A what if from Oberon

[Oberon]

There seems to be a small explosion of 'What if'? topics lately (well, two or three ;) ) so I thought I'd throw in my own ideas and thoughts and bounce them off you guys.
So...here's my what if?

What if Germany had not been forced to pay reperations at the end of the First World War?
Now, I know what some people would say and that's that by forcing Germany to pay reperations for the first ten years or so after 1918 (I know there were all sorts of deals made during the Weimar Republic which elleviated the reperation problem a bit [Dawes plan and the Young plan]) we broke the Germany economy and helped create the condictions for the rise of National Socialism in the early 1930s.
But the same destruction of the German economy shielded them partially from the Wall Street Crash in 1929 because by that time there was an eventual plan being put together by the government for economic recovery. It's a double edged sword.

So...do you think a Germany that was bloodied but ubowed and unshackled by forced reperations would have still had the condictions to create the rise of National Socialism? Or would it have gone the other way, with the KDP eventually forming a communist government?


(Any wierd distortions of Germany history by myself is the result of five years passing between now and me doing A level history on the Weimer Republic and the rise of Hitler :-? )

[CCIP]

The heavy reparations are actually all but a myth. I'll have to search out my literature again, but, largely thanks to American efforts to minimize them and German efforts to avoid paying them, the amount of reparations that Germany actually paid was miniscule. They were supposed to pay quite a lot, and this upset the Germans and made them mad at the French and british, but they never did actually pay up.

[Oberon]

The heavy reparations are actually all but a myth. I'll have to search out my literature again, but, largely thanks to American efforts to minimize them and German efforts to avoid paying them, the amount of reparations that Germany actually paid was miniscule. They were supposed to pay quite a lot, and this upset the Germans and made them mad at the French and british, but they never did actually pay up.

Does that mean Skybird owes me money? Ooooh! :hmm: :lol: ;)

[Skybird]

The heavy reparations are actually all but a myth. I'll have to search out my literature again, but, largely thanks to American efforts to minimize them and German efforts to avoid paying them, the amount of reparations that Germany actually paid was miniscule. They were supposed to pay quite a lot, and this upset the Germans and made them mad at the French and british, but they never did actually pay up.

Does that mean Skybird owes me money? Ooooh! :hmm: :lol: ;)
All you get is a kick at your knee and a slap in your neck! :stare:

[TLAM Strike]

The heavy reparations are actually all but a myth. I'll have to search out my literature again, but, largely thanks to American efforts to minimize them and German efforts to avoid paying them, the amount of reparations that Germany actually paid was miniscule. They were supposed to pay quite a lot, and this upset the Germans and made them mad at the French and british, but they never did actually pay up.

Does that mean Skybird owes me money? Ooooh! :hmm: :lol: ;) For a small percentage you can hire me to collect it. :arrgh!:

IIRC Wilson tried to minimize the penalties on the Central Powers, he wanted the whole world to move on. :hmm:

[CCIP]

IIRC Wilson tried to minimize the penalties on the Central Powers, he wanted the whole world to move on. :hmm:

True. Although from Wilson's perspective it was easier to do than for French/British, considering the relative costs on the war for them.

Thankfully, of course, America didn't forget to prop Britain and France back up.

What I think is safe to say, however, is that - reparations or not - the Treaty of Versailles was just a bad treaty. It pissed off the Germans AND it was enforced at best half-heartedly. If it were either a nicer treaty or enforced more fully, perhaps we wouldn't be dealing with all those Hitler what-if threads :hmm:

[Torplexed]

Here's a what-if I've always been curious about....what if the assassin's bullet at Sarajevo in 1914 had missed and the Austrian Archduke Fernidad had survived? Given European rivalries would the Great War still have taken place eventually? What course would history would have taken if it didn't?

[CCIP]

Well, the assasination was just a catalyst. Small things play big roles, of course, but Europe was entirely ripe for a large war sooner or later. Personally, I don't think WWI was avoidable given the larger geopolitical circumstances.

