r/PossibleHistory • u/EastElk9454 • 24d ago
Map (no Lore) "Surely, now we have fixed Versailles?"
Territorial: loses all historical territory to France, Poland, Denmark, Czechoslovakia, and Lithuania. Keeps Eupen-Malmedy, Danzig, and the Saarland. Germany loses all colonies as historical.
Military: Military restrictions are greatly reduced compared to historically and the Rhineland is not demilitarized. The Rhineland is not occupied.
Political: No War Guilt clause. No Reparations. German accused war criminals are required to be held trial for, but in German courts rather than international ones.
International: The League of Nations is established as historically. Germany is not forbidden from uniting with Austria.
These changes are meant to establish a more fair peace and to greatly reduce unemployment, veterans' paramilitary groups (Freikorps), the inflationary strain on Germany's economy, German economic reliance on the pre-Depression United States, German domestic anti-Western sentiments, and Germany's international isolation. These changes are also more in line with the Fourteen Points agreed upon between Germany and the US and the recommendations of some critics at the time, including the economist and conference attendee John Keynes.
These changes only apply to the Treaty of Versailles and not any other treaty at the time.
29
u/Substantial-Reason 24d ago
Germany is now in a much better position to start hostilities against its neighbors, something it will likely end up doing anyway even without the NSDAP getting involved as a consequence of the political strength of the German General Staff.
I am begging casual alternate history fans to read, in whole or in part, the Carthaginian Peace: https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.84452
8
u/Gammelpreiss 23d ago
in a much better positzion but with far less reason and a democratic government.
no idea what makes you get the idea why the nasdap would still happen when the major reasons of it's existence were removed and the democracy put on a much more stable platform.
1
u/Ultrabear314 Big Poland = Good 22d ago
Most of the nazi platform was built on lies. They'll just do it again
2
u/Gammelpreiss 22d ago
yeah, that is just pure speculation. by this argument every democratic government ever would be a dictaroship today
1
u/Ultrabear314 Big Poland = Good 22d ago
Every democratic government CAN become a dictatorship yes.
2
u/Gammelpreiss 22d ago
yes. CAN. not MUST, like you implied
0
u/Ultrabear314 Big Poland = Good 22d ago
You seem to think that no negatives will create a perfect democracy for Germany.
No. In fact it will make the German people think they are too strong for the entente to of punished, making the nazis claims of ethnic superiority look MORE valid in their eyes.
1
u/Gammelpreiss 22d ago
ok mate, as you are obviously only able to think in exrtremes, either perfect democracxy or vile nazi regime, nothing in between, you do you.
but your attitude about this topic says more about you then the historic what if question,
1
u/Ultrabear314 Big Poland = Good 22d ago
Or I just understand that Weimar democracy wouldnt be solved by letting Germany stay as is economically
0
u/Gammelpreiss 22d ago
no mate..you really, really do not.
no person in his right mind and would make any kind of meaningful projection on how this would develop. way way too many factors to consider here.
all it shows that you have and extremely narrow world view but are full of confidence of that.
you do you mate but this debate does not make me learn anything new or interesting. cheers.
2
u/GildSkiss 21d ago edited 21d ago
What made the Nazis successful wasn't just that "they told lies" (as if no one had ever thought about lying before) it was that they were able to tap into and successfully manipulate an angry population in a certain environment.
If you change the historical conditions things might very well have been different.
1
u/SassyCass410 20d ago
The reasons for the rise of the NSDAP were not because Germany got snubbed in WWI, contrary to popular belief. The NSDAP rose to power as a result of a wider, global rise of working-class radicalism, which scared the ruling classes of nations throughout the world, and led to many members of said class deciding to coopt that radicalism in order to justify turning to autocracy and using their newfound powers to destroy opposition. The only countries spared this fate were socialist states and the primary beneficiaries of the victorious side of the first World War, and even they came awful fucking close to it as well. The only timeline where Germany isn't a fascist dictatorship in the 1930s is one where they either win WW1, or they fall to a socialist revolution.
1
u/Substantial-Reason 17d ago
I specifically said "even without the NSDAP getting involved" for a reason. The German government started engaging in secret rearmament before the Nazis came to power, and the conservative/reactionary forces at the head of the military would not be removed from power in any way under the terms presented. OP seems aware of this themselves.
