President Marshall goes to Versailles

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
Was Marshall more or less racist than Wilson. Might he have reacted differently to demands from Colonial peoples?
And be laughed out by his allies? What would have happened is that the German colonies would have been annexed outright by the Entente Powers, instead of being LoN Mandates.
 
Chances are a lot of the stuff that got nicked from them OTL is going to happen again, the French want that industry to rebuild their own country, and the other German industry that gets left in newly-independent countries well, they're going to want those new states created.

They maybe would be able to get the negotiators to relent on some of the concessions to Poland, stuff to France on the other hand, the French aren't going to accept anything less than looting the crap out of the prostrate Germans.

Well, if Lloyd George and Marshall aqre on the same page more often than any party to the conference had been with Wilson, I suspect that French demands can be contained. Would France really wish to resume the war against Germany essentially by itself?
 
Well, if Lloyd George and Marshall aqre on the same page more often than any party to the conference had been with Wilson, I suspect that French demands can be contained. Would France really wish to resume the war against Germany essentially by itself?

Of course they wouldn't, but the problem is they weren't going to be spurned, a significant part of Britain's justification for entering the war was keeping France's goodwill and alliance for various colonial peacekeeping needs on Britain's part, shooting down France's desires to rebuild their country about something to the tune of 33% of its young men dying and untold devastation across its empire is going to be perceived as stepping on their throats while they are down, getting them to relent on even one of their territorial/industrial demands from the Germans is a labor of itself.
 
Of course they wouldn't, but the problem is they weren't going to be spurned, a significant part of Britain's justification for entering the war was keeping France's goodwill and alliance for various colonial peacekeeping needs on Britain's part, shooting down France's desires to rebuild their country about something to the tune of 33% of its young men dying and untold devastation across its empire is going to be perceived as stepping on their throats while they are down, getting them to relent on even one of their territorial/industrial demands from the Germans is a labor of itself.

You're still wielding the prospect of colonial gains over the head of Clemenceau, and all parties are agreed that Alsace-Lorraine should be returned. Perhaps concessions are still made over the Saar region, but when France voluntarily got into a war for the sake of a state sponsor of terrorism, it's hard to feel sympathy for their excessive demands against the Germans.
 
You're still wielding the prospect of colonial gains over the head of Clemenceau, and all parties are agreed that Alsace-Lorraine should be returned. Perhaps concessions are still made over the Saar region, but when France voluntarily got into a war for the sake of a state sponsor of terrorism, it's hard to feel sympathy for their excessive demands against the Germans.

I don't feel any sympathy for France's opportunism at Versailles, I'm just noting that they aren't going to take it lightly if the British tell them off about it, it's not within Britain's interests to alienate them in that way.
 
I don't feel any sympathy for France's opportunism at Versailles, I'm just noting that they aren't going to take it lightly if the British tell them off about it, it's not within Britain's interests to alienate them in that way.

It's not in Britain's interest to lay the foundation for another war, and the fat that the Versailles travesty could have that outcome was apparent even to the French military when the "peace treaty" was published.
 
It's not in Britain's interest to lay the foundation for another war, and the fat that the Versailles travesty could have that outcome was apparent even to the French military when the "peace treaty" was published.

Wendell

The problem is that without checks in the east, Austria and Russia being out of it for the foreseeable future Germany's military position has actually increased. Hence France and Britain need each other and as many allies as they can get and the Wilsonian attitude of 'I'll make an unstable and dangerous mess and then walk away' won't wash. If the US would agree to a lasting alliance to keep the peace you might get a less draconian peace but I doubt the US has the diplomatic maturity to go for this at that time. Hence France will want not only to regain A-L and get reparations for the war destruction but will want Germany weak. And Britain will seek to ally with France for the best hope of stability.

There is one long shot that might make for a stabler peace situation. Would Marshall be willing/able to agree to the British proposal for the cancelling of war-debts? This would make things a lot more stable world-wide and also give a good chance of avoiding the 1930's depression. Possibly with the idea that if this happened reparations demands on Germany would be greatly reduced. Say only to immediate war damage in terms of destroyed mines, factories etc.

