You mentioned France's move into the Ruhr earlier.. It was in 1923, 4 years after the Treaty..

By then Germany was a complete mess, broke, Army and Navy gone, the government weak and inept..

Your point about France's move in 1923 means NOTHING when compared to the situation in 1919..In 1919 Germany might have fought back, in 1923 it was in no condition to. Thus France's had nothing to lose in 1923.. In 1919 she couldn't be sure, so again IMO she wouldn't have done a thing to Germany if they didn't sign the Treaty..

Germany in 1919 was in the throes of a revolution- no way could they withstand an invasion, as I told you in an earlier reply Poland cut out huge swaths of Prussia and cut off Danzig when they fought against Germany in 1918-1919 and it was a big factor in the Versailles treaty.

And I'm saying Britain and France might have revolted if their leaders told their public and their Armies in 1919 that were going to war with Germany again..

NONE of those 3 countries were in any condition to start up the fighting again..

Remember when the fighting stopped the German Army was in France, NOT the other way around.. In 1919 Germany wasn't in as bad as shape as you're trying to make them out to be.

They weren't in great shape, but they were in no way totally defeated either.. No foreign Army captured Berlin. They were tired of war, but so was Britain and France.

The reason why the Germans called for an armistice was because Ludendorf told his generals and the Kaiser that he could not guarantee that the front could be held for another 24 hours- they were on the verge of collapse, they had used up all their reserves and were hanging on by a fingernail. Sure the allies were tired of war but if Germany didn't surrender they would surely finish her off.

No, that's not 100% true..Germany was not totally beaten.. The ONE wildcard was the US..In 1918 because we had fresh troops and weren't at war for 4 years we were making a difference. Germany did see that she was in no condition to fight longer against a country that wasn't beaten down by 4 years of war.... BUT again, and for the last time in 1919 I have serious doubts if the US would have sent her troops back into a war, a EUROPEAN War that we weren't thrilled about in the 1st place..In 1919(not 1918, that would be different, IMO) if Germany said F'U to France and Britain, IMO they were in no condition to fight again either. France and Britain would have bitched and moaned, but in the end all the countries would have gone home and licked their wounds..

But we'll agree to disagree..

France would have surely gone back into the fight. They owed germany one after the Prussian campaign in the 1870's. There literally is not a chance in hell germany could have given the treaty the finger and france not hopped right back into it. So france would have gone back to war and either they would have crushed germany or the germany would start to beat back france, in which case the americans and british would start fighting again because they already had troops in theater.

Germany had to sign this thing. I dont think you fully understand how super pissed france was. This is the second time the germans had done this and they had devestated the french army and northern france. There is not a chance the germany could have just walked away from the table and call it even.

I have no doubt the Allies (all of them) would've gone back in. They had no problem throwing troops into the middle of a Russian civil war that same year, so there's no reason to think they wouldn't have kept fighting a defiant Germany. Would it have been popular? Probably not...but they just as probably wouldn't have cared...

Indeed.

Britain and France also intervened in Turkey in 1919.