Historically, it was only because Wilson linked a potential US guarantee of France against Germany with the Versailles Treaty (which the Senate wouldn't accept without amendments), that the security guarantee was never put to Senate vote. Let's assume Wilson allows the issues to be separated. US guarantees France against Germany after WW1. How does subsequent history change?
US-French security pact post WW1
- Thread starter oca2073
- Start date
-
- Tags
- interwar period ww2
Would isolation sentiment not still not want US to be involved in another European war in 20s/30s?
If the security guarantee passes the Senate, the US would be treaty bound to defend France. Given Germany didn't start threatening France until late 30s, war wouldn't seem to be remotely possible to Americans.
The real question is would France care about Poland/Eastern Europe if they had a US security guarantee against Germany.
Also would Germany really declare war on France after dividing Eastern Europe with USSR, knowing it would mean war against both US and Britain.
Last edited:
And would such a treaty even *apply* if it wa France which declared war on Germany rather than vice versa?
That's why the Treaty changes everything. France probably stops caring about Eastern Europe/Poland as much, thus they don't declare war alongside Britain when Hitler and Stalin carve up Europe.
When does Hitler declare war on France if the US is definitely guaranteed to join is the real question. They may view USSR as the bigger threat and leave France for later* is another possibility.
marathag
Banned
When France rearms, its easier for them to gain aircraft from Douglas and Curtiss without neutrality acts in the way
I doubt France would stop caring, but yes it changes everything. Also with US in GB Wil be almost certainly willing to join the guarantee of France from the start and Belgium will stay not go neutral.......
Plausible scenario :
France decides to not defend Eastern Europe (as should France be the ones who déclares war on Germany, even if defence of Poles/Czechs, then France would lose US protection).
Without French support, Britain also renounces defending Eastern Europe countries.
So, Poland and Czechslovakia are isolated.
Czechslovakia is dismembered like OTL.
Poland is either invaded, or bullied into becoming an economical satellite and military ally of the Reich.
That means Germans can invade Soviet Union through Poland directly, without having a Western front.
Germans likely plan to "do the West" later, once Soviets are vanquished.
But obviously, France and Britain use this time to shore up their land and anti-air defence, fighter and bomber branches, and mechanized land army.
So even if Germans somehow win in the east, any Western war would involve an experienced but tired Germany against fresh and well-prepared Britain and France (with the likely addition of USA fighting in the war since it is bound by treaty).
France decides to not defend Eastern Europe (as should France be the ones who déclares war on Germany, even if defence of Poles/Czechs, then France would lose US protection).
Without French support, Britain also renounces defending Eastern Europe countries.
So, Poland and Czechslovakia are isolated.
Czechslovakia is dismembered like OTL.
Poland is either invaded, or bullied into becoming an economical satellite and military ally of the Reich.
That means Germans can invade Soviet Union through Poland directly, without having a Western front.
Germans likely plan to "do the West" later, once Soviets are vanquished.
But obviously, France and Britain use this time to shore up their land and anti-air defence, fighter and bomber branches, and mechanized land army.
So even if Germans somehow win in the east, any Western war would involve an experienced but tired Germany against fresh and well-prepared Britain and France (with the likely addition of USA fighting in the war since it is bound by treaty).
Aphrodite
Banned
With the Americans behind them, wouldn't the French feel string enough to enforce Versailles?
A French show of force at the Rhineland saves many lives.
What is Britain's response? She stood back and allowed German rearmament as a check on France but France + America is uncheckable.
Do they accept American domination like after WWIi? Tough question
A French show of force at the Rhineland saves many lives.
What is Britain's response? She stood back and allowed German rearmament as a check on France but France + America is uncheckable.
Do they accept American domination like after WWIi? Tough question
Would they be able to w/o having the resources of occupied France?
An old post of mine:
***
Presumably it would have similar provisions to the Guarantee Treaty of OTL https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1919Parisv13/ch27 *except* that it would not contain Article Three:
"The present Treaty must be submitted to the Council of the League of Nations, and must be recognized by the Council, acting if need be by a majority, as an engagement which is consistent with the Covenant of the League. It will continue in force until on the application of one of the Parties to it the Council, acting if need be by a majority, agrees that the League itself affords sufficient protection."
Michael Lind has argued in *The American Way of Strategy* that "Wilson doomed the Anglo-American security treaty with France by including clauses that subordinated the treaty to the cumbersome machinery of the League [quoting Article III]. Instead of a traditional U.S. alliance with Britain and France, which Lodge and other realists would have supported, Wilson insisted that the treaty be in effect only temporarily until the League of Nations could assume responsibility for the protection of France and every other country in the world." https://books.google.com/books?id=AMIQLEp6rqcC&pg=PA99
Note, though, that the treaty refers to "any *unprovoked* movement of aggression." Presumably the US would have to judge what was or wasn't "unprovoked." Even if the treaty includes guarantees of the demilitarization of the Rhineland, some Americans might agree with Hitler's argument (though it was of course only a cynical excuse) that France's treaty with the Soviet Union was "provocation." Though it is possible France would never have come to the agreement with the USSR if there were an Anglo-American guarantee *and*--the difficult part--an apparent will on the part of both the UK and US to enforce it.