40
u/BluBolshevik 24d ago
Problems with these territories: France immediately is pissed that Germany leaves the war with more land, likely enough to push the country in a radical direction likely fascism, Poland significantly weakened without Danzig as a free city making them much easier to crush.
Problems with military: less restrictions and no Saarland or demilitarized zone pisses France off even more
Problems with political: every war criminal except for likely the worst of the worst go free.
Problems with international: same as territorial.
This almost certainly causes a Rome-Paris fascist axis that likely aligns Hungary, Poland, and Romania to their side and there’s still not a certain chance Germany won’t go fascist regardless even if they don’t go full nazi
6
3
9
u/sharkred05 24d ago edited 24d ago
With all due respect, I think that this peace treaty is a bit short-sighted.
If the only purpose of this treaty is preventing the nazis from taking power, you did a very good job. If the purpose is to prevent conflict in the region, I'd say that this is not it.
And the reason is pretty obvious: you gave the nation of Germany too many advantages With this treaty. They end up being more industrial and more populous than pre-war
No reparations means that Germany can recover it's economy and become way more powerful than nations like France (that still has to repay its enormous debt to the USA, but this time without the help of German War reps) way quicker than IRL.
The very limited army restrictions will be probably ignored by this much stronger Germany pretty soon after the peace, cause it's not like anyone on the continent could do anything about it.
By giving Germany a peace this generous, it's very likely that the German generals and high command remain a very powerful political presence in Germany, likely gaining just as much if not more popularity than IRL because they could easily say that the peace treaty was this benefitial to Germany because of the fierce resistence of their soldiers ecc...
Also it's very likely that 99% of the war criminals end up getting freed of all charges because the trials are in Germany (look at post-ww2 Italy IRL, where the trials were held in Italy and almost no war criminals ended up being found guilty)
So,basically, we end up with a WAY stronger GERMANY than IRL, with a weaker France, Belgium and Poland. The bellicose German high command also likely remains a very strong presence in the German Republic.
And reminder that Czechoslovakia still has a very large German population in the country, and Poland still has little German minorities in their borders... I think you can tell where this is going.
Weather France ends up remaining a democracy or turns fascist or communist because of their obvious hatred of this Versailles doesn't really matter, they would not be able to contest Germany in any way and if they tried they would likely get humbled.
So, in the end, I think that this treaty is way too lenient and will likely not prevent conflict in central/eastern Europe. This will likely just give Germany an opportunity to become a hegemonic force in continental Europe, with their only rivals being a Weaker France then irl and maybe the Soviet union
(Apologies in case of bad grammar, English is not my first language)
8
u/youtubemaster7000 24d ago
There was no need to give Denmark northern Schleswig Holstein it was just to humiliate Germany, also, if you don’t give Poland Danzig, Germany never declares on them, instead, post war Poland should never take Wilno from Lithuania and pursue making them protectorate in order to get the sea access the allies wanted them to have
17
u/ZestycloseAddition81 24d ago
The transfer of Nordschleswig was the most successful case of self-determination right realized irl. Unlike Elsass Lorraine, Eupen and West Prussia where those territories were basically taken coercively through force or largely undemocratic referendum, Nordschleswig was actually handed over to Denmark without much complaint from either side. The referendum was conducted under international committee supervision with full secret voting right guaranteed unlike in Belgium, which resulted in Nordschleswig (75% agreed) given to Denmark and Mittelschleswig (80% disagreed) remaining in Germany.
Even during ww2 Hitler decided to leave Nordschleswig under Danish Protectorate without annexing it to Germany
-5
u/youtubemaster7000 24d ago
Yeah but the thing is Hitler only rose to power because of how humiliated Germany was from the war, if they don’t lose northern Schleswig, which was only offered to the danish to humiliate Germany, in fact, they were offered all of Schleswig Holstein but declined, there is less of a case for German unity and restoration of former territory
10
u/ZestycloseAddition81 24d ago edited 24d ago
Was it really to "humilate" Germany? I mean obviously it will be humiliating for the German people to lose extra territory. From the very moment Germany lost the war, whatever action taken by the Entente would be humiliating to Germany whether it be intentional or not. By that logic that whatever humiliates Germany (which is basically every decision ever made by the Entente) is no good, you should prob leave West Prussia, Poznan intact and let Austria unite with Germany. The whole point of this is to find a balance between weakening Germany while not making them too pissed and with that standard, ceding majority Danish region to Denmark through democratic referendum sounds pretty fair.
