Reputation

[carninyj]

What are the brown areas around the bridgeheads on the east bank? Demilitarized areas perhaps? Also, why is the Belgian sector only tangential to Belgium itself? I wonder if the Dutch had concerns about possible Belgian designs on the Maastrict Strip since it would have been surrounded by Belgian troops.

Andy, I'm not fully au fait with the details here but ....

The lighter areas east of the Rhine were part of the original occupation - bridgeheads from which Germany could be invaded should the armistice fail to result in a final settlement?

The darker areas east of the Rhine were held by French & Belgian troops from Jan 1923-25. It was the area occupied by the French & Belgians after Weimar Germany defaulted on reparations payments & it was therefore one of the factors which provoked the hyperinflation crisis of 1923. They had indeed entered the Ruhr area for a short time in 1921.

I don't know the answer to your second point, but I would imagine it might be something to do with security. I think the original Schlieffen Plan called for the movement of German troops through Holland. This was eventually dropped, but I think the fear of such an invasion still remained - Hitler's invasion of France in 1940 availed of that corridor. What do you think?

Regards

Carninyj

[carninyj]

For France it was also an important stick at the German Empire to have occupation forces on their otherwise soverign territory. There were also significant economic repriasals that France got from the occupation - in cash and kind.

Andy,

You are right. The French did take a degree of satisfaction from humiliating the Germans by having French troops on German soil, but there was more to it.

French security was a big issue. My understanding, limited I admit, is that the French wanted a League of Allies at the end of WW1 to guarantee the French eastern border. Britain wouldn't entertain keeping troops permanently in Europe and so French ended up having to accept less - the League of Nations guaranteed collective security, Germany was disarmed and the Rhineland was demilitarised. There was also to be a short term occupation of part of Germany, as you say - largely to ensure demilitatisation in the Rhineland. The Saar basin and its coalfields, part of Germany, were placed under the League of Nations and France got the coal of the area for 15 years until 1935, compensation for the destruction of French coalfields in NE France.

The French & Belgian occupation of the Ruhr in 1923 was unilateral, a effort to extract reparations payments on which the Germans had defaulted. The Germans got an undertaking in the later Locarno Agreements (1925) that this would not happen again. However, apart from this specific instance I cannot think how the French, etc. occupation allowed 'significant economic reprisals'. The arrangements about the Saar and reparations were part of the Treaty of Versailles grudgingly accepted by the Germans.

Regards

Carninyj