Would WWII have occurred, or at least in the manner it had if the terms in the Treaty of Versailles had been harsher?

They could have forced Germany into submission easily, German had next to no military manpower coming in by 1918, they were forced to conscript children. The Allies still had plenty of fighting men especially with the arrival of American they had over 1 million from them alone. And Joffre was hoping for an assault with 20,000 tanks by early 1919 to open the way into Germany if needed.

The Germans weren't made culpable for the war. That's just Nazi propaganda.

Versailles was way too lenient. Germany emerged largely unscathed and the "harsh" terms were nowhere close to the damage that Germany wrought.

To prevent Ww2 the Allies should have ignored German pleas for truce, march into Germany to show the population that they are thoroughly beaten and finally impose terms that would teach Germans a true lesson. Like Pershing wanted.

Germany was almost unaffected by versailles, it was too lenient. Austria and Ottomans literally lost their empires and became irrelevant small states while Germany was ready for another total war in 20 years.

Germany should be subjected to similar terms they have been in WW2.

this.

Turks got BTFO in WWI and pulled off a "fuck you" to the treaty of Lausanne and got their shit back.

Germans had gangs of paramilitaries and angry veterans pissed off over the war. What could you think those assholes do?

A bunch of decades after WWI, Euroniggers were still traumatized over it to enable Hitler to do his shit.

Literally the only good ending for the Great War would've been everyone grinding down into a complete stalemate in 1919-1920.

U.S. should never have gotten involved.

>The piling on of German culpability is what caused the resentment that led to further conflict.

Not really
Losing WW1 is what did
Then the leniency of Versailles is what permitted them to make the revenge they wanted happen

Well, Post-WW2 peace was ininitly harsher (country divided in two and militarily occupied from 1945 to this day), and I don't think Germany was ever able to chimp out again
I think you've got you're answer

>What's to stop Germany from reunifying again? Exhausted British & French governments?

Germany was even more exhausted and its military had collapsed
Had France and Britain been willing to destroy that recent country, they totally could have

So exhausted was Germany that there literally was a civil war that happened shortly after. Sure.

I understand le eternal baguette and its eternal buttfury, but why would Britain want to destroy Germany?

They wouldn't. The last thing Britain wanted on the mainland was a single dominant power.

Exactly, so I wouldn't describe these "eternal two-tone must perish" wank-fantasies as plausible.

I think that is the point, that a harsher treaty must go together hand in hand with a (harsher) enforcement...

Only one of the three major Allied powers left standing was willing to go for a harsher treaty & enforcement.

Funny how it's what lost them in the end
Germany became dominant once again 20 years later, and after seeing Britain's cowardly and weak ass behavior at Dunkirk, British colonies couldnt respect Britain anymore (even after it had been saved by the US) and demanded independence in the 50s

It would not even need to be harsher, just properly enforced.

To bad the Bongs dun goofed. The French warned then that they are completely devastated by the war and that terms must be harsh if any balance of power must be maintained.

>I understand le eternal baguette and its eternal buttfury
>implying it wasn't Eternal Krauts that were butthurt about France all the time

>What could you think those assholes do?
Die in 1919 offensive.

It was all because of Suez crisis. Dunkerque was irrelevant for anybody but frogs butthurt that they didn't get the boat to England.

Everytime i hear this shit i have to laugh. The US wasn't going to enforce it (similiar to GB) and everbody claiming France could have done it is delusional.

France could - as in it was realistic in terms of personnel, military etc., and if it had the political will (which is where it failed) - at the time when Germany started to flaunt the treaty, they were still not recovered from the internal turmoil (and their military disarmed etc.). In fact they did, if even for a while, with the whole occupation thing for a while. Then again, France, politically, did not really want to, like everyone else.

It wasn't realistic. Assuming they partition germany they would have to occupy it to enforce it. This would kickstart nationalist terrorism and probably would isolate france internationally. They would quickly reevaluate this when their sons are slaughtered by Freikorps.

>Then again, France, politically, did not really want to, like everyone else.
Way to go kill your own argument.

Being harsher wouldn't stop Hitler ignoring it. The only prevention would have been pre-emptive war.

I think making the parallel between Austrian/Ottoman empires and Germany isn't fair. Germany was a highly centralized nationalistic state, while the Austrian and Ottoman Empires were practically on their deathbeds. Fracturing Germany into several smaller states would have been disastrous in that German resentment would only increase.

Give Poland half of Germany and a free hand to genocide krauts.

t. delusional pole.

Okay pavel.

Austria being on its deathbed is post-war Anglo propaganda justifying it's collapse. Austria wasn't on its deathbed, it was trying to survive a wave of nationalism for sure but it was doing fine, it absolutely wouldn't have separated without WW1. They refused to use violence against nationalistic groups and even the nationalists wanted to be part of the Empire, just as an autonomous entity under it with a direct relationship with Kaiser, without being subjected to Archduchy of Austria or Kingdom of Hungary directly.

Ottomans similarly were undergoing a nationalist wave but even with revolts without WW1 pushing them through with Three Pashas grand design of ethnic cleansing of Christians it would have survived as a multi-ethnic state, with a lot of problems for sure but Young Turks managed to create an identity which Arabs could identify with without being Turkish while also creating a state.