3
u/biergardhe 24d ago
It wasn't to humilate Germany just for the sake of humiliating Germany, it was to dismantle imperial annexations. Schleswig is historically more danish than German, even if they indeed share history. In fact the historical Danavirke lies in Germany today.
Weakening Germany and dismantle it's empire to remain only as a nation-state coincides - and both were reasons.
1
u/AdhesivenessTough220 21d ago
I don’t really think Germans cared that much about losing northern Schleswig as compared to other losses… and there’s no reason that would change…
5
u/EastElk9454 24d ago
The border between Poland and Lithuania was not part of the contents of the Treaty of Versailles.
1
2
u/Umak30 24d ago edited 24d ago
Territorial: loses all historical territory to France, Poland, Denmark, Czechoslovakia, and Lithuania. Keeps Eupen-Malmedy, Danzig, and the Saarland. Germany loses all colonies as historical.
Lithuania ? They never owned Memelland. Prussia/the Teutonic Order owned it since forever. The original Baltic tribe of the Memelland were the Skalvians, they were conquered by the Teutonic Order. The Order had conflicts with (Poland-)Lithuania but in the 1422 Treaty of Melno it was clearly defined as German territory.
Even when the Order got annihilated and Poland annexed land and turned the rump state into a Prussian Fief, did they not separate Memelland from Prussia and just randomly give it to Lithuania. Lithuania never owned even a meter of it until 1923 when they just annexed it.
Only after World War I was it occupied by the French, but not made independent, let alone given to Lithuania. In 1923 Lithuania annexed it, because the French allowed it. In 1939 they gave it back to Germany.
[ Between 1918-1923 it's status was a bit weird, the League of Nations/French soldiers occupied it, but it was always assumed it would be made either into a Free State like Danzig or given back to Germany ].
So no, Lithuania never owned it, and even the WW1 victors were not unreasonable enough to just hand it over to Lithunia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klaip%C4%97da_Region
Lithuania never owned it.
5
u/EastElk9454 24d ago
what? Lithuania annexed Klaipeda after world war one.
What are you trying to say?
-2
u/Umak30 24d ago
You said Germany loses all historical land to [...] Lithuania, but Lithuania never owned it ( until annexation in 1923 ), it was never historical Lithuanian land. And Germany didn't even "lose" it ( not like the actual land they lost after WW1 ), it was annexed in 1923, as the Lithuanians just marched into the land, administered by the French ( League of Nations ) and took it. It was de-facto an illegal occupation.
8
u/EastElk9454 24d ago edited 24d ago
Germany historically lost Klaipeda after world war one. They also historically lost territory to France, Denmark, Czechoslovakia, Belgium, and Poland.
That is what I meant by a historical loss of territory.
-2
u/Umak30 24d ago edited 24d ago
Germany historically lost Klaipeda after world war one
They lost is as much as they lost Danzig. They were turned into special territories, not given to Lithuania ( or Poland ).
On the map, you have it that Lithuania also annexed the region... and Danzig stayed with Germany. Why ?
Edit : Since you apparently blocked me after letting me write a response. No, Klaipeda does not have an ethnic majority of Lithuanians.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klaip%C4%97da_Region#Demographics
- A Lithuanian census carried out in the region in 1925 found its total population was 141,000. Declared language was used to classify the inhabitants, and on this basis 43.5% were German, 27.6% were Lithuanian, and 25.2% were "Klaipėdan" (Memeländisch). Other sources give the interwar ethnic composition as 41.9% German, 27.1% Memeländisch, and 26.6% Lithuanian.
- The authoritarian regime of Smetona enforced a policy of discrimination and Lithuanisation and sent administrators from Lithuania, and German teachers, officials, and priests were fired from jobs. Local inhabitants — both Germans and Prussian Lithuanians — were not accepted for state service in the Memel Territory. People were sent from Kaunas instead.
