The Versailles peace settlement is undone the Turkish way

Extremely unlikely tending on impossible. A remilitarised and revanchist Germany seeking to expand in such a way would be seen as too great a threat to the rest of Europe. You might get an unholy alliance between the Germany militarists and the Soviets, presuming the two groups sought to expand at the same time but while the Bolsheviks are likely to survive and might make some conquests because of their isolation Germany is too close to the centres of allied power and too exhausted as well. Also Italy is likely to be on the allied side against Germany as it would fear German expansion and desire border changes in the north. Similarly at the time Japan was not a revanchist power and would as your ideas suggest would oppose the Bolsheviks in Siberia, with western aid.

If a German group tried this your most likely to get a markedly harsher peace, possibly something approaching what happened in 1945.

The usual ant-German naysayer. See my post on how the scenario can be fulfilled by combining the French getting victory disease and seriously alienating the other Entente powers, the Soviets removing Poland from the picture, a more pragmatic US Administration in place of Wilson's misguided fumbling, the British and the Americans seeking a balance of power between France and Germany and harnessing the Germans as Soviet containment, and Italy only caring about its own claims in the Western Balkans after its OTL gains get fulfilled (1920s Italian leaders had plenty of ambitions on Yugoslavia and Albania, but nobody really wished for more from the Germans after getting South Tyrol). In my own scenario, Japan does keep Outer Manchuria and North Sakhalin with western support. Early conquest of Inner Manchuria does happen as the logical strategic extension of that, Chinese weakness, and lingering tensions with the USSR. Since Japan achieves the resource-rich territories it needed under Taisho democracy and with good relations with the Western powers, there are good chances the slide into reckless militarism, bloodthirsty military adventures in China, and estrangement from the West can be avoided, esp. if tensions with the USSR remain sufficiently high. Much the same way, early foreign policy successes and achievement of a satisfying peace deal do a lot to legitmize and consolidate democracy in Germany and Italy, and turn them into satisfied powers (Italy may still go after Ethiopia, but honestly it is something the world can easily live with). Too bad for the Poles, Finns, and Baltics that find themselves subject to Soviet rule since the beginning, but eggs and homelettes. The scenario needs a reasonable amount of the Soviet bogeyman to get fulfilled but all but surely prevents Nazism and WWII. Well, the latter unless early successes make the Soviet leaders too confident and ambitious, In such a case you get much of the usual trouble in an entirely different way, although probably an anti-Soviet WWII would be less devastating to Europe as a whole than the OTL deal.

For the sake of sparing all of us yet another bout of grief, frustration, and trouble from irreconciliable viewpoints: if your contribution to this discussion is only going to boil down to the cliché peace in Europe can only be achieved if the German inborn recidivist warmongers are kept down, muzzled, shackled, and re-educated by the righteous foreign powers, please spare me the pain of reading it. No feedback is better than chauvinist crap.


Balance of power as the British fancied it works fine ITTL since France, Germany, and the USSR (as far as the democratic powers can safely trust it, which is little, but even madmen have their uses) balance each other out and Britain has leisure of choosing whom to support from time to time to preserve peace. If anything, OTL abundantly proved the Versailles settlement was no sustainable equilibrium since Britain and France lacked the resources and the will to stabilize Europe, restrain Germany, and contain Russia on their own. It was little more than a vengeful temper tantrum being thrown in the peace deal and hopefully wishing it would somehow stick in defiance of reality. Later developments prove it was unenforceable short of the Americans doing in 1919 what they did in 1945 despite them being eager to go home and forget the mess Wilson drove them in. It could only end the way it did, too bad it only collapsed once it enabled the crazies to get into power, or alternatively the Soviets blitzing their way to the Atlantic. And yet the Germanophobe revenge fantasies fanboys insist Versailles only erred in not being harsh enough, despite all the evidence anything of that sort would only end in chaos and Communism seizing Europe. Give me Entente armies fighting their way to Berlin to enforce a 1945-style peace, and I'll give you Red revolutions across the continent, no matter how much Germanophobe Entente propaganda kool-aid you pour to exhausted peoples.