[TLAM Strike]

Well if the Archduke wasn't killed its possible that the war might have just been delayed a few years. At which point the Russian Revolution might be starting (with out WWI starting when it should have the Revolution might not happen though). With Russia out of the picture it might have been a little more favorable for the Central Powers and could have dragged the war out a little longer, maybe even World War One would just become the Big Western European War of 192-something. :hmm:

[CCIP]

At which point the Russian Revolution might be starting (with out WWI starting when it should have the Revolution might not happen though).

I think that's the point. You can't really separate the two; the Russian revolution really owes a lot to the catastrophic showing in WWI.

That said, the delay in the war may have led to a more gradual and less radical collapse of the Russian monarchy and the establishment of a republic (like that which existed between March-October 1917) rather than a communist state. There's another what if :hmm:

[XabbaRus]

From my studies at school where we did WWIad infinitum so it seems the Treaty of Versailles was pushed more by the Frecnh than the British who were happier to g a bit easier on teh Germans. Hell it was the French who invaded Germany and the Ruhr (or was it Reinland?) in order to get the payments in the form of coal.

[STEED]

The only thing I would give Germany credit for was when the French had to sign the surrender papers in 1940. In the same rail carriage Germany had to back in 1918. Talk about being smug.

[sonar732]

I remember reading the Czar and his cousin repeatedly sending telagrams trying to avoid war at all cost until the "treaties" came into the situation. The whole point of the Russian Revolution being based on the participation in WWI has been discussed in all college history that I've participated in. The dismal fighting spirit of the Russian Army didn't help the fact at home when the Czar's wife was half-German and in control while Nicolas was away. So, the unrest going on at home kept going because the soldiers who were tasked to hold order refused.

[CCIP]

From my studies at school where we did WWIad infinitum so it seems the Treaty of Versailles was pushed more by the Frecnh than the British who were happier to g a bit easier on the Germans. Hell it was the French who invaded Germany and the Ruhr (or was it Reinland?) in order to get the payments in the form of coal.

Yes, the French were the harsher ones - but can you blame them after being invaded twice during the previous 50 years? I don't really think France's wish to 'neutralize' Germany was unreasonable in any way - a matter of survival, amply proved by WWII.

But the invasion of the Ruhr was an international relations fiasco and in general the occupation of German territories after WWI was badly handled.

The dismal fighting spirit of the Russian Army didn't help the fact at home when the Czar's wife was half-German and in control while Nicolas was away

Another bit of trivia: the later Romanov family, going by genetics, was itself a good 90% German! Prussia has long been a source of military organization/training and wives for the tzars. No wonder they'd be a little reluctant to fight the Germans. :lol:

[TLAM Strike]

At which point the Russian Revolution might be starting (with out WWI starting when it should have the Revolution might not happen though).

I think that's the point. You can't really separate the two; the Russian revolution really owes a lot to the catastrophic showing in WWI.

That said, the delay in the war may have led to a more gradual and less radical collapse of the Russian monarchy and the establishment of a republic (like that which existed between March-October 1917) rather than a communist state. There's another what if :hmm: From what I gather the revolution was going to happen, I guess the Tsar would have been in a better position to put the rebellion down or maybe it could have had a more peaceful solution. Really makes you wonder... :hmm:

[CCIP]

I think the revolution was going to happen, but not neccesarily the Bolshevik one. The tzar's government was, one way or another, edging near collapse and under increasing pressure to modernize based on the western model. The Bolsheviks were really underdogs until fairly late in the game. Communist efforts gained nothing in the failed revolution of 1905; their support base was really very limited - they needed somewhere to get support. It was WWI that let them gain that support, on the one hand with Bolshevik agents "spreading the word" among demoralized soldiers at the front, on the other hand at home in the factories with workers strained by war measures and while the government, facing a military crisis, is looking the other way. Thus my regards to Lenin from the other thread, because he really seized and exploited all possible advantages afforded to him by this otherwise bleak situation - where the Bolsheviks were really at the bottom of the pile.

Otherwise, the war was just a final nail in the coffin of the declining Russian monarchy. Any other serious crisis besides the war (and there was plenty of opportunities for that) would have resulted in its collapse, and replacement by a far more moderate regime than the Bolsheviks (again, see March revolution and Kerensky's government).