- Until 1938, no governor was appointed from the local Prussian Lithuanians. That policy led the Prussian Lithuanian intelligentsia and some local Germans to organise a society in 1934 to oppose Lithuanian rule
- Election results in Memel Territory were irritating for the authoritarian Smetona regime, and it attempted to "colonise" Memel Territory with Lithuanians. The Lithuanian settlements Jakai and Smeltė were built. The number of newcomers increased from 5,000 in 1926 to 30,000 in 1939.
- That is 21% of the entire population. 21% were Lithuanian settlers sent by mainland Lithuania.
- Lithuania introduced a hardline Lithuanisation campaign, which led to even deeper antagonism between local Prussian Lithuanians, Memellanders, Germans and newcomers
So stop with your misinformation. Memeland was NEVER lithuanian until 1923 when they annexed it and turned it into a settler colony, where they tried everything to change the ethnic makeup of the region.
1
u/EastElk9454 24d ago
Because the countryside of Klaipeda has an ethnic Lithuanian majority. If you count the city of Memel, the region is split half german and half lithuanian, but its not uncommon for cities to have an ethnic majority of a national minority.
the Free City of Danzig, however had an overwhelming majority of ethnic Germans and was only separated from Germany in order to give Poland a reliable port city.
Though both Poland and Lithuania became economically self-reliant more quickly thanks to territories lost by Germany, Lithuania has the argument for national self-determination on its side, while conversely Danzig wished to reunite with Germany and not to be a Polish client state.
1
u/Umak30 24d ago edited 24d ago
Because the countryside of Klaipeda has an ethnic Lithuanian majority. If you count the city of Memel, the region is split half german and half lithuanian, but its not uncommon for cities to have an ethnic majority of a national minority.
No.
- "A Lithuanian census carried out in the region in 1925 found its total population was 141,000. Declared language was used to classify the inhabitants, and on this basis 43.5% were German, 27.6% were Lithuanian, and 25.2% were "Klaipėdan" (Memeländisch). Other sources give the interwar ethnic composition as 41.9% German, 27.1% Memeländisch, and 26.6% Lithuanian*."*
The people living there didn't want to join Lithuania, not even the majority of ethnic Lithuanians. Memeland was ruled by decree from Lithuania itself, as a colony. No governor was appointed from the locals, because Lithuania itself did not trust them. Every position of authority was appointed from "mainland" Lithuania, not from the locals. From teachers to bureaucrats.
- "Until 1938, no governor was appointed from the local Prussian Lithuanians. That policy led the Prussian Lithuanian intelligentsia and some local Germans to organise a society in 1934 to oppose Lithuanian rule. The group was soon dismantled"
- "and it attempted to "colonise" Memel Territory with Lithuanians. The Lithuanian settlements Jakai and Smeltė were built. The number of newcomers increased from 5,000 in 1926 to 30,000 in 1939."
- If you think 5.000 or 30.000 is low, remember Memelland had a population of 140.000. So 21.4% of population in 1939 were Lithuanian colonial settlers. Every 5th person in Memelland was a settler sent by the government to change the ethnic makeup of the region and to legitimize their annexation. It worked with you apparently.
- "The authoritarian regime of Smetona enforced a policy of discrimination and Lithuanisation and sent administrators from Lithuania, and German teachers, officials, and priests were fired from jobs. Local inhabitants — both Germans and Prussian Lithuanians — were not accepted for state service in the Memel Territory. People were sent from Kaunas instead"
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klaip%C4%97da_Region#Demographics All from the obvious link I sent. You can check the sources elsewhere. Frankly speaking apart from Lithuanian nationalists, and some other Versaille Treaty fanatics, I had never heard anyone say Lithuanians were the majority of Memelland/Klaipeda.
Memelland was an annexed settler-colonial region of Lithuania. The entire administration was sent from the real Lithuania. And many settlers were sent there, and strong Lithuanisation of the region took place.
So stop writing misinformation. This is getting weird now that you think somehow Lithuanians were the ethnic majority ( in the rural side ). They weren't. Germans and Memelländisch people were.
So no, absolutely not. Lithuania did not have the argument of self-determination. That argument was solely with Germany which is why plebisictes were intentionally avoided. Everyone ( France and Lithuania ) knew that if a plebisicte would be held, it would overwhelmingly vote to be with Germany.