In all evidence, early satisfaction of reasonable German claims would satisfy the overwhelming majority of the German people, consolidate Weimar democracy, and turn Germany into a satisfied power that would pursue its further legitimate interests (say, establishment of an economic sphere of influence in Eastern Europe, containment of the USSR, gainful access to foreign trade and resources for its economy) by peaceful means. This racist cliché of the German people being eternal closet Nazis and recidivist warmongers by homegrown nurture if not nature that can only be kept safe by being shackled and downtrodden or forcibly re-educated by revenge-minded foreign dominators is as obnoxious as it is wrong. The vast majority of the German people would be satisfied if their country could be brought in 1919-21 where it stood in 1939 without all the Nazi grief, at that point you would be challenged to rally single-digit support for a conflict with France to get back Alsace-Lorraine or with Russia to seize Ukraine. Pretty much any other German leader but Hitler would not have started WWII once Germany achieved the post-Munich standard. At the very most they would have pursued a limited conflict with Poland if Warsaw proved unreasonable, if and when neutrality of the other great powers could be secured. This was entirely feasible without occupation of Bohemia-Moravia and with a little more skillful diplomacy (useful hint: let Poland overreact and paint themselves as the aggressors once Danzig shows the world it wants to join Germany).


Even under the Nazis, the German military was quite reluctant to pick a fight with the Western powers or the USSR when their country was pretty much at the same level TTL peace settlement brought it to, they only did it because Hitler ordered them to. ITTL Germany is going to have an even stronger USSR camped across its eastern border. Containment of its threat is going to absorb the vast majority of its military resources and the overwhelming attention of its professional military. Left to themselves, it is exceedingly likely they would choose defensive containment, Cold War-style, until Communism stewes in its juices and collapses rather than risking military adventures against a stronger foe. I won't deny TTL Germany might be seriously tempted to intervene and restore the Brest-Litovsk settlement if Russia somehow drastically weakens or collapses. Otherwise, OTL German supporters of waging an aggressive expansionist crusade in the East averaged 2.5% of the electorate before the Great Depression massively swelled their ranks for different reasons, in much more frustrating circumstances for Germany than TTL peace settlement. Nope, if a major war in the East is going to occur, realistically it is only going to happen because the Soviet leaders get too overconfident and ambitious and start it, either by purposeful intent or by escalation of a local flashpoint. Of course, if such a war does happen, Brest-Litovsk 2.0 would inevitably become the war aim of Germany, and in all likelihood Europe as a whole. With Germany being democratic and sticking to the laws and customs of war, it would be a definite improvement, and a lot of Soviet subjects would welcome the Wehrmacht and its allies as genuine liberators.

As it concerns France, once the Germans secure their undisputed control of the Rhineland and military parity with their neighbors, it is exceedingly likely they would almost forget about France most of the time if their Rhineland invasion fiasco makes the French slide in the same attitude as OTL (they got an helluva consolation prize with Wallonia, after all). Let them build an extended Maginot line, build the Sigfrid line for strategic balance, and call it a day for a generation, until WWI bad blood fades away and true reconciliation can be achieved. The number of German people wishing to pick a fight about Alsace-Lorraine was vanishingly small, even Hitler didn't really dare openly advocate it. In the less likely case France somehow turns fascist, communist, or otherwise aggressive and restores an unholy alliance with Russia, I bet Britain would be willing to ally with democratic Germany to counter this threat, also because the Germans would be exceedingly unlikely to repeat the blunder of picking a naval race with the British, with a much stronger and nastier Russia breathing down their neck.

Which autocratic mega-states does this scenario prop up? I can't see any, short of the USSR getting its 1914 borders (minus a slice of the Far East) from the beginning. Regrettable, but throwing the Poles, Finns, and Baltics to the tender mercies of the NKVD is a necessary sacrifice since a sufficient amount of the Soviet bogeyman does a lot to help the rest of Europe calm down and accept a sensible peace deal all the great powers can live with, no matter how much chauvinist kool-aid they drunk. This scenario is only unlikely to the point of impossibility for the ones that can't see any chance for peace in Europe short of anti-German revenge fantasies, because eternal Nazism.

