has been given to Italy and Schleswig to Denmark. Obviously, all the countries who gained those lands had their own arguments for them. But humans don't fall neatly into national groups and national groups don't live neatly on either side of their demarcation lines. The 14 points, as the Germans had built them up in their collective minds, were not something that could ever be achieved in the real world without upsetting people.

- Yes, all the European nations had clashing aspirations, the goal is to balance between them, giving each enough to feel fairly satiated and to prevent one from being powerful enough to crush the others without opening itself up to being crushed by its own rivals (If Germany attacks Poland than France has an opening).

And my point is that this treaty heavily favors the Germans. Especially when the cultural aversion to long alliances and long military commitments in the UK and US is taken into account.

- Czechoslovakia actually got more than it did OTL, look at the map I provided.

I hadn't noticed that, I just saw the text saying "Poland gets all of Upper Silesia", when in OTL Upper Silesia was partitioned between Poland, Czechoslovakia and Germany.

-Yes, I know. What happened was the allies said "Since Germany was the aggressor, they pay us this much" it was just a hand waved reason to make the Germans for over the cash (though most of the Entente did believe the Germans were the aggressors) there was nothing in the treaty that says Germany must take the blame for the war. I was simply saying that such language should be avoided, as to prevent such a thing from being construed by the enemies of the treaty.

You are missing my point. The language of the OTL treaty wasn't simply handwaved, it was carefully chosen to provide a legal foundation for the reparations commission so that, rather than pulling a number out of a hat and writing it into the treaty, a commission could work after the signing of the treaty to assess the actual damage, determine what costs could justly be charged to the Germans so that the exercise didn't turn into arbitrary economic stripping.

The problem with the OTL treaty is that it was the direct opposite of handwaved and instead was too slow and methodical leading to it becoming an ongoing political sore.

I'm not really sure how you are imagining how the "20 billion gold marks" reparations bill is decided which is why I didn't comment on this before, but if you are proposing an altogether more arbitrary approach where the Entente members eyeball the damage at 20 billion worth and just go with that, then yes, this treaty could be an improvement over the OTL treaty in that respect.

The "war guilt clause" and reparations commission were well-intentioned ideas, but in practice just drew out the pain for everyone.

Additionally, Germany will send 1/3 of its exported raw materials to France and Belgium for 15 years in compensation for the damage dealt to each nation's infrastructure and industry.

This article I can see being a bone of contention. You'd probably want the treaty to fix an amount like "an amount equal to 1/3rd of Germany's 1913 raw material exports will go towards France and Belgium for 15 years".

- The stab in the back myth might be nipped in the bud with the removal of many of the higher officers, especially Ludendorff.

I am unconvinced of this. The victorious powers would need to very closely watch the top officers, and I am not sure they would. Also, there were plenty of lower ranking officers and civilians who propagated this myth. Alfred Roth and Alfred Hugenburg don't seem like the sort of people that the Entente powers would choose for exile in 1919.

- People assume that a Germany with an equal say to the rest of Europe is a bad thing. This seems to imply that either they believe that the rise of the nazis was inevitable, or that the Germans are naturally predisposed to war. Both of which I find absurd, the latter I find racist. If the weimar government remains intact, or is succeeded by a democratic or only semi authoritarian (see late Weimar) government than war should be preventable. This treaties primary purpose is to hinder the rise of extremism in Germany, not to weaken it enough that it will be unable to exact revenge for what was done to it.

But you are proposing a treaty whereby Germany is made the premier power of Europe and that's something that most certainly will be bad in the eyes of the Entente, the people who are crafting this treaty. No-one then was thinking about the rise of extremism in Germany. The left-wing uprisings had been firmly quashed after the Kaiser was overthrown and Germany wasn't some barbarous place like the Ottoman Empire or Russia - it was Germany one of the leading lights of European civilization, home to multiple beacons of the Enlightenment, birthplace of many of the great thinkers that had defined western civilization, THE place to do cutting edge chemistry (in this era German was the language of the chemical sciences), one of the most tolerant places for Jews - the idea that Germany would in a little more than a decade end up a dictatorship under a rabidly anti-science, anti-reason, anti-Semitic expansionist was not something they saw coming.

You must remember when looking at Versailles - this was not the work of people who were looking back on the moment with 26 years of hindsight. Nor 101 years of hindsight. Versailles was written by people who were alive right then. People who had just lived through the second most destructive war in all human history after the Taiping rebellion. A convulsion so violent that it completely changed the course of our entire world civilization. There are plenty of ways the peace conference could have gone differently, but all of those alternatives must necessarily be rooted in that moment and how the people in that moment understood what was happening around them.

And as it happens, I don't think the Versailles treaty itself was responsible for any of the major economic and political difficulties of the post-war world. Far more important for encouraging the rise of the Nazis and generally fostering grumpiness between nations was the failure of the victorious powers - especially the UK (and the US, but their failure to commit to what their negotiators had agreed in the treaty is understandable given the way Wilson had over-reached his legal authority as president) - to abide by the untertakings they'd made in the treaty they'd written. Any treaty that doesn't somehow address the reasons that the British and Americans threw the treaty into the dustbin as soon as they possibly could is, in my view, doomed to a poor write-up in the history books. Unfortunately, I don't think the treaty itself can address the issues that made the UK and US so faithless - WW1 left such a mess that the restructuring of the world would take sustained commitment and both countries had strong traditions of keeping their foreign entanglements brief. It's hard to see that changing without these countries facing a serious failure of their traditional approach. If one avoided Wilson and Lloyd George as leaders, one might avoid Britain's self-destructive Francophobia in the immediate post-war years and gotten more Senate and Congress involvement in the drafting of the treaty (hopefully leading to a treaty the US actually signs) but both of those things change more than just the Versailles treaty, and it doesn't necessarily mean the final treaty is overall more favourable to Germany.

fasquardon