Steve
 
Was Marshall more or less racist than Wilson. Might he have reacted differently to demands from Colonial peoples?

Derek Jackson

Do you mean the Japanese call for racial equality to be formally stated. I doubt this would pass either in the US or the European colonial empires at the time as it would be too explosive politically.:(

Steve
 
Wendell

The problem is that without checks in the east, Austria and Russia being out of it for the foreseeable future Germany's military position has actually increased. Hence France and Britain need each other and as many allies as they can get and the Wilsonian attitude of 'I'll make an unstable and dangerous mess and then walk away' won't wash. If the US would agree to a lasting alliance to keep the peace you might get a less draconian peace but I doubt the US has the diplomatic maturity to go for this at that time. Hence France will want not only to regain A-L and get reparations for the war destruction but will want Germany weak. And Britain will seek to ally with France for the best hope of stability.

There is one long shot that might make for a stabler peace situation. Would Marshall be willing/able to agree to the British proposal for the cancelling of war-debts? This would make things a lot more stable world-wide and also give a good chance of avoiding the 1930's depression. Possibly with the idea that if this happened reparations demands on Germany would be greatly reduced. Say only to immediate war damage in terms of destroyed mines, factories etc.

Steve

Building a series of strong states in Eastern and Central Europe should have (and could have) been the priority, to make up for the collapse of Russia.
 
Building a series of strong states in Eastern and Central Europe should have (and could have) been the priority, to make up for the collapse of Russia.

The problem is, other than an oversized Poland, which was tried, once the Hapsburg empire had gone [and it had by this point] there wasn't a sizeable state between Germany and Russia.

The French especially put a lot of efforts into trying to build alliances in the east but unfortunately when push came to shove over Czechoslovakia they wouldn't do anything without British support and we let everybody down.:mad:

Steve
 
The problem is, other than an oversized Poland, which was tried, once the Hapsburg empire had gone [and it had by this point] there wasn't a sizeable state between Germany and Russia.

The French especially put a lot of efforts into trying to build alliances in the east but unfortunately when push came to shove over Czechoslovakia they wouldn't do anything without British support and we let everybody down.:mad:

Steve

France not being able to do anything was neither the fault of the British nor the Poles.
 

perfectgeneral

Donor
Monthly Donor
The problem is, other than an oversized Poland, which was tried, once the Hapsburg empire had gone [and it had by this point] there wasn't a sizeable state between Germany and Russia.

The French especially put a lot of efforts into trying to build alliances in the east but unfortunately when push came to shove over Czechoslovakia they wouldn't do anything without British support and we let everybody down.:mad:

Steve

Poland could have been larger. Not just by moving to the river line in the west, but by consuming East Prussia as well. Germany could be limited to within the Oder and Rhine rivers. Denmark regains Schleswig-Holstein. Romania too could have been larger, at the expense of Hungary. They would have been in a stronger position to support Czechoslovakia.

Germany could have been divided in the same way as Austro-Hungary. Less of a threat to Czechoslovakia or more time to rearm while Germany re-coalesces. A Kingdom of Hanover would be popular in Britain. Maybe four states based around Hamburg, Berlin, Frankfurt and Munich?

Greater territorial conditions could have eased the financial burden of reparations. If France and Belgium gain up to the Rhine, they have less right to demand payments too. The river lines make the treaty stable as it is defensible. The ethnic minorities would be a cause of tension, but no state is perfect.
 
Last edited:
France not being able to do anything was neither the fault of the British nor the Poles.

Wendell

Did I say it was? It was the failure of the French to fight, of Britain to see it should also do so and of Poland to think it could trust Hitler.

However the situation was unstable with two powerful rogue states and an unstable combination of weaker ones trying to restrain them.

Steve
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
Poland could have been larger. Not just by moving to the river line in the west, but by consuming East Prussia as well. Germany could be limited to within the Oder and Rhine rivers. Denmark regains Schleswig-Holstein. Romania too could have been larger, at the expense of Hungary. They would have been in a stronger position to support Czechoslovakia.

Germany could have been divided in the same way as Austro-Hungary. Less of a threat to Czechoslovakia or more time to rearm while Germany re-coalesces. A Kingdom of Hanover would be popular in Britain. Maybe four states based around Hamburg, Berlin, Frankfurt and Munich?

Greater territorial conditions could have eased the financial burden of reparations. If France and Belgium gain up to the Rhine, they have less right to demand payments too. The river lines make the treaty stable as it is defensible. The ethnic minorities would be a cause of tension, but no state is perfect.

1. Poland and Czechoslovakia would not be friends due to the Teschen conflict. I could see Germany losing all of Silesia and East Prussia to Poland, if the Entente really wanted to screw Germany over. Denmark getting all of Schlewig is not totally ASB, but I'm not sure about Holstein. Holstein was pretty much 100% German.

2. Romania getting more of Hungary? What would Hungary even have left? Would there even be a Hungary?

3. Splitting up Germany in several states would have been impopular in Germany. Also, if Germany cease to exist, who would pay the French??

4. No one would allow France to get that strong.
 
Wendell

Did I say it was? It was the failure of the French to fight, of Britain to see it should also do so and of Poland to think it could trust Hitler.

However the situation was unstable with two powerful rogue states and an unstable combination of weaker ones trying to restrain them.

Steve

But we should be asking why some were strong while others were weak, or how to prevent the relations between the various powers from collapsing after the First World War anyway.
 
But we should be asking why some were strong while others were weak, or how to prevent the relations between the various powers from collapsing after the First World War anyway.

Wendell

Simple enough. Germany was large, industrialised and well educated with a grudge from having lost the previous war and a lot of territory. The Nazis may have screwed up the industry and education given time with their policies but started WWII before they did too much damage to Germany's power base. Russia was huge and highly militized under another brutal dictatorship. Both wanted to overturn the results of the previous conflict.

On the other hand Britain and France, being democratic states in which many had found the costs of WWI far exceeding the gains, had a strong aversion to war and were will to go to extreme lengths to avoid one - which in the longer run only made matters worse. America, although it had been the one clear winner of the war had retreated into isolationism and didn't want any responsibility. In the east there were a number of small and medium sized states that often lacked stability, being fairly new and with many minorities and hence often unresolved border issues. They also lacked the industrial strength and national cohesion of the larger developed states.

As such, once Austria had collapsed, which had effectively occurred before the peace treaties, and Russia had fallen into dictatorship, there was no counter to Germany in the east and hence room for it to expand without major opposition. Coupled with the unholy alliance between it and Russia the situation was highly unstable and only early and strong intervention before Germany re-militarised, which neither France or Britain had the will for, could have prevented a serious crisis.

Steve
 
only early and strong intervention before Germany re-militarised, which neither France or Britain had the will for, could have prevented a serious crisis.
Steve

Basically, in 1919 public opinion in the victor nations wanted two things.

1) A stern peace which gave these ****** Huns exactly what they had coming to them.

2) A peace which would allow everyone to go home and cultivate their gardens ie wouldn't need any continuing efforts to enforce.

Unfortunately, those two desires were incompatible. So what emerged was a "hard" peace which then went unenforced - and the results were exactly what might be expected.
 
Last edited:
As such, once Austria had collapsed, which had effectively occurred before the peace treaties, and Russia had fallen into dictatorship, there was no counter to Germany in the east and hence room for it to expand without major opposition. Coupled with the unholy alliance between it and Russia the situation was highly unstable and only early and strong intervention before Germany re-militarised, which neither France or Britain had the will for, could have prevented a serious crisis.

Steve

I disagree, A Polish-Lithuanian union might have been able to provide some balance in sheer size. But you are right about the weak industrial development in Eastern Europe at that time.
 
Top