What if France and Great Britan treated Germany diffently after WW1?

B

Big Joe

Guest
Once in a while I've arose this question at pubs and thought it nice to put it forth to the FGM to get some good quality feedback. Back in my middle-school days, I always remembered my teacher talking about Wilson's 14 points and the League on Nations. So what if, Britain and France took a less harsher post war treatment of Germany?
 
WW2 was a must if one sees the economic side of it. It would only have changed a bit concerning the war parties and the outcome maybe. Will go into it later if I have more time.

Greetings :)

Here we go! Irrespective of the lost WW1 the economy of Germany grow again. It was a similar situation to the Euro-Zone today. Germany "made an own" trade circuit to get independent from France, UK and USA circuit. That was a no go for the just mentioned. I remind only on "Buy British" and "Made in Germany" as an example. Further there was the economy partition of the world between IG Farben (Germany) and Rockefeller and similar (USA). They tried to outmaneuver each other and to gain a foot into the "door" of the business of the other. Ever thougt about why BOSS made the uniforms for Wehrmacht and SS and continued during war to deliver them? Or why General Motors delivered to Germany during war? And why german companies (I think Rheinmetall was one of them) delivered weapons and parts of them to USA? If I remember right even the canon of the T-34/76 was a german product. What I mean is the business went on during war.
But back to topic! This economic battling plus the shame for losing a war even if the common Landser didn´t felt as one had lost led to an unavoidable conflict.
That were the "bosses" and so on who betrayed the Landsers. One wanted revenge therefor. Even more as the Treatment of Versaille was more as unfair. So it was relatively easy to push the people to a new war. Of course that may not be too obvious. So the economy bosses bought them a Führer and other leaders of other nations - depended on on what economy side one was.
Russia wanted similar to Germany to show it was a serious opponent. Sadly during WW1 the russian Octobre Revolution came across. The weakening of the young Soviet Union made Poland and a few other nations thinking they could rip some pieces out of the union.
Poland was very aggressive around this time and dictator Pilsudski was eager to gain more - he looked not only to Germany´s sphere of influence. One could continue that for a long time. But to say it short: Almost every nation in Europe had reasons to start a war.

Now to the actual answer! Considered all that, what I could only touch in the segments above, there was only a marginal possibility - one could say an almost not existent chance - to avoid a war. All the more no one of the warmongers dealt honestly. So the common people were taken by loyalty, honour, love for the Fatherland and what not all. All the fine values what became only empty words. The Treatment of Versaille was only a reaction accelerator. If it wouldn´t have been called into life something other had overtaken to work as spark on the fuse.

If France and Britain had made their peace with Germany Hitler wouldn´t have had the problem with a two-frontiers-war. In worst case Poland would still have been a foe and Hitler had it occupied without Russia. In best case via relationship to France and UK Poland would have been a partner. Russia would have been the opponent in every case since communism and the might of the workers were and are a threat for the capitalism. Russia would have been invaded with or without the USA. But if that would have been the case Russia would have struck first since Stalin was since long on the way to carry the communism till to the Atlantic Ocean. And in reality he was almost ready to strike as german troops entered Russia. France and UK weren´t able to react immediately - at least that is the official statement - since they needed further time to get ready for war. One can imagine what would have happened if Russia was the opponent and not Germany.

My personal opinion about that topic is that Germany was chosen again as bad guy. One thought it easy to control and to beat again if necessary after it was just beaten and all "allies" had worked together very well. So in the background the warmongers (who give a damn on nationality) conspired to do another "good deal/business". If another country had lost the war that mentioned country would have been the new bad guy for WW2.

Greetings :)
 
Last edited:
This topic could grow arms and legs of enormous proportions. Maybe The Few Good Men would have made some good Senators and Congressmen back then.
 
If that was the case, maybe USA would had challenged UKs naval supremacy and her role as a protector of world trade in the late 30s or early 40s.
 
T. Roosevelt already sent the great white fleet with the 'speak softly and carry a bid stick' approach. USA v UK? hmm.... I know there were contingency plans.
 
To take UKs role,which is exactly what USA did after WWII,a confrontation would have inevitably been necessary.
 
So the question is if the UK and France had not been so punitive in the whole reparations and emasculation of Germany, then WW2 could have been avoided? I am not sure about that that. It is unlikely that Hitler would have come to power if the economic situation wasn't so dire, the reparations not some oppressive and if the Germans had been allowed to maintain a military worth the term. However, I think there would have been a war because I firmly believe that the USSR was preparing to export the Communist Revolution to Europe by force, if necessary. Plus, at some point the US is fighting Japan in the Pacific regardless. So I think you have WW2, with the Soviets replacing the Germans as the main antagonist in Europe and the Middle East and Japan retaining their role as the antagonist in the Pacific.
 
A better question would be "What if Japan and Italy were treated better after World War I?" When the spoils of war were being divided at Versailles, Japan and Italy were rebuffed by the allies and received almost no recognition for their contributions. If they had received fair compensation, they might not have switched sides when Germany rearmed.
 
Italy was seen as a very potent partner (if not for its military skill so for its military mass) from all sides, axis and allies, before WW2. That was because of their huge fleet even if other countries had much more modern navies. Further on the paper the italian army was very strong if one read the amounts of troops. So Mussolini acted coyly so long as possible. He know he was a power in that area. And all sides swarmed around him to get his attention and finally his fleet on his side. What Mussolini let think to become an axis partner this time were two things. The first was he wanted to steady and increase his influence at Libya, Ethiopia and so on. And the other was the astounding successes of the german Blitzkrieg. He thought he had found the solution for his dreams by using Hitler and his army. So he started to act without thinking about the impact on the german army´s chances. Or maybe he thought of it and thought to weaken the german fighting strength to the same time his influence would rise. The reaction of Hitler is widely known.
And then there were as an icing that both countries were national socialistic. Not that Mussolini hadn´t think it very important but it was a "sweet" taste and let itself use very well propagandistic.

So I think Mussolini had chosen Germany as partner in every case - independent from the too low compensations of Italy´s former allies. But that is only my opinion.

Greetings :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom