WI Germany rejects the treaty of Versailles

[historyfool]

I remember we had a thread to that end a few years back, but it went not very far. In other threads it was occasionally touched, but not specifically adressed. Thus I´d like to post this question again:

Iotl the terms dictated in Versailles came as a great shock to the Germans, who entered the ceasefire under the impression they would negotiate about an agreement along the lines of Wilsons 14 points. Ebert asked the army whether there was any chance to militarily resist. Only under pressure by his staff Hindenburg admitted that this was not the case, though among the various fighting formations circulated plans to make Germany a meatgrinder for the occupiers while the army retreats behind the Elbe or if necessary the Oder. Despite Ebert urging the parliament to accept the army´s judgement more than a third voted against the treaty of Versailles.

So what if Hindenburg either believes the Entente has not the stomach to restart fighting or is more confident about and more willing to consider the "dishonorable" war plans circulating? If the German government is led to believe they have a fighting chance it is likely they reject Versailles. Say they also publish the allied proposal and outline where they want changes with somewhat reasonable counterproposals.

So what happens next? The domestic situation might actually stabilise slightly in the short run as even the communists hated the treaty, but of course Germany has no chance in a regular war. The army is shattered, though most formations should still be willing to oppose the entente. There are shortages of about everything, with outright famines not far of.
OTOH how willing are the Western powers to resume warfare, especially if the Germans offer a counterproposal which is still a clear admission of defeat? How willing to bear a lasting occupation of Germany, potentially with ongoing insurgencies? What would happen at home in those countries?

 

[Spam78]

The blockade restarts, Allied troops are sent back out. The war lasts no longer than a year, by which point Germany can no longer sufficiently reinforce troops and are pushed back a long way. A similar, likely harsher, treaty is enforced on Germany.

 

[Imladrik]

The only thing that could change if the German refuse the treaty is maybe (and it is a far fetched maybe) is a little less reparations (which wouldn't be worth it given the allies would probably start a blockade that would hurt Germany more than more reparations would.

 

[zert]

Well there would be more deaths due to starvation and cold during the winter. You might have some of the inner duchies and kingdoms try to make a seperate peace and disavow Orussian suzerainty. The Entante woukd keep up the blockade and use harrassing shelling and bombing to stop the Germans from massing troops too much. In the end you might even see Imperial Germany broken up.

 

[Twice_Bitten]

What about Guerilla warfare?

What if Germany copies the Guerilla warfare of Spain during Napoleonic times, Belgium and France during WWI?

Or even worse?

And tells the Entente: Tu quoque.

 

[Super Missile]

What about Guerilla warfare?

What if Germany copies the Guerilla warfare of Spain during Napoleonic times, Belgium and France during WWI?

Or even worse?

And tells the Entente: Tu quoque.

It would be a horrible mess for everyone involved, especially the Germans. Eventually it will probably lead to many more dead people, an harsher treaty of Versailles, and an even more isolationist US.

 

[deathscompanion1]

The blockade restarts, Allied troops are sent back out. The war lasts no longer than a year, by which point Germany can no longer sufficiently reinforce troops and are pushed back a long way. A similar, likely harsher, treaty is enforced on Germany.

When did the blockade end?

 

[MrHaakwood]

When did the blockade end?

After the "treaty" was signed, the blockade was not lifted before.

When Germany rejects, the Entente troops move in, and force the reperations on the ground. More death and even more radicals on all sides. Probably the Entente come up with a even harsher "treaty". France will have its way and break up Germany in all the tiny little pieces it was used to in the decades before.
Probably followed by a Soviet revolution in France and some parts of Germany. The French and German conserative elites try to stick together to fight the red menace like in 1871. Germany can probably lift some of the "treaty" obligations this way. While the BE is all pissed of how they come dragged in in this mess in the first place, while supporting the white movements where it can. America already had said: "Srew you Europe, we dont sign that garbage!" and is out of the picture.
This european revolution is probably won by the Commies, leading to a earlier Cold War.

