WW1 Peace without Wilson

Let's pretend that for whatever reason, an electoral loss or neutrality for example, Woodrow Wilson would not have been there when the Paris peace treaty was made, thus he would never have made his Fourteen Points.

How do these peace condition revisions look like?

1. Italy gains the entirety of Dalmatian coast.
2. Poland much smaller and no "corridor" (as Wilson's points demanded sea access).
3. A part of Germany, for example East Prussia, created as a state protected by League of Nations (similar to Saar; In autumn 1918 France had thoughts of dividing Germany to a weak union of several nations).
4. Saar directly annexed to France.
5. Dividing the Ottoman Empire, are there any possible new nations to create in Anatolia?
 
East Prussia won't be severed from Germany if there is no Polish corridor, and the British too would check French excesses. Also, the Ottoman Empire was dealt with in other treaties.
 
Wilson doesn't get a second term?
attachment.php
 
Was Wilson the only one proposing an international community? Would it really have been non-existent without him?
 
Was Wilson the only one proposing an international community? Would it really have been non-existent without him?

He was the one most adamant about it. The idea predates him, but Wilson was alot more of an internationalist than many of his contemporaries in U.S. politics, and even among the internationalists, Wilson stands out as wanting a U.S. that is not particularly neutral beyond its two great oceans.
 
Let's take another example here - Hughes winning the 1916 elections. If the USA would have joined the war in this case, how would it have impacted the peace negotiations?
 
Let's take another example here - Hughes winning the 1916 elections. If the USA would have joined the war in this case, how would it have impacted the peace negotiations?


Less committed to Poles and Italians (these were mostly Democrat voters in the US). Also less concerned with a League of Nations though not necessarily hostile to it. Might have been more interested in a World Court of some kind, given his judicial background.

On other aspects of the Treaty, probably not hugely different from Wilson. Might have been more favourable to the proposed "Racial Equality" clause in the League Covenant (if the LoN still happens) though whether he could have got it adopted is less certain.
 

Deleted member 1487

Let's pretend that for whatever reason, an electoral loss or neutrality for example, Woodrow Wilson would not have been there when the Paris peace treaty was made, thus he would never have made his Fourteen Points.
Everything depends on how peace comes about, so if the US isn't at war, then a much more favorable CP peace comes about through a war of exhaustion.

Let's take another example here - Hughes winning the 1916 elections. If the USA would have joined the war in this case, how would it have impacted the peace negotiations?
Charles Evans Hughes was as anti-war as Wilson and may well, through butterflies, keep the US out of the war. If not, and the US takes a similar path to war, he still will have a presence at the peace and press for US interests, though no League of Nations or 14 points (both Wilson's idea). That means a different path to peace though, as without the 14 points, Germany won't be agreeing to peace on those terms. Peace then may take a little longer than November 11th, but not much. I still have a hard time believing that
Hughes would be in favor of the treaty of Versailles, as it went against the idea of an imperialist peace. Without wasting his bargaining position to get the League of Nations agreed to by the other powers Hughes could get a more lenient peace for the CPs, especially if he were willing to leverage loans to support his position. This was more in the interest of the US, as evidenced by the US not signing the treaty of Versailles and taking until the 1920s to work out a separate deal with Germany.

How do these peace condition revisions look like?

1. Italy gains the entirety of Dalmatian coast.
2. Poland much smaller and no "corridor" (as Wilson's points demanded sea access).
3. A part of Germany, for example East Prussia, created as a state protected by League of Nations (similar to Saar; In autumn 1918 France had thoughts of dividing Germany to a weak union of several nations).
4. Saar directly annexed to France.
5. Dividing the Ottoman Empire, are there any possible new nations to create in Anatolia?

1.No, no one but Italy wanted that and the Allies intended to go back on that promise in favor of Serbia.
Edit: Most likely it wouldn't be possible if the US was neutral, as the peace would probably end in negotiations. Also without the US and its loans Italy would probably ask for a cease fire after Caporetto.
2.Not sure about that if the Allies win. If they lose/negotiate, then yes, Poland will be smaller and a German puppet.
3.Very, very hard to imagine. Germany would need to be conquered WW2 style for that to happen.
4.Again very hard to see, as neither the US nor Britain wanted to see French hegemony on the continent. If there is no US in the war, the French cannot get it, if the US is in the war, they and the Brits would not allow it.
5.No, they tried to carve up Turkey after the war, but couldn't militarily force it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Sèvres
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Lausanne
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Everything depends on how peace comes about, so if the US isn't at war, then a much more favorable CP peace comes about through a war of exhaustion.

Very true that it depends on the details of how peace comes about. Not necessarily even more of a war of exhaustion without the US as it just needs the allies to avoid making some of the mistakes they made.

1.No, no one but Italy wanted that and the Allies intended to go back on that promise in favor of Serbia. Wouldn't be possible if the US was neutral, as the peace would end in negotiations at best.

Agreed that no one but Italy wanted that and doubt they would get it. The 2nd point is inaccurate as stated above.

2.Not sure about that if the Allies win. If they lose/negotiate, then yes, Poland will be smaller and a German puppet.

If the allies win but Russia has still gone down the drain then a larger Poland might be supported as a counter to German power. If Germany wins then a small Poland, very much under the German heel is likely.

3.Very, very hard to imagine. Germany would need to be conquered WW1 style for that to happen.

I think you mean WWII style.:) However agree it would probably mean a clearer allied victory and also if attempts were made to split Germany into successor states I doubt that would be considered as one.


4.Again very hard to see, as neither the US nor Britain wanted to see French hegemony on the continent. If there is no US in the war, the French cannot get it, if the US is in the war, they and the Brits would not allow it.

Possibly but if Russia has collapsed as OTL and it's even more certain the US has picked up it's marbles and gone home, or never been involved at all then I would say, presuming a similar level of success in the war this could well occur. With both Russia and presumably Austria gone there are no real checks on Germany so it would be in the interests of both France and Britain for such a change. Might also, since it's to compensate for some of the German economic destruction, be used to reduce repariations a bit.

5.No, they tried to carve up Turkey after the war, but couldn't militarily force it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Sèvres
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Lausanne

It could have occurred if the Greeks hadn't have made a number of mistakes. Or at very least the desire to make sure that Constantinople stayed out of Turkish hands once Attatuk decided on religious partition and mass expulsions.

Steve
 

Deleted member 1487

Very true that it depends on the details of how peace comes about. Not necessarily even more of a war of exhaustion without the US as it just needs the allies to avoid making some of the mistakes they made.

That would be a different POD...I might as well have approached the question from a "if the Germans avoid some of their mistakes" angle ;):p


I think you mean WWII style.:) However agree it would probably mean a clearer allied victory and also if attempts were made to split Germany into successor states I doubt that would be considered as one.

It could have occurred if the Greeks hadn't have made a number of mistakes. Or at very least the desire to make sure that Constantinople stayed out of Turkish hands once Attatuk decided on religious partition and mass expulsions.

Yes I meant WW2. D'oh!

The Turkish situation was more stacked against the Greeks than most realize, but Abdul Pasha explains it better.
 
Top