The Post-WWI Peace Settlement if Hughes Wins in 1916

CaliGuy

Banned
Had Charles Evans Hughes won the U.S. Presidency in 1916 and still taken the U.S. into WWI afterwards (like Wilson did in our TL), what would the post-World War I peace settlement have looked like in this TL? Specifically, how exactly would it differ from our TL's post-WWI peace settlement?

As for my own opinion on this, I think that having Hughes as U.S. President would result in less emphasis on things such as national self-determination and thus in a harsher peace for Germany. For instance, I could certainly see France annexing the coal-rich Saarland in this TL as well as Italy annexing Dalmatia and Poland annexing (Polish-majority) southern East Prussia, Danzig, and resource-rich Upper Silesia (all of it--not just a part of it).

Also, side question, but out of curiosity--does President Hughes personally go to Versailles in this TL like President Wilson did in our TL? Or does he stay at home and merely send some of his advisers over to Versailles?

Anyway, any thoughts on all of this?
 

Deleted member 94680

I agree with no Wilson and no 14 points (it was a personal project of his, I believe) there would be less emphasis on self-determination for sure.

I'm not sure on annexation for the Saarland, but maybe detaching it and making a new nation? What was the ethnicity of the Saarland like? There would be no desire for the French to bring millions of angry Germans into the Republic, victory or not.
Italy annexing the Dalmatian coast probably brings War with Yugoslavia sooner rather than later and I'm not sure they've got the ability to do it, War aim or not.
Poland is an interesting one as the annexations you're outlining are ethnically doable, but do they have the military ability to do it with the Soviets rampaging about? Would this tip Germany over into the Communist camp as the only way of regaining the lost territory? Are these Polish annexations enforced by the WAllies and if so, how? Greater occupation of Germany proper? Was there political will for this kind of thing, bearing in mind how quickly the "Versailles was too harsh" mindset took hold in some sections of the WAllies OTL?
 
Had Charles Evans Hughes won the U.S. Presidency in 1916 and still taken the U.S. into WWI afterwards (like Wilson did in our TL),

Taking a step back a bit, if CEH had won the 1916 could he get the US into the war in April 1917, given that back then the President was inaugurated on 4/5 March rather than 20 January as from 1937. WW was just continuing on from his first term but surely an incoming CEH would need some time to get his house in order, administration in place and the like before declaring war?

If that is the case, how long does it take, what happened IOTL in Europe in the same timeframe and what was the Entente financial position like in that timeframe?
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Taking a step back a bit, if CEH had won the 1916 could he get the US into the war in April 1917, given that back then the President was inaugurated on 4/5 March rather than 20 January as from 1937. WW was just continuing on from his first term but surely an incoming CEH would need some time to get his house in order, administration in place and the like before declaring war?

If that is the case, how long does it take, what happened IOTL in Europe in the same timeframe and what was the Entente financial position like in that timeframe?
Couldn't Wilson appoint Hughes SecState and then resign together with his VP shortly afterwards--in November 1916--in such a scenario, though?
 
Dunno, was there a plan floating around like that? It seem familiar.

Yes there was - though afaik Hughes was never consulted about it.

Devlin records Wilson saying to his family at Christmas 1916 how happy he was that they and not the Hughes family were celebrating it at the White House. Had he lost he clearly intended to be gone before Christmas.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
I agree with no Wilson and no 14 points (it was a personal project of his, I believe) there would be less emphasis on self-determination for sure.

Completely agreed; also, I am unsure that Versailles would actually be so personally important to Hughes for him to go there himself like Wilson did in our TL.

I'm not sure on annexation for the Saarland, but maybe detaching it and making a new nation? What was the ethnicity of the Saarland like? There would be no desire for the French to bring millions of angry Germans into the Republic, victory or not.

Two things:

1. France wants the Saarland's coal.
2. The Saarland only contained about 800,000 Germans back then--in other words, a mere 2% of France's total population were it annexed to France.

Thus, I think that a French annexation of the Saarland indeed occurs in this TL.

Italy annexing the Dalmatian coast probably brings War with Yugoslavia sooner rather than later and I'm not sure they've got the ability to do it, War aim or not.

Who is stronger--Italy or Yugoslavia?

Also, couldn't the Yugoslavs agree to whatever the Paris Peace Conference decides in regards to Dalmatia? After all, they agreed to let Italy keep Fiume in our TL in spite of the fact that Italy's claims to Fiume were just rejected at the Paris Peace Conference!

Poland is an interesting one as the annexations you're outlining are ethnically doable, but do they have the military ability to do it with the Soviets rampaging about?

No; however, the Western Entente powers do have this ability and Germany, being defeated and starving, almost certainly would be unable to effectively oppose such a decision.