 

[Blackfox5]

What about Guerilla warfare?

What if Germany copies the Guerilla warfare of Spain during Napoleonic times, Belgium and France during WWI?

Or even worse?

And tells the Entente: Tu quoque.

Germany gets destroyed. Guerilla warfare only works in very specific conditions. Guerillas need good terrain to hide (Germany has some), a safe area forbidden to your opponents where your forces can recuperate (which it doesn't), a patron who will continue to provide supplies, training, and other support (which it doesn't), and eventually a professional army which is able to defeat the invaders which have been weakened by the guerillas (which Germany won't have within the year).

The German army has fallen apart by the time the Treaty of Versailles is given to Germany. No serious resistance can be mounted. After the Allies crush the army and whatever freikorps were brave/foolish enough to fight them, the country would surrender.

Almost all the dynamics of OTL remain except that there is no dolchstosslegende. The command of the German army will be seen to have clearly failed the country. Some other authority figure than Hindenburg will be seen by the Germans as the natural father of the country. Who, I don't know. Maybe either Crown Prince Wilhelm, a military figure which advocated signing the Treaty to spare the German people a worse defeat, like Wilhelm Groener, or an authoritarian republican figure like Gustav Noske. Maybe even Gustav Stresemen.

We might see a strengthened centrist government as right wing political parties are more careful to avoid antagonzing the Allies. The 1919-1920 invasion of Germany at least ends the agony of Germany early. There is likely to be no 1923 Ruhr resistance which lead to hyperinflation. Thus the republic that forms after the invasion might have a much stronger reputation.

Ebert will either be seen as a martyr or a fool. He likely won't survive being President after the Allies win, but another SPD politician could keep the job. I am uncertain if the Allies will treat Germany harsher as a result - they may disavow plebiscites entirely and simply award disputed regions to Poland and France.

 

[Perfidious Albion]

Germany gets destroyed. Guerilla warfare only works in very specific conditions. Guerillas need good terrain to hide (Germany has some), a safe area forbidden to your opponents where your forces can recuperate (which it doesn't), a patron who will continue to provide supplies, training, and other support (which it doesn't), and eventually a professional army which is able to defeat the invaders which have been weakened by the guerillas (which Germany won't have within the year).

This. Lots of people in the modern world vastly overestimate the power of guerrilla warfare, because of the experiences of Vietnam and Afghanistan.

What many of us fail to realise is that our vulnerability to guerrillas is a specific product of our own habits as a society, which are very peculiar indeed compared to virtually any other society that has ever existed. We report every soldier's death as an enormous tragedy; we inflict dozens-to-one casualty rates in Afghanistan and enemy casualties are not noticed anywhere near as much as our own; if a single APC or tank of ours is destroyed we question why it failed to repel absolutely everything that it was attacked with and criticise the people who made it. A society that values individual lives so highly and the ruthless pursuit of national policy so comparatively little is uniquely vulnerable to guerrilla warfare.

That's not to say that such individualist moral values are wrong, but it is to say that they make the modern developed world of OTL far, far more vulnerable to guerrilla warfare than virtually any society in human history. Consequently many of us tend to vastly overestimate its power.

So yes: Germany suffers horribly and is utterly unable to prevent the Entente powers from ripping it to shreds. I thoroughly disagree with the comment that there would be fewer reparations; the Entente powers didn't care whether Germany could realistically pay its reparations. The more damage Britain and France suffered, the more money they would have taken from Germany at gunpoint as 'reparations'. Further resistance was foolish and futile, and the Germans knew it.

After all, Imperial Germany knew exactly how merciless a victorious power could be to its defeated enemies. They themselves had been crueller to Russia in the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk than the Entente powers were to them in the Treaty of Versailles, and their plans for the west (which, by the way, included the outright annexation of Belgium) were nasty enough to make OTL's Treaty of Versailles look magnanimous. They had absolutely no illusions that the Entente powers would soften their demands out of humanitarian decency.