***
To that post, I would add A.J.P. Taylor's argument that the treaty would only have offered paper security to France, anyway:
"This abortive treaty, too, offered only a paper security. No American troops were to remain in France, nor British troops either; and, with both British and American forces reduced to the peacetime level, there would have been no troops to send in case of danger. Briand pointed this out in 1922 when Lloyd George revived the proposal, though without American participation. The Germans, he said, will have plenty of time to reach Paris and Bordeaux before British troops arrive to stop them; and this is exactly what happened, despite a British alliance, in 1940. The Anglo-American guarantee, even if had been implemented, was no more than a promise to liberate France if she were conquered by the Germans--a promise fulfilled in 1944 even without a treaty. The United States was debarred both by geography and by political outlook from belonging to a European system of security; the most that could be expected from them was that they would intervene belatedly if this system of security failed." https://books.google.com/books?id=nxCw5map13AC&pg=PA31
***
Presumably it would have similar provisions to the Guarantee Treaty of OTL https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1919Parisv13/ch27 *except* that it would not contain Article Three:
"The present Treaty must be submitted to the Council of the League of Nations, and must be recognized by the Council, acting if need be by a majority, as an engagement which is consistent with the Covenant of the League. It will continue in force until on the application of one of the Parties to it the Council, acting if need be by a majority, agrees that the League itself affords sufficient protection."
Michael Lind has argued in *The American Way of Strategy* that "Wilson doomed the Anglo-American security treaty with France by including clauses that subordinated the treaty to the cumbersome machinery of the League [quoting Article III]. Instead of a traditional U.S. alliance with Britain and France, which Lodge and other realists would have supported, Wilson insisted that the treaty be in effect only temporarily until the League of Nations could assume responsibility for the protection of France and every other country in the world." https://books.google.com/books?id=AMIQLEp6rqcC&pg=PA99
Note, though, that the treaty refers to "any *unprovoked* movement of aggression." Presumably the US would have to judge what was or wasn't "unprovoked." Even if the treaty includes guarantees of the demilitarization of the Rhineland, some Americans might agree with Hitler's argument (though it was of course only a cynical excuse) that France's treaty with the Soviet Union was "provocation." Though it is possible France would never have come to the agreement with the USSR if there were an Anglo-American guarantee *and*--the difficult part--an apparent will on the part of both the UK and US to enforce it.
***
To that post, I would add A.J.P. Taylor's argument that the treaty would only have offered paper security to France, anyway:
"This abortive treaty, too, offered only a paper security. No American troops were to remain in France, nor British troops either; and, with both British and American forces reduced to the peacetime level, there would have been no troops to send in case of danger. Briand pointed this out in 1922 when Lloyd George revived the proposal, though without American participation. The Germans, he said, will have plenty of time to reach Paris and Bordeaux before British troops arrive to stop them; and this is exactly what happened, despite a British alliance, in 1940. The Anglo-American guarantee, even if had been implemented, was no more than a promise to liberate France if she were conquered by the Germans--a promise fulfilled in 1944 even without a treaty. The United States was debarred both by geography and by political outlook from belonging to a European system of security; the most that could be expected from them was that they would intervene belatedly if this system of security failed." https://books.google.com/books?id=nxCw5map13AC&pg=PA31
Last edited:
Did GB not want USA to get involved in the guarantee of France for her to do so? If US does, will GB not be far more likely to also do, so we get a three-way to ensure the end of WW1 peace stays......?
With US and GB supporting her French (and Belgium) domestic politics is going to be very different and more confident as well.
Last edited:
marathag
Banned
While OTL they wouldn't got for the Franco-Great Britain Union, stronger US ties might keep France in the War after 1940, provided that TL on track to that point, so no Vichy.
That changes the rest of the War greatly, as this France wouldn't turn over Vietnam to Japan.
So you get a 'France Fights On' plus US in the War in 1939
That changes the rest of the War greatly, as this France wouldn't turn over Vietnam to Japan.
So you get a 'France Fights On' plus US in the War in 1939
How would a U.S. Army of 1939 fare against the Germans? The U.S. Army was not yet the behemoth it was by 1941 and they only operated FT17s and Stuart light tanks which are target practice for German Panzers and Tigers.
The issue is butterflies will have changes everything.....I doubt you get a 39 war....I doubt you get a OTL US army as well...etc....? (Also, Tiger is 23 September 1942 first action, so by then the war is probably lost...?)
So this means the butterflies would ensure the U.S. Army would develop better tanks and increase in personnel?
What tanks were the Germans using by the time the invasion of Poland occurred?
We are talking a 20s POD....
Belgium might not go neutral.... so no disasters with Fall of France....?
But US+GB might have stood with France over Rhineland, so no 1939 war anyway.....?
The changes are huge?
Germany had PZ 1/2/3/4 and Czechoslovak captured PZ 35/38t, but not many of the Mk 3/4 (and Mk4 only had the short 75mm gun and mk3 the 37mm) ?
US might even use US produced industrial versions of France tanks as its early production volume was very low, but its industrial capabilities high, so we would end up with something like a WWII M1917 production in 1936/37/38?
Hopefully it also looks at GB tanks and decides that single man turrets are not a good idea.... But even 500-1000 obsolescent working FCM 36/Hotchkiss H35/Renault R35 with a BMG .5"/.3" MG delivered in time to train the crews would probably stop the German invasion?
Last edited: