The Post-WWI Peace Settlement if Hughes Wins in 1916

CaliGuy

Banned
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.
Excellent points! :)
 

NoMommsen

Donor
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.
IOTL it was a damn narrow draw, that the german goverment with Ebert at the helm accepted the IOTL ToV. As the Reichskabinet protocols and some biographies go, it was a nightly discussion with and one of the "masterpieces" of Enzensberger to finally get the goverment around to accept.

Prior to this they voted in majority for NOT accepting the ToV of IOTL. With a much harsher ToV I doubt, that Enzensberger could or would have made it.

For the military : there was a strong faction around the then War Minister (a General heinhardt if I recall correctly), who proposed to keep on fighting in the "prussian heatrlands", meaning east of the Elbe and eventually pulling a "germa rebirth out of Prussia" similar to napoleonic times.
Pls don't forget : there was the most of the german East-Heer STILL in the Baltics activly fighting. The polish, military attempt to take Posznan province was just repelled and they were on the brink to drive the Poles back to Warsaw, when the germans, teeth grindingly, "accepted" an armistice there imposed/demanded by the Wallies.

I know it is heavily opposed on this board, that Germany would have taken such a turn or would have been able to "win" anything out of such a turn of things. Mainly out of the mention, that the "powerfull" and "power-lusty" wallies would just have crushed all of Germany to the ground by waging war further.
For that : there were, now already some month of "peace" aka non-fighting for the Wallies homesocieties, who were almost as much war-tired as the germans. I really wonder to what extent the peoples and soldiers of the Wallies would have been ready to continue the fight under such circumstances, faced with a "asymetric" ongoing war.
 

sorry but Germany simply don't have any mean to continue the war conventional or 'asymettrical'; they have accepted OTL ToV not because they liked it but because they don't have any choice. The British blockade already caused a famine and the army lacked supply to continue any type of fight against serious military forces and in this situation not only they will need to do that, but at the same time fighting the soviet, the Poles, other nationalities and their own revolutionaries and it's better remember that at the time a textbook example answer to 'asymettrical' warfare was called the 'rape of Belgium'.

Many of that protocols and biographies are a mix of wishfull thinking and attempt to deflect the blame of the defeat and the harsh treaty.

Regarding the consequences of the presence of Hughes instead of Wilson, well much also depend if he start the negotiation declaring that all the secret or not so secret treaty signed during the war are null and void; if he don't do that things between Jugoslavia and Italy, while tense will be quicker to resolve (at least at the negotiation table regarding the border...but tension will last decades) with probably some adjustment regarding borders, demilitarization and rights of minorities.
In any case, any smoother or quicker negotiation between Rome and Belgrade, with the italian delegation not leaving Versailles and not having that feeling of utter humiliation, will mean that the liberal goverment will not lose legitimancy and both communist and fascist will have less appeal...plus the italians will not found themselfs out of the negotiations regarding the fate of the German colonial empire and eventual compensation for them.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
For the military : there was a strong faction around the then War Minister (a General heinhardt if I recall correctly), who proposed to keep on fighting in the "prussian heatrlands", meaning east of the Elbe and eventually pulling a "germa rebirth out of Prussia" similar to napoleonic times.
Good luck fighting a war against industrialized enemies with a several-fold numerical advantage over you and with the loss of your main industrial base (the Ruhr), though.
 

NoMommsen

Donor
@lukedalton
I don't say, that it would have been a remarkable good idea to continue the fighting, but a choice - how stupid ever - there was.
The Ebert goverment even prepared from May 1919 onwards for the continue of fighting, at least political from the sources I know, despite their knowledge of its (most and very likely) futility, despite their own unwillingness for further war.

For 'asymetric warfare' :
What chance had and how 'logic' were had the Kosciuszko and the following polish uprisings 1830 and 1863 ?
What chance had and how 'logic' were the indian wars of Geronimo, of the Lakota in 1876 (Little Big Horn) etc. ?
What chance had and how 'logic' were the vietnam wars (first against the french, then the US) ?
What chance had and how 'logic' was the Afghan war against the superpower of the SU ?

Decisions for such wars and uprisings are not made by 'logic'.



To call biographies "wishfull thinking" ... to some extent I can agree, though their inherent facts can be checked and counterchecked by using a number of sources, not relying only of one.
To call bureaucratic protocols so ... is just denying any worth to any kind of document at all to fit into a certain personal view on things.

But you might wish to check by yourself : here are the protocols of the Reichskanzlei as well as IMO educated introduction by historians definitly NOT trying to argue and deflect defeat and blame someone else with any "guilt" of defeat.
 

Deleted member 94680

Are the Soviets in charge in Russia in this TL?

What chance that the OTL Baltische Landwehr are instead aimed at Poland to link with the Soviets and try to counteract the effects of the blockade? OTL the post-War Reichswehr cooperated with the Soviets to avoid the Military Inter-Allied Commission of Control, so a precedence is there.
 
@lukedalton
I don't say, that it would have been a remarkable good idea to continue the fighting, but a choice - how stupid ever - there was.
The Ebert goverment even prepared from May 1919 onwards for the continue of fighting, at least political from the sources I know, despite their knowledge of its (most and very likely) futility, despite their own unwillingness for further war.

For 'asymetric warfare' :
What chance had and how 'logic' were had the Kosciuszko and the following polish uprisings 1830 and 1863 ?
What chance had and how 'logic' were the indian wars of Geronimo, of the Lakota in 1876 (Little Big Horn) etc. ?
What chance had and how 'logic' were the vietnam wars (first against the french, then the US) ?
What chance had and how 'logic' was the Afghan war against the superpower of the SU ?