 

[MrHaakwood]

After all, Imperial Germany knew exactly how merciless a victorious power could be to its defeated enemies. They themselves had been crueller to Russia in the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk than the Entente powers were to them in the Treaty of Versailles, and their plans for the west (which, by the way, included the outright annexation of Belgium) were nasty enough to make OTL's Treaty of Versailles look magnanimous. They had absolutely no illusions that the Entente powers would soften their demands out of humanitarian decency.

Debatble, since Brest Litosvk freed dozens of non russian nations and dismantled Russias European colonial empire. And Germanys goal was not to break and impoverished Russia, that was never a possibilty. France and Germany on the other hand.

Which of the dozens of written but never implemented proposals do you mean? The "Septemberprogramm"? Was never government policy and outright annexation wasnt even part of it.

The problem with comparing the Entente victory with a Central powers victory, is that OTL was more of "dragged to victory" by the USA than the real draw it should have been. The outcome didnt reflect the power of the European nations, so it was bound to break down, when the USA said screw it. This is vastly different from what Germany would have done in case of a victory. Germany could afford to be generous, France could not.

 

[Magnificate]

Debatble, since Brest Litosvk freed dozens of non russian nations and dismantled Russias European colonial empire.

I'm afraid changing these nations into German puppets or clients does not count as 'freeing them', same as Soviet liberation after WWII doesn't count as liberation.

 

[MrHaakwood]

I'm afraid changing these nations into German puppets or clients does not count as 'freeing them', same as Soviet liberation after WWII doesn't count as liberation.

That of course is true. Nevertheless, the argument: "Versailles was mild, look at BL treaty!" Does not work.

 

[Thoresby]

The problem with comparing the Entente victory with a Central powers victory, is that OTL was more of "dragged to victory" by the USA than the real draw it should have been. The outcome didnt reflect the power of the European nations, so it was bound to break down, when the USA said screw it. This is vastly different from what Germany would have done in case of a victory. Germany could afford to be generous, France could not.

The "US won the war" is a complete myth. In the absence of the US you are still going to see a Allied victory. The US military contribution was basically irrelevant and while it's financial contribution was important as without it France couldn't afford to continue US arms purchases and so would have to cut back but that in itself wouldn't be decisive. France could still produce weapons at home, though at the cost of even greater than OTL long term economic damage, but the France of 1918 wasn't the France of 1940 and despite the Nivelle mutines* the French will to fight until victory was unquestionable.

Without US entry nothing would change in 1917 and in 1918 France would be weaker than OTL but Germany still wouldn't be able to break through in the summer and would still be on the brink of starvation and with its economy collapsing by autumn 1918.


*which were caused by some specific problems that weren't going to be repeated

 

[MrHaakwood]

The "US won the war" is a complete myth. In the absence of the US you are still going to see a Allied victory. The US military contribution was basically irrelevant and while it's financial contribution was important as without it France couldn't afford to continue US arms purchases and so would have to cut back but that in itself wouldn't be decisive. France could still produce weapons at home, though at the cost of even greater than OTL long term economic damage, but the France of 1918 wasn't the France of 1940 and despite the Nivelle mutines* the French will to fight until victory was unquestionable.

Without US entry nothing would change in 1917 and in 1918 France would be weaker than OTL but Germany still wouldn't be able to break through in the summer and would still be on the brink of starvation and with its economy collapsing by autumn 1918.


*which were caused by some specific problems that weren't going to be repeated

Without the American contributions like credits, and later soldiers the war fizzels out into a draw in the west. Germany was in a bad situation as was France, but Germany already won in the east. In the end both nations would have had revolutions in their lands. Probably France first, without the Americans, so the war either ends in a draw or in the breakdown of the participating powers.

 

[Otis R. Needleman]

The "US won the war" is a complete myth. In the absence of the US you are still going to see a Allied victory. The US military contribution was basically irrelevant and while it's financial contribution was important as without it France couldn't afford to continue US arms purchases and so would have to cut back but that in itself wouldn't be decisive. France could still produce weapons at home, though at the cost of even greater than OTL long term economic damage, but the France of 1918 wasn't the France of 1940 and despite the Nivelle mutines* the French will to fight until victory was unquestionable.