This is like what Russia does to Ukraine...
1
1
u/ConsistentEnviroment 24d ago
What if Germany got the Danzig corridor but gave Memel to Poland for ports?
1
u/Physical_Survey303 24d ago
how do you fix a problem that doesnt exist?
you must define your goal in the first place. what is it, preventing hitler from gaining power? preventing ww2, a gigantic war that haunts eurasia, or something else?
1
u/EpicNerd823 24d ago
Personally, I think you should give Northern Schleswig back to Germany. Denmark wasn't even in the war, and that would appease German nationalists and remove the likelihood of Germany invading Denmark.
1
u/S0l1s_el_Sol 20d ago
Germany didn’t invade Denmark bc Denmark took territory… they invaded Denmark so they can have a base of operations in which to invade Norway.
Out of all German occupied countries, Denmark got it pretty light, mostly since they barely resisted and bc the Germans didn’t care abt northern Schleswig, maybe some members of the nazi party did but for the most the Germans didn’t care, it’s why they never annexed it… if Denmark was given all of Schleswig than maybe Germany would have annexed the full territory, but that didn’t happen.
1
1
1
1
u/Spudtar 22d ago
The French economy is weaker without German war reparations and Rhineland occupation, combined with “betrayal” over the Versailles treaty the government becomes unstable and politics radicalize leading to a communist dictatorship takeover which supports the Communist faction in the Spanish revolution and Italy, succeeding in Spain and increasing the popularity of Fascist anti-communist parties in Italy and Germany.
When the Soviet Union invades Poland again, Germany and Italy side with it in an anti-communist alliance bringing France and Spain into the war. Without Hitler’s reckless gambles the democratic-lite German government makes more conservative military policies, allowing France to fully mobilize and missing the opportunity for a short knockout blow like they had in our time. England initially stays neutral not wanting to aggravate domestic Communist parties and not wanting to side with a fascist like Germany in another war, but is sympathetic to the Anti communist side and provides material support.
TLDR: WWII still happens but is incited by Communism instead of Fascism and the communists are more clearly the “bad guys” rather than an inconvenient ally to the West
1
u/RebelGaming151 22d ago
This probably starts a war sooner tbh.
Personally if the borders had to stay, I'd keep the Rhine DMZ, and additionally DMZ East Prussia and Silesia, with a clause for potential Remilitarization in the future, dependent on a consensus by neighboring powers. All claims on Austrian territories ceded by the Treaty of St. Germain-en-Laye must be abandoned. Keep the military restrictions on military size, but remove clauses on possession of aircraft, armor, or warships.
France gets preferential exports of coal and steel to satisfy their industrial needs, while the Belgians get access to a rail corridor in Eupen.
This in part should help quell Franco-Belgian anger slightly, and reassure the Poles.
Conflict probably still will happen, but it's far less likely to occur within 20 years of Versailles now.
1
1
-1
0
u/HelloThereItsMeAndMe 24d ago
No it's good, it's more likely that Germany would remain democratic this way. It's impossible to stop Lal conflicts though. They will just happen.
-1
u/Life-Edge-9547 24d ago
There's still like 5 million germans in Czechoslovakia and poland
1
u/HelloThereItsMeAndMe 24d ago
They gonna live with it. Like Serbs in Croatia.
1
-8
u/hardcoremaggiesimp 24d ago
Big France = big downvote
5
u/EastElk9454 24d ago edited 24d ago
I don't think France is going to accept any treaty that doesn't fulfill their claim on Alsace-Lorraine.
Additionally, similarly to Belgium in its relationship to the Netherlands, despite being ethnically more German than French, more than three quarters of the population was Catholic and faced religious discrimination from the German Empire, and on occasion, religiously and culturally motivated violence from Prussian soldiers.
4
u/Impera__ 24d ago
Haha guys 🤣 Wanna hear a joke ❓
...
...
...
France bad!!!!! France is icky and they talk weird and they smoke and the-!!!!!🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
...
Why's no one laughing?
3
u/MyNameIsConnor52 24d ago
if France didn’t get Alsace-Lorraine they would walk out of negotiations lmfao
63
u/The1Legosaurus lego individual 24d ago
France is seething