The Post-WWI Peace Settlement if Hughes Wins in 1916

Alternatively, Hughes wouldn't be as sickly as Wilson was and thus may be more inclined to shoot down some of the French proposals. While Wilson was very much a the biggest backer for self-determination, I see no really reason for Hughes (or especially the British) to allow for Germany to be so dismembered, especially with the threat of Revolution hanging in the air. As for those Polish areas in East Prussia, historically they voted in favor of staying with the Reich, so I see no real reason for them to have an uprising.
 
Would Hughes have actually went along with this plan, though?


We don't know, as he was never consulted, and afaik never made any comment on it. I don't see why not, though. After all, things could easily happen during those four months which would limit his freedom of action after March 4.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Alternatively, Hughes wouldn't be as sickly as Wilson was and thus may be more inclined to shoot down some of the French proposals. While Wilson was very much a the biggest backer for self-determination, I see no really reason for Hughes (or especially the British) to allow for Germany to be so dismembered, especially with the threat of Revolution hanging in the air.

Germany wasn't particularly dismembered at Versailles, though. Indeed, most of its lost territories at Versailles were non-ethnic-German-majority territories.

As for those Polish areas in East Prussia, historically they voted in favor of staying with the Reich, so I see no real reason for them to have an uprising.

Who exactly said anything about a pro-Polish uprising in East Prussia here, though?
 

CaliGuy

Banned
We don't know, as he was never consulted, and afaik never made any comment on it. I don't see why not, though. After all, things could easily happen during those four months which would limit his freedom of action after March 4.
Good point. :)
 
Germany wasn't particularly dismembered at Versailles, though. Indeed, most of its lost territories at Versailles were non-ethnic-German-majority territories.

I'm talking about what you suggested in the opening post, with regards to adding Danzig, East Prussia, the Saar, and Upper Silesia. With regards to ethnic territories, West Prussia from what I could find online was indeed only 42% ethnic German but 65% German speaking while others have noted the issues surrounding what portions of Silesia Poland did manage to take IOTL. Given that and wiithout Wilson's insistence on ethnic determination and sea access for the Poles, it's likely that Germany could actually retain more of its territory.

Who exactly said anything about a pro-Polish uprising in East Prussia here, though?

You did, in Post #19. Even disregarding that point, the Poles got about as much as they could peacefully with regards East Prussia considering the population of those areas were in favor of being in the Reich as evidenced by their voting on such matters.
 
I'd suggest Hughes wouldn't go to Versailles personally, but would send a mediator with experience in international conflicts: yes, former president Theodore Roosevelt. He could get the attention of Lloyd George and Clemenceau like Wilson could not. I submit therefore the peace might be less draconian than IOTL.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
I'd suggest Hughes wouldn't go to Versailles personally, but would send a mediator with experience in international conflicts: yes, former president Theodore Roosevelt. He could get the attention of Lloyd George and Clemenceau like Wilson could not. I submit therefore the peace might be less draconian than IOTL.
Wasn't TR already dead at this point in time, though? If so, who exactly would Hughes send to Versailles in TR's place?
 

Deleted member 94680

Yeah; thus, someone else would need to be sent in TR's place. Indeed, what about Taft and/or Elihu Root?

My immediate thought was Taft, but why not Hughes? If he doesn't attend the Americans look like they aren't taking it seriously. Every other member of the 'Big Four' (I assume the US would still be part of that ATL) has a Head of State attending.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
My immediate thought was Taft, but why not Hughes? If he doesn't attend the Americans look like they aren't taking it seriously. Every other member of the 'Big Four' (I assume the US would still be part of that ATL) has a Head of State attending.
Oh, I agree that Hughes can go there if he wants to; indeed, this decision might depend on how much importance he attaches to the success of this trip.

Of course, to be fair, the other 3 of the Big Four don't have to travel across an entire ocean to get to Versailles!
 

Deleted member 94680

Oh, I agree that Hughes can go there if he wants to; indeed, this decision might depend on how much importance he attaches to the success of this trip.

Of course, to be fair, the other 3 of the Big Four don't have to travel across an entire ocean to get to Versailles!

No; but sending, say, his Secretary of State implies it's not important enough for the President to attend. Therefore, by extension, why listen to his views? If it's because America is flexing its post-War financial muscles, that's a recipe to breed bad feeling. It's called statesmanship and Wilson did it for exactly those reasons. Distance doesn't come into it really, cruise liners had been invented by then, wouldn't be a 'difficult' trip!
IIRC once Wilson left, before the end of negotiation, the American position became far less important to the remaining Heads of State.
 
Top