Without US entry nothing would change in 1917 and in 1918 France would be weaker than OTL but Germany still wouldn't be able to break through in the summer and would still be on the brink of starvation and with its economy collapsing by autumn 1918.


*which were caused by some specific problems that weren't going to be repeated

In a word, no.

By spring 1918 Britain and France were close to exhaustion, and were having problems with a major German offensive. Matter of fact, they placed a huge amount of pressure on Pershing to break up the American Expeditionary Force to fill British and French ranks. Pershing said no, but he did put some US units with the British and the French.

As 1918 progresses, the hard work of both the US and the Allies in building up the AEF pays off. Fresh US troops, such as my grandfather, are gaining combat experience, with more divisions arriving weekly.

The AEF played an important role in the war-winning Hundred Days Offensive. If this hadn't defeated the Germans, the planned 1919 offensive, with an additional million or so US troops, would have done so.

The US contribution was hardly irrelevant. While the US certainly didn't win the war by itself, it was just getting warmed up, and the Germans knew it. Faced with the almost certainty of a successful Allied drive to Berlin in 1918, the Germans sued for an armistice.

 

[Perfidious Albion]

Debatble, since Brest Litosvk freed dozens of non russian nations and dismantled Russias European colonial empire. And Germanys goal was not to break and impoverished Russia, that was never a possibilty. France and Germany on the other hand.

Revisionism. You can call it 'freeing non-Russian nations' or you can call it 'ripping apart the Russian Empire', just as you can call Versailles 'freeing Poles' or you can call it 'ripping apart the German Empire'.

Germany's goal was absolutely to end the Russian threat; this is obvious. Why else would Germany

• dismantle Russia's power in Europe? If you tell me it was altruism and anti-imperialism, I'll laugh
• take away Ukraine, Russia's breadbasket, and put it under de facto German control?
• make Russia lose 25% of its population?
• make Russia lose 25% of its industry?
• make Russia lose over 90% of its coal?

Yes, it was worse than Versailles. Reparations can be repaid if most of the country is retained, even if it takes a while; they can't, and indeed didn't, permanently cripple a country. If, on the other hand, so many of your vital resources (population, industry, coal, food, territory) are so depleted…

Which of the dozens of written but never implemented proposals do you mean? The "Septemberprogramm"? Was never government policy and outright annexation wasnt even part of it.

Theobald von Bethmann Hollweg expected it to be implemented soon. The annexation of Belgium was part of it. And of course it was never implemented, the Germans expected to implement it once they'd won the war.

One can use the evidence found by Fritz Fischer without being a Sonderweg fellow.

The problem with comparing the Entente victory with a Central powers victory, is that OTL was more of "dragged to victory" by the USA than the real draw it should have been.

I really, really hope that by 'should have been' you mean 'would have been without American intervention', not 'morally should have been'. Otherwise this is getting very worrying.

The outcome didnt reflect the power of the European nations, so it was bound to break down, when the USA said screw it.

Astutely noted.

This is vastly different from what Germany would have done in case of a victory. Germany could afford to be generous, France could not.

You make the gigantic and unjustified leap from "Germany could have been generous" to "Germany would have been generous". I maintain the opposite; judging by the breathtaking ambition of Germany's early plans, the success (as it would seem at the time) of the incredibly draconian Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, the huge damage dealt by the war and the consequent fact that both sides required enormous amounts of money essentially stolen from the other side (sorry, 'reparation payments') to repair the damage, it seems far likelier that Germany would demand a horrendously harsh peace.

That of course is true. Nevertheless, the argument: "Versailles was mild, look at BL treaty!" Does not work.