Decisions for such wars and uprisings are not made by 'logic'.



To call biographies "wishfull thinking" ... to some extent I can agree, though their inherent facts can be checked and counterchecked by using a number of sources, not relying only of one.
To call bureaucratic protocols so ... is just denying any worth to any kind of document at all to fit into a certain personal view on things.

But you might wish to check by yourself : here are the protocols of the Reichskanzlei as well as IMO educated introduction by historians definitly NOT trying to argue and deflect defeat and blame someone else with any "guilt" of defeat.

Sorry, but from your previous post, seem that you think that by continuing the hostility and/or attempting 'asymetric warfare' the Germans had even a snowball chance in hell to succeed...and this is not the case; they were starving, they were on the verge of revolution, they were also fight against other faction and any attempt to do that will mean that not only they will have the 'Belgian experience' but that any treaty will make OTL Versailles look as lenient.
 

NoMommsen

Donor
Sorry, but from your previous post, seem that you think that by continuing the hostility and/or attempting 'asymetric warfare' the Germans had even a snowball chance in hell to succeed...
Depends how you define 'succeed' ... and on what time scale, IMO.

... they were on the verge of revolution, ...
... sounds very much like the situation the indians mentioned above were, the vietnamese, the Afghans and - to some extent - the Bolsheviks in 1917 were ...

Still they did it.

EDIT :
To make it clear : I don't say continuing the fight in 1919 would have been a good idea, ... BUT ... it was a possible - however 'clever' or 'stupid' - choice lying on the table to pick or not.
 

Deleted member 94680

Sorry, but from your previous post, seem that you think that by continuing the hostility and/or attempting 'asymetric warfare' the Germans had even a snowball chance in hell to succeed...and this is not the case; they were starving, they were on the verge of revolution, they were also fight against other faction and any attempt to do that will mean that not only they will have the 'Belgian experience' but that any treaty will make OTL Versailles look as lenient.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockade_of_Germany

The problem is, the commonly held image of the Blockade starving Germany into submission has always been contested, as early as the 1920s. The facts of history; fighting the Bolsheviks, the Baltic expeditions, the Silesian fighting - all these troops had to come from somewhere and were hardly starving to death. If, and I stress if, the Germans decided to fight there's every chance there would be enough food found to supply the troops at the expense of the civilian population.
How long the could fight, with materiel supplies being an increasing issue, is a matter of contention.

However, how long would they have to fight?

Would the WAllies want to fight for six more months, a year, two years? The War has been won, this would be a campaign to enforce the Peace on Germany. How long before troops (already expecting to go home in November '18) would make noises about not fighting? Politicians at home asking to bring the boys back?
 

Deleted member 94680

The person whom I'm quoting.

Right, got you.

East of the Elbe would be Germany's eastern border and the Ruhr is Germany's western border they're two different regions.

You're the one that mentioned the Ruhr being occupied, I was replying to that. I was saying I couldn't really see any form of German resistance that would allow the Ruhr to be occupied uncontested if they were militarily resisting other aspects of Allied action.

"Prussian Heartlands" would be in the east of the country, a kind of 'national redoubt' idea I imagine.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Right, got you.

East of the Elbe would be Germany's eastern border and the Ruhr is Germany's western border they're two different regions.

You're the one that mentioned the Ruhr being occupied, I was replying to that. I was saying I couldn't really see any form of German resistance that would allow the Ruhr to be occupied uncontested if they were militarily resisting other aspects of Allied action.

"Prussian Heartlands" would be in the east of the country, a kind of 'national redoubt' idea I imagine.
I agree that Germany would fight to defend the Ruhr; however, the impression that I got from his post is that a rump Germany which exists only East of the Elbe will continue the fight even after the Ruhr falls to the Allies/Entente.
 

Deleted member 94680

I agree that Germany would fight to defend the Ruhr; however, the impression that I got from his post is that a rump Germany which exists only East of the Elbe will continue the fight even after the Ruhr falls to the Allies/Entente.

That may have been that General's intent in his statement in 1919, or whenever, to form a national redoubt to continue the fight after the fall of the rest of Germany.

But in an ATL where Germany resists Allied 'punitive' actions it would be from November 1918 frontlines and therefore outside Germany. Logically they would attempt to prevent the fall of the Ruhr - which was only occupied OTL when Germany defaulted on her reparation payments.
 
There's a tendency on the board to romanticize Poland as a "victim" and overlook that interwar Poland was extremely shitty towards it's minorities. People keep projecting this image of a middle aged Polish woman screaming about the loss of Lwow, while ignoring that Poland was horrible towards the Ukrainians.
 
But in an ATL where Germany resists Allied 'punitive' actions it would be from November 1918 frontlines and therefore outside Germany. Logically they would attempt to prevent the fall of the Ruhr
At the time of her refusing the terms of VT would Germany be able to get a worthwhile army to the 1918 front line before it got pushed east as fast as the west could march?
 
At the time of her refusing the terms of VT would Germany be able to get a worthwhile army to the 1918 front line before it got pushed east as fast as the west could march?

They couldn't get a worthwhile army even to the left bank of the Rhine.

In fact, given how exhausted and demoralised the German people were, I don't see them getting a worthwhile army, period. Some Freikorps and that would be about it.
 
There's a tendency on the board to romanticize Poland as a "victim" and overlook that interwar Poland was extremely shitty towards it's minorities. People keep projecting this image of a middle aged Polish woman screaming about the loss of Lwow, while ignoring that Poland was horrible towards the Ukrainians.
Extremaly? How was USA treating blacks and natives, England and France their colonial subjects, Soviet Union its conquered nations? For the period Poland was maybe average.
 
Top