Times of turmoil were expecting both of the empires and they would likely need to divide themselves in federalised, autonomous lines to legitimate their states under an Emperor or Young Turk Parliament but they wouldn't implode without a war. Hell, in case of Austria, Germans, Czechs, Hungarians, Slovaks, Romanians fought side by side and it was some incompetent German officers blaming a "lack of loyalty" from Czechs for their own suicidal tactics when Czechs followed it through and got decimated by enemy artillery for example.

Reminder that by saying that Versailles caused WW2 you're just repeating Hitler's propaganda and a normie meme

>The Germans weren't made culpable for the war. That's just Nazi propaganda.

There was actually a clause dedicated to placing the blame for war solely on Germany and her allies but it is certainly true that the Nazis did play fast and loose with the treaty to further their own 'we wos bullied by them nastey jews nd socialists innit' narrative

Harsher terms, maybe a division of Germany, would have made things easier. But in the end it was the lack of Western action in the decade before the start of the war which allowed it to happen.

I don't agree with the anons claiming that there was no political will or that it was impossible. The dismantling of the Austrian Empire went rather smoothly. Surely dislodging Bavaria or Prussia from the rest of Germany would have been an option as well.

>There was actually a clause dedicated to placing the blame for war solely on Germany and her allies

Nope. There's no such clause. Germany is just made responsible for civil damages incurred in France and Belgium. There's however absolutely nothing about the culpability for the war.

Look what an amazing publicity stunt did Germans pull after WW1 that they convinced the public worldwide that there's something in the treaty that actually isn't.

The Treaty of Verasailles is what created the NSDAP. A harsher treaty would result in a stronger NSDAP.

why do I even come here

Bullshit. NSDAP stemmed from the idea that Germany was undefeated and that victory for which Germans made so much sacrifices was stolen from them.

>largely unscathed

Read Berlin Alexanderplatz. The worker ants are always the one that suffer the most.

>Alt-history thread

yep, more than what they deserved.

My argument stemmed from the post which seemed to imply that France couldn't have done it for reasons other than political, as alluded to by its being singled out in contrast to US and GB "not wanting to". France was just the same as them basically.

>There was actually a clause dedicated to placing the blame for war solely on Germany
there was no such clause, article 231 does not work that way
you are literally eating up german propaganda

You mean the NSDAP which was pretty much a laughing stock for the ten years following the war, and which only saw any meaningful political success after the world gun fugged up in the Depression?

You're a retard
France and Britain could easily have enforced it without the US

And the point is that, had France and Britain enforced such a treaty, WW2 wouldnt have happened
Of course they werent willing, they werent even willing to enforce the lenient real one

The German race is a plague, obsessed with destroying Europe and anything good in this world. You only have to open an history book to find countless examples of this.

""Germany"" itself is a disgusting chimera, a monster from hell that should be destroyed.

Germany is responsible entirely for the horrors of WWI, and after it's righteous defeat, it should have been entirely occupied, divided up in small, powerless states, parts of it annexed back, and it's resources entirely exploited to pay back for the damages they did. The population is as much to blame for the war as the government, and anyone that contributed to the war effort should have been found, and worked for free to pay back their debt towards the civilized world. Let them starve, too, it will only do good.

At Verdun, the German soldiers who were killed there are buried under black crosses, to show that they are to blame. I personally think that they shouldn't even have been buried here, they are soiling the motherland.

If only the Anglos and their autistic obsession of "balance of power" hadn't stabbed us in the back, there is no doubt that this would have happened. And the world would have been better off for it.

Europe will only find peace once Germany is no more.

'no'

this.

As if people didn't suffer in other countries after the war. They did, far more than in Germany. Also, much of the suffering in Germany, including the hyperinflation, was actually caused by German government's shenanigans to circumvent Versailles.

Wasn't France historically the aggressor against the German states?

>France and Britain could easily have enforced it without the US
Like how France and Britain abandoned the Greeks and failed to enforce Lausanne? Kek.

>failed to enforce Sevres*
Sorry.

Anyway a lot of people in this thread have pointed it out: Europeans in WWI were beat as fuck and couldnt enforce shit. Even the occupation of the Ruhr was a fragile thing.

WWII was effective because new superpowers who were largely unscathed from the war - not shitty, problematic, colonial powers btw- with fucking nukes, enforced German separation.

...

Pussy ass Germans are not turks
Reminder that Germans never ever resisted foreign occupation, be it the 1795-1813 one, the 1922-1930 one in the Rhineland or the 1945-2016 one by the US

Reminder that they resisted against all three

>Pussy ass Germans are not turks

There's a good joke to be made here, but I'm going to go ahead and ruin it because this autistic anti-German hateboner really ought to stop.

Typical /pol/ psychopath human trash. What's your point?

>role-playing
I excepted better from /pol/

>Apply the french proposition
>the end

USA fucked everything up, anglos in fact

I don't think that an ethno nationalist immigration policy has much to do with saying that Japanese people are less than human.

Stormfront pls go

This