You're completely right. Unfortunately, you're attacking a strawman, because I never said that the Treaty of Versailles was mild; I believe that it was a huge mistake and far, far harsher than it morally should have been. What I actually said was that the Treaty of Versailles was mild in comparison to the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk and to the kind of treaty that Imperial Germany would have enforced upon France if Germany had won. There's a very important distinction there. Similarly, I can say that Clement Attlee was very right-wing compared to Leon Trotsky without saying that Clement Attlee was very right-wing.

Without the American contributions like credits, and later soldiers the war fizzels out into a draw in the west.

Agreed. The United Kingdom was financially in very bad straits; it couldn't afford to maintain the war efforts of both itself and France.

 

[deathscompanion1]

By that point it comes down to what the Americans want, they're the ones who will be going on the offensive France and to a lesser extent Britain were burnt out by this point.

So Germany gets stomped on but I can see Wilson having a much larger say in the final peace than OTL...unfortunately he was kind of an idiot with a huge ego so the allies will probably end up throwing him sops until the Americans realise what a waste the war is and drop Europe as fast as they can.

I'm really starting to wonder what a different president would have done than Wilson, the man really fecked up his position of leverage over the allies.

 

[historyfool]

The "US won the war" is a complete myth. In the absence of the US you are still going to see a Allied victory. The US military contribution was basically irrelevant and while it's financial contribution was important as without it France couldn't afford to continue US arms purchases and so would have to cut back but that in itself wouldn't be decisive. France could still produce weapons at home, though at the cost of even greater than OTL long term economic damage, but the France of 1918 wasn't the France of 1940 and despite the Nivelle mutines* the French will to fight until victory was unquestionable.

Without US entry nothing would change in 1917 and in 1918 France would be weaker than OTL but Germany still wouldn't be able to break through in the summer and would still be on the brink of starvation and with its economy collapsing by autumn 1918.


*which were caused by some specific problems that weren't going to be repeated

It is most definitely not a myth that the US war entry was the only thing which allowed the Entente victory. By the time the USA entered the war the Entente had almost run out of cash, which was necessary to buy essential resources. Without those by fall 1917 the industrial output of the entente would have fallen by 25-40%, depending whom you ask. Even worse the entente could not even feed itself anymore, thus was also importing food from the US. That access closed they would probably have been as hungry as Germany in 1918 or marginally less if they send a sizeable part of their army home. Both alone would not have been instantly disastrous, as Germany would be in about the same shape.
But there is also the moral factor. Even otl the Western Powers did not realize in how bad a shape the Germans really were until fairly late. Iotl the moral stabilized by the US entering, while the Germans realized that their enemies would only get stronger. Without that the Germans would appear to be the ones getting stronger in the long run, while the Entente had little hope to improve their situation.
By mid-1918 both sides would have been aware that they were no longer in the shape to fight and agreed to negotiate. And anything short of Versailles is a German victory. Hell, in some ways Versailles could have been a strategic victory for Germany in the long run, had they realized it.

 

[Otis R. Needleman]

By that point it comes down to what the Americans want, they're the ones who will be going on the offensive France and to a lesser extent Britain were burnt out by this point.

So Germany gets stomped on but I can see Wilson having a much larger say in the final peace than OTL...unfortunately he was kind of an idiot with a huge ego so the allies will probably end up throwing him sops until the Americans realise what a waste the war is and drop Europe as fast as they can.

I'm really starting to wonder what a different president would have done than Wilson, the man really fecked up his position of leverage over the allies.

I hear you, but at least Wilson eventually got the USA into the war. I can see where he might not have done so, instead perhaps building up forces and going into Mexico instead. Isolationism in the USA was still very strong in 1917.

And also give Wilson credit for picking Pershing as commander of the AEF and Newton Baker as Secretary of War. Those two men made a great team. Additionally, Wilson didn't try to micromanage the war and backed Pershing to the hilt. Don't remember if it was Wilson or Baker who said to Pershing, "I shall give you only two orders. The first order is to go to France. The last order will be to come home from France."

No, we could have had a Harding, who couldn't buy a clue. Or maybe a Teddy Roosevelt, who might have wanted to leave the White House and go fight himself. No, Wilson wasn't perfect but it could have been much worse.