Would this tip Germany over into the Communist camp as the only way of regaining the lost territory?

No--due to the rabid anti-Communism which existed in Germany back then.

Are these Polish annexations enforced by the WAllies and if so, how?

Sort of; basically, they're enforced just like the Polish Corridor and whatnot were enforced in our TL--specifically through the threat of using military force on Germany.

Greater occupation of Germany proper?

Or the threat to occupy a part of Germany.

Was there political will for this kind of thing, bearing in mind how quickly the "Versailles was too harsh" mindset took hold in some sections of the WAllies OTL?

Probably; after all, there was the political will to separate both Danzig and the Polish Corridor from Germany at Versailles. Thus, why not this as well?[/quote]
 

Deleted member 94680

Two things:

1. France wants the Saarland's coal.
2. The Saarland only contained about 800,000 Germans back then--in other words, a mere 2% of France's total population were it annexed to France.

Thus, I think that a French annexation of the Saarland indeed occurs in this TL.

Fair points but 800,000 people living in that area aren't going to be wanting to be part of France. Better to make a "Republic of the Saar", militarily occupied by France (something akin to the German garrison in Luxembourg) and take its coal or Custom Union it to dependence on France.

Who is stronger--Italy or Yugoslavia?

Also, couldn't the Yugoslavs agree to whatever the Paris Peace Conference decides in regards to Dalmatia? After all, they agreed to let Italy keep Fiume in our TL in spite of the fact that Italy's claims to Fiume were just rejected at the Paris Peace Conference!

On paper, Italy. But is there the will to put up with a Chetnik insurgency that drags on after the loses of WWI? Also occupying Fiume is far different from occupying all of Dalmatia.

No; however, the Western Entente powers do have this ability and Germany, being defeated and starving, almost certainly would be unable to effectively oppose such a decision.

No--due to the rabid anti-Communism which existed in Germany back then.

Sort of; basically, they're enforced just like the Polish Corridor and whatnot were enforced in our TL--specifically through the threat of using military force on Germany.

Or the threat to occupy a part of Germany.

Probably; after all, there was the political will to separate both Danzig and the Polish Corridor from Germany at Versailles. Thus, why not this as well?

These Polish annexations are quite different from giving Poland simple access to the sea. Also, was anyone in the WAllies talking about a Polish Corridor before Wilson's 14 Points? The WAllies might have the ability, but do they have the will? I'm really not sure the Germans will roll over to take this and the British and French know that. What does France or Britain gain from going to War again to enlarge Poland? There was rabid anti-Communism in Germany, true, but you also had a Spartacist Uprising in Berlin and a Munich Soviet. If the world is against them and the Poles are closing in, who else is there to make friends with but Lenin?

Harsher occupations and annexations were an option OTL, but they weren't pursued. Would removing Wilson's idiotic (IMHO) 14 Points in ATL make France harsher? Make Britain gear up for potentially a new, long campaign? Look at OTL 1922 for how far the WAllies were willing to go when it came to the threat of further hostilities.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Yes there was - though afaik Hughes was never consulted about it.

Devlin records Wilson saying to his family at Christmas 1916 how happy he was that they and not the Hughes family were celebrating it at the White House. Had he lost he clearly intended to be gone before Christmas.
Would Hughes have actually went along with this plan, though?
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Do you have details? Sounds like some hellish political chicanery, would Congress agree to War for an Acting President?
I think that John Milton Cooper's book about Woodrow Wilson contains some information about this plan.

Also, though, by April 1917, Hughes would already be President; after all, if the Pres and VP both resign, the SecState becomes the new President, no?
 

Deleted member 94680

I think that John Milton Cooper's book about Woodrow Wilson contains some information about this plan.

Also, though, by April 1917, Hughes would already be President; after all, if the Pres and VP both resign, the SecState becomes the new President, no?

Exactly, so why try and force it through with a weird "I make him Secretary of State before his Presidential term starts then resign to make him Acting President" scheme? How would Congress respond to such a move? Wouldn't it seem rather dishonest and like a plan from the man who "kept us out of the War" to allow someone to try and take America into the War?
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Fair points but 800,000 people living in that area aren't going to be wanting to be part of France. Better to make a "Republic of the Saar", militarily occupied by France (something akin to the German garrison in Luxembourg) and take its coal or Custom Union it to dependence on France.

The problem with that is that the people of this republic will yearn to unite with Germany; indeed, what good is an independent state where the population doesn't actually want to be independent?

[quote]On paper, Italy. But is there the will to put up with a Chetnik insurgency that drags on after the loses of WWI? Also occupying Fiume is far different from occupying all of Dalmatia.[/quote]

How much of an insurgency would there actually be in Dalmatia were Italy to take it, though?