If anything, this scenario makes the optimistic but sensible assumption that the Axis powers getting their reasonable claims and ambitions satisfied when moderate and sane leaders were still in charge is going to make less, not more, likely for extremists to get into power and start major trouble for the world, since it is going to remove a lot of the national frustration and resentment these guys typically need to get in charge. The thought certain countries are bound by nurture if not nature to become rogues and hence the only way for them to keep the peace is to be kept down is a very troublesome one since say it would have caused all of us to be washed in nuclear fire once the USSR chose to export its trouble with WWIII rather than accept decline, or there is no way for Russia to avoid doubling down on its current aggressive course short of a major war, or for China to avoid become more and more of a rogue as its power swells. Or for that matter, the former Axis countries would have reversed to their past bad habits the moment they recovered their independence, when the very worst they have done is to indulge in a little economic selfishness, domestic corruption, or denial of their shameful past.

Moreover, as it concerns the nasty cliché certain countries are cursed to become rougues if not kept down and others blessed with being shining paladins of peace and democracy that deserve a free rein because of unavoidable OTL circumstances, I call Exhibit A, the dangerous bumbling idiot, kleptocrat, and lover of dictators currently sitting in the White House to wreck the environment, world economy, and the Western alliance system because too many electors swayed by declining socio-economic status voted him into power, despite everything America stands for. This being said by someone that has overwhelming antipathy for the identity politics brand of liberalism and loves seeing it frustrated and miserable (but not to the point of putting a dim-witted manchild in charge of a superpower).  

Gentleman please, discussion is fine, criticizing other in a respectful matter is okay, but please keep it civil, ore i will close this thread.

THe internal conflict between users is not nice, it should be concentrated on the plots.

in this stevep is right about the "near-ASB"-part, just because the Entente WILL try to enforce Versailles, but this will turn them red, just like germany. So the map in 1924-25 will be fundamentally different to the story eurofed discribed.

It is on the other hand funny that a "pro-british-empire"-guy attack others about their tendency to establish non-british-empires. But that has nothing to do with the thread and the theme itself.

Personally such scenario could be interesting:
Germany does the same as the turks, not signing the contracts of the "Schandfrieden of Versailles".

This will trigger an invasion of germany, with the defeated german forces, that in the same time struggled in a civil war against red forces and are starved to death by the Royal Navy, this will cause germany to turn dark red, even the diehard-imperialists would change and fight the evil entente together with the communists in such scenario.
Germany would propably be defeated in around 3 months, costing 500k casulties by the french and british (i think it is clear that the americans would NOT support this)and around 1 million german armed forces and another 3-4 million civilian casulties (2/3 by hunger, 1/3 by the military entente forces). But in the same time the reds in russia will gain more power, poland is doomed - the germans would attack poland from west to get more support by their comerades from russia), so the entente has now - say in autum1919 also to fight the red russians... this mean they dig in half way through germany (say at the oder-river south, more or less), enslaving the occupied germans and fighting a brutal war against partisans (err, liberty fighters).
But the more important impact is, that the soldiers in the british and french army would rebell at some point against their overlords, spreading the red revolution. So half way through germany the leadership could no longer controll their own forces, esp. the french - who would sing the international song and move to paris, establishing another red state.
In UK they would also face huge rebellions, esp. in the heavy industrialized areas, propably a coin flip about their "surviving".

Add in that the USA would turn VERY and demand all money back. That break the french and british back, because they could only plunder so much out of germany in that time.

Italy could or could not turn red, i think they will turn red, too. So any invasion of neighbours would either be moves to establish red revolutions or be stopped.

If the french would be smart (i doubt they would be)they would recognize this early on, do as much damage as they can in the ruhr-valley and then retreat behind their borders, building defence systems that stop any red german protagonists that could "infect" their own forces. One move could be to use only "african" forces, so they have no contained french forces to do the jobs.

In the result germany would be dark red, full of communists and work together behind their iron curtain with red russia, red poland (SSR poland), red italy, red balkan, red greece... hell the ottomans could be suddenly one of the best buddies of the rest entente, if they do not turn red
For Trotzki and co this would be a paradies, also lots of very smart and very influencing people around the world would praise the red german culture post-ending of the conflict.

Hi,

no problem. I allways just write what i think about a situation - mostly based on historical facts, but sometimes also on my "stomach feeling".

