Revisiting the Treaty of Versailles: What Changes Could Ensure Lasting Peace?

In the aftermath of World War I, the Treaty of Versailles was signed with the intention of securing lasting peace and preventing Germany from continuing its aggressive policies. However, the treaty's complex and often ambiguous terms have been subject to extensive criticism, with many historians arguing that it set the stage for the rise of Nazi Germany and the subsequent World War II. If given the chance to alter the terms of the treaty, how would one propose significant changes to ensure enduring peace?

The Dual Objectives of Peace Treaties

When it comes to drafting a peace treaty, there are generally two primary objectives: either to ensure that the enemy is not too severely punished to the point of seeking revenge, which could lead to reconciliation but leaves the peace fragile; or to impose such harsh conditions that the enemy cannot ever be a threat again, ensuring lasting peace but risking resentment and rebellion. Both approaches have been used throughout history and, if executed successfully, can result in peace. The Treaty of Versailles, however, did not fit either category, leading to a compromised and unsustainable peace agreement.

Exacerbating Punishment: A Path to Lasting Peace?

Given the complexity and the varied interests of the involved parties—France, the United Kingdom, the United States, Poland, Czechoslovakia, and others—the Treaty of Versailles became a hastily constructed compromise. The French sought severe punishment, while the Americans held an idealistic vision. This resulted in a treaty that weakened Germany enough to provoke resentfulness but not so much that it was completely neutered, ultimately leading to the rise of Hitler and the outbreak of World War II.

A Fresh Proposal for Radically Changing the Treaty

From the perspective of hindsight, a more drastic approach seems necessary. By making harsher demands, one could prevent both Germany and other nations from seeking vengeance while ensuring no immediate threat is posed by Germany. This proposal suggests several changes to the treaty that would dramatically alter the geopolitical landscape and potentially avert the conflicts that followed.

Severely Weakening Germany's Core Economic Areas

The primary targets for the treaty would be Germany's most resource-rich and economically significant regions, such as the Rhineland, the Ruhr, and Silesia. These areas would be given to various League of Nations mandates or client states, or even ceded to neighboring countries. For example:

The Rhineland and Ruhr regions could become League of Nations mandates or French client states. Silesia could be split between Poland and Czechoslovakia.

Enhancing Poland and France for Stability

By transferring more land and resources to Poland and France, this treaty would strengthen their economies and militaries. For instance:

Denmark would be forcefully dissolved, with Schleswig-Holstein (including German-speaking areas) annexed to make it a direct threat to Hamburg. Danzig (Gdańsk) would become a proper part of Poland to serve as a significant international port, and additional territories in East Prussia and Pomerania could be added to Poland for strategic and economic reasons. France, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Romania, and Yugoslavia could form a defensive pact, the 'Little Entente', to counterbalance potential German, Hungarian, and Soviet expansion, supported by the French.

Establishing a New Defensive Alliance

The formation of the 'Little Entente' would extend beyond the initial signatories, potentially including the Baltic states and Finland, creating a vast bulwark against Bolshevism. This alliance would provide France with a strong and reliable network of allies in Eastern Europe, further deterring aggression.

Dividing Germany for Stability

Another radical proposal might be to divide Germany into northern and southern regions, with the southern region potentially unifying with Austria. However, this would drastically shift the balance of power, giving France and its allies a significant advantage while potentially destabilizing Central Europe.

While such drastic changes might make Hitler still rise to power, the economic and strategic reduction of Germany's capability would significantly weaken its potential for aggressive expansion. With the Rhineland under French control, nearly every country in the region either supported by the Entente or neutral, and with the Little Entente and French backing, Germany would be severely limited in its ability to annex neighboring territories. Any aggression would face immediate and powerful retaliation, effectively ending World War II in its infancy.

Conclusion

The Treaty of Versailles was a flawed compromise that inadvertently paved the way for the rise of totalitarian regimes. By making more drastic and stringent demands, there could have been a more sustainable peace. While the path suggested here is radical, it offers a potential alternative to the tragic events that followed, ensuring that the catalyst for World War II would be effectively eliminated.