These Polish annexations are quite different from giving Poland simple access to the sea.

Exactly how so, though?

Also, was anyone in the WAllies talking about a Polish Corridor before Wilson's 14 Points?

I honestly don't know; however, historically, Poland did have a corridor to the sea for centuries until the late 1700s!

The WAllies might have the ability, but do they have the will? I'm really not sure the Germans will roll over to take this and the British and French know that. What does France or Britain gain from going to War again to enlarge Poland? There was rabid anti-Communism in Germany, true, but you also had a Spartacist Uprising in Berlin and a Munich Soviet. If the world is against them and the Poles are closing in, who else is there to make friends with but Lenin?

Why exactly do you think that Germany would refuse to accept this considering that its armies were defeated and disintegrating and their population was starving?

Harsher occupations and annexations were an option OTL, but they weren't pursued. Would removing Wilson's idiotic (IMHO) 14 Points in ATL make France harsher? Make Britain gear up for potentially a new, long campaign? Look at OTL 1922 for how far the WAllies were willing to go when it came to the threat of further hostilities.

Frankly, I think that France would be harsher on Germany in this TL if President Hughes is OK with it; however, Hughes is probably also going to have his limits in regards to this--thus making things such as a complete splitting off of the Rhineland from Germany a big no-no!
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Exactly, so why try and force it through with a weird "I make him Secretary of State before his Presidential term starts then resign to make him Acting President" scheme? How would Congress respond to such a move? Wouldn't it seem rather dishonest and like a plan from the man who "kept us out of the War" to allow someone to try and take America into the War?
No; after all, Hughes won in 1916 and Wilson wanted to avoid a lame-duck U.S. President while Europe was still at war.
 
Even if Pres and VP don't resign, CEH would have his hands on the levers of power as SS which would smooth and hasten the transfer of power.

But without 4 years of dealing with crises in Europe and Mexico was CEH balls to the wall for war with Germany?
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Even if Pres and VP don't resign, CEH would have his hands on the levers of power as SS which would smooth and hasten the transfer of power.

But without 4 years of dealing with crises in Europe and Mexico was CEH balls to the wall for war with Germany?
I don't think that Hughes was a warmonger; rather, he simply wanted to be more prepared for war were war to come (in the future).
 

Deleted member 94680

The problem with that is that the people of this republic will yearn to unite with Germany; indeed, what good is an independent state where the population doesn't actually want to be independent?

So they yearn to return to Germany but you want them in France? If they're small and garrisoned any attempt by Germany to retake them is casus belli but having them outside of France avoids the problems of political representation and drains on infrastructure.


How much of an insurgency would there actually be in Dalmatia were Italy to take it, though?

I can't say for definite but I don't know of any Dalmatian movement for Italian control. By OTL 1918 all the 'Croatian' agitation was for a South Slav state (the Yugoslav Committee, etc) and I can't see them trading Hungarian domination for Italian when Yugoslavia was there for the joining. Further, there's a strong 'resistance' tradition in that part of the world - look at the Albanians and Montenegrins in the pre-WWI period for example.

Exactly how so, though?

Are you seriously saying you can't see the difference between the OTL Polish Corridor and Danzig on one hand and taking Silesia, Posen and large parts of East and West Prussia (Prussia! For goodness' sake!) on the other? Have you read up on the Silesian uprising for instance? [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silesian_Uprisings?wprov=sfsi1] that was in response to a plebiscite - I imagine there would be a response to the areas being taken away. Positions might be reversed perhaps, with Polish Army versus German insurrectionists but it wouldn't go quietly, I would say.

I honestly don't know; however, historically, Poland did have a corridor to the sea for centuries until the late 1700s!

And? Until the late 1700s Poland controlled (was in union with) Lithuania and large chunks of Ukraine and what became Belorussia - no one was suggesting giving those over.

Why exactly do you think that Germany would refuse to accept this considering that its armies were defeated and disintegrating and their population was starving?

Look at the rage and opposition to Versailles. This is far worse, logic would suggest the response would be far more strident. Also, having read several books on the inter-War period I often get the feeling the "starving Germany couldn't do anything" line is overstated when it comes to the military. The Baltische Landwehr springs to mind. In this TL, they'd probably be active at home, as opposed to trying to carve out new territories in the East.

Frankly, I think that France would be harsher on Germany in this TL if President Hughes is OK with it; however, Hughes is probably also going to have his limits in regards to this--thus making things such as a complete splitting off of the Rhineland from Germany a big no-no!