Here - your second part - i disagree.
WW1 was a war that was lead by 
Austria - do distract from the own internal problems, but they wanted no world war.
Germany - they had zero interest in a war, they had anything they wanted - but they feared the Entente and thought that IF a war breaks out then it is better now then later - for me the point why the military at some point let the things run into war. But true - for Wilhelm the war helps him to delay the inevitable - the reforms. Prussian junkers, "prussian" military and the fear of a socialistic revolution was it that ruined germany the winning move in ww1. 
Russia - they NEEDED the war because their internal problems were so big that they had no choice. Combined with the panslavism, war was inevitable. 
France - they too needed that war, because they could now - after so many years of mistaken german military moves (army way to small for the country) no longer hope to build up an army that could hope to challange the boche.  So for france an early war was more important as for germany, unfortunatly for germany the germans did not recognize that.
UK - they needed no war, they needed deep reforms to make their economy competitive, something they never understood. UK feared the french-russian victory, they thought that this was inevitable. So they tried to "control" the situation, they had no love for france, less love for russia. But - they were far behind the germans in the key economic developments, they were allready behind germany (1. USA; far behind 2. german, with growing distance 3rd UK), also they feared the modern german ship yards, who build more modern and so more efficent ships, threatening the last dominance the british had (sea trading) Beeing smart they saw the signs on the wall, with 500.000brt per year build in germany, better ships that could be driven more economic AND the many older ships in that the british were truly dominant came less and less efficent - they desperatly needed to remove the "better" competitor in economic terms. The german war ships were only the tip of the cream, could it be used internal to get more money for the navy (before the germans it was the french navy that was used in that way). 

The belgians were the only "target" that wanted nil war, had zero interested in war and - if you ask any belgian - would had been happy to sit on the fence and do nothing in that war.

After it broke out, the casulties were so high that a negotiated peace no longer was possible. 
Both sides (the germans with their hard reactions to true or (mostly) imaginate partisan moves in northern france (often forgotten) and belgium ruined their prestige, the british starved 450-700.000 civilians to death. Both sides hated each other with passion, because the war was NO walkover as all thought.

WW1 could only be a moderate war, if germany had won quickly. If france and russia wins you see germany separated, large parts of germany fell to france just like other economic parts to russia. The british with their tiny BEF would have had nothing to say.
Late war was so bad, because
a.) russia turned into civil war - for that the german HQ was responsible, but it worked for them
b.) france needed a victory, a draw would have been a defeat.
c.) UK needed a victory, they had spent most valuta for this war, had huge casulties and - without victory they would have fought the war for nothing.
d.) italy - well they got what they deserved, but in a draw the consequences for italy would be even worse
e.) Austria-Hungaria - they could have survived a draw, they would be happy to live with status quo ante - with punishment for serbia (causing the war from their POV).

f.) germany - well the germans could have survived a draw (status quo ante) also, the reforms that went on in mid 1918 would have happened in any case after the war, with the internal money spent they could have solved that problem if everyone goes back to july31th 1914. But also the germans wanted to be "safe" - so their Treaty of BL (that was very hard - but again only because the communists tried to play with the germans -the first offer was much better - if Lenin accept that everything is fine)


Naturally the germans also want to win, to gain stuff (on the maps, parts of the french or belgian colonial empire - looks allways good for the kaiser). But - a peace status quo ante could have been done by them.

But NOT by france, nil chance and not by the british.
Also - with the americans in the war, it was game over. As long as they do not end their support the Entente cannot loose.

So a peace treaty as you described cannot happen, in case of exhausting you have revolutions around europe.

Back to point 1, the british let the french do it alone.
Again - just no.If germany do NOT accept Versailles, all entente forces would move into germany. There is no chance that they do not attack germany. But the process is costly and that will ruin these forces, causing revolutions later on.

The british, after they launch their operations cannot say "oh, sorry, we do not push further", they will push and push and push till they break. France and belgium for sure, too. Italy? Will fell into anarchy, if they try something, because they were allready at the brink of revolution in 1919. 



So the winner is communism, because the germans, loosing this 1919-restarted war will work with the communists. And the moment the communists work with these armed forces you cannot separate that, it is basically like an infection that spread through all areas.