Why would they though? Are you saying Wilson restrained the French OTL? Why wouldn't Hughes? The man wasn't an idiot, he knew overly weakening Germany was bad in the long run especially once the Soviets turned up.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
So they yearn to return to Germany but you want them in France? If they're small and garrisoned any attempt by Germany to retake them is casus belli but having them outside of France avoids the problems of political representation and drains on infrastructure.

Basically, my point here is that having them be inside of France will make Germany more willing to give up on their issue in the future; after all, handing over a part of France is less realistic than handing over an independent state--something which Germany almost certainly knew.

Indeed, even Hitler never raised the Alsace-Lorraine issue until 1940 in our TL; thus, would even Hitler be willing to raise the Saarland issue in this TL?

I can't say for definite but I don't know of any Dalmatian movement for Italian control. By OTL 1918 all the 'Croatian' agitation was for a South Slav state (the Yugoslav Committee, etc) and I can't see them trading Hungarian domination for Italian when Yugoslavia was there for the joining. Further, there's a strong 'resistance' tradition in that part of the world - look at the Albanians and Montenegrins in the pre-WWI period for example.

Fair enough, I suppose.

Are you seriously saying you can't see the difference between the OTL Polish Corridor and Danzig on one hand and taking Silesia, Posen and large parts of East and West Prussia (Prussia! For goodness' sake!) on the other? Have you read up on the Silesian uprising for instance? [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silesian_Uprisings?wprov=sfsi1] that was in response to a plebiscite - I imagine there would be a response to the areas being taken away. Positions might be reversed perhaps, with Polish Army versus German insurrectionists but it wouldn't go quietly, I would say.

If there will be an uprising in, say, Polish-majority East Prussia in this TL, then Poland--along with some French troops, if necessary--will crush this uprising. There--problem solved!

And? Until the late 1700s Poland controlled (was in union with) Lithuania and large chunks of Ukraine and what became Belorussia - no one was suggesting giving those over.

The Polish Corridor still had a Polish-majority population in 1918, though.

Look at the rage and opposition to Versailles. This is far worse, logic would suggest the response would be far more strident. Also, having read several books on the inter-War period I often get the feeling the "starving Germany couldn't do anything" line is overstated when it comes to the military. The Baltische Landwehr springs to mind. In this TL, they'd probably be active at home, as opposed to trying to carve out new territories in the East.

Active at home doing what, exactly?

Why would they though? Are you saying Wilson restrained the French OTL? Why wouldn't Hughes? The man wasn't an idiot, he knew overly weakening Germany was bad in the long run especially once the Soviets turned up.

Basically, I am suggesting that due to his lesser support of national self-determination, Hughes would be at least slightly less restraining of France than Wilson was; of course, as you said, less restrains certainly doesn't mean no restraint!
 

Deleted member 94680

Basically, my point here is that having them be inside of France will make Germany more willing to give up on their issue in the future; after all, handing over a part of France is less realistic than handing over an independent state--something which Germany almost certainly knew.

Indeed, even Hitler never raised the Alsace-Lorraine issue until 1940 in our TL; thus, would even Hitler be willing to raise the Saarland issue in this TL?

Seeing as though you mentioned it, I'll point to the obvious - Alsace-Lorraine. The French demanded, mourned and eventually fought for it for 47 years. The Saarland was parts of Prussia, Bavaria and Oldenburg since 1815, so there'll be intent to get it back. With annexation you're making a "German Alsace-Lorraine" to continue Franco-German enmity for another generation or so. It'll be viewed in a completely different manner to A-L which was captured territory to act as a buffer on the far side of the Rhine.



If there will be an uprising in, say, Polish-majority East Prussia in this TL, then Poland--along with some French troops, if necessary--will crush this uprising. There--problem solved!

If you think "crushing an uprising" with French troops (would they get involved - once again referencing OTL 1922 and French inter-War actions in general vis-a-vis Germany?) is "problem solved" then I hope to God you never get in a position of power. Also, how are they going to crush this uprising that stops the next and the next and the one after that?



Active at home doing what, exactly?

Err, fighting against the dismemberment of Prussia and the "Polish aggression"? How is that not obvious? They're not going to be fighting for lebensraum in Latvia whilst the Poles are burning Breslau, are they?


Basically, I am suggesting that due to his lesser support of national self-determination, Hughes would be at least slightly less restraining of France than Wilson was; of course, as you said, less restrains certainly doesn't mean no restraint!

Exactly. I think after the hot flush of the immeadiate post-War slogans and electioneering has faded, there's a chance the peace will be less harsh on Germany as a more "Concert of Nations" type diplomacy returns with a cynical eye to future stability. Basically the smaller nations will be disappointed and the Great Powers will be back to business as usual after a few years.
 
Top