We are Internationalists: The Fall of Warsaw and the Rise of Europe
- Thread starter Faeelin
- Start date
People may well suspect this shall happen anyway. The French are an independent power, one of the big three, and they shall undertake actions to secure their own destiny. Given the chaotic situation to the east the French would want to try and take control of events in so much as they are able.
And.. France can do the same to Britain. Your viewing this far too much from Britains perspective in my view. If France says to Britain, 'your on your own' then the situation in Europe is a mess. If France says 'we will not pay back the debt', then the economy is a mess. In times past the British might have just left the continent to their own devices. Here however they have a hostile and powerful Russia threatening their interests globally, a revanchist and hostile Germany who they have just fought for four years in the bloodiest war in human history and potentially now a hostile France. Abandoning France in the vague hope they can make nice with Germany before the Russian hordes arrive is to my mind a highly unlikely strategy to pursue. In OTL 1920 the Soviets were beaten back and Germany was disarmed. Beliefs, bizzare as they might appear in hindsight, that France could act as the continental hegemon had some basis in reality. Given this situation they will appear to be obviously false.
Marching? They didn't seem to have a problem in 1923. The French will imagine that Germany shall be revanchist regardless of what they do. In this situation Germany is certain to have a large army to oppose the Soviets. The French cannot afford to base their defence on the goodwill of London and Berlin. They will take action to secure their own independence. I don't think you are accepting just how politically impossible it would be for the French to permit a re-armed Germany so soon after the war without establishing an effective line of defence.
The British won't because 'French hegemony of the continent' is much less of a concern than the communist threat sweeping Eurasia. How would German resistance be political suicide for France? The French public (and the British but it tends to be forgotten) wanted Germany to bleed white as a consequence of the war. The French shall not be overly concerned over the state of Germany, if it leads to the break up of Germany so be it, atleast France has her Rhine border.
Whoever 'nobody' is - rather unlikely that there will be an international peace conference that agrees on those borders and German rearmement...
Britain isn't King of the World... - they are hardly in a position to do much on the continent - and if they stab France in the back, the French will cry bloody murder about the 'betrayal' and remember that England is their once and future (eternal) enemy...
Well, Poland only had a short shoreline, and there is the question of logistics... the only 'easy' route from France to Poland goes trough Germany... So, occuping Germany's railroad net first, and then send significant forces to Poland, might be an option - but one not without problems (see below)
And that's precisely the reason why Germany can't be allowed to play this card... from a French PoV, a rearmed Germany - Versailles undone - is so absolute evil that a rearmed communist Germany would only be a very gradually worse (if at all). If invading part of Germany can compensate France with valuable possesions (say the Rhineland and the Ruhr), instigate a German Civil War between Red Germans and White Germans that turns Germany in a heep of smoking rubble - well, this looks fairly close to an optimal outcome for France..
O.k - Britain might declare war on France - so we end up with two new (or rather very old axis) London - Berlin and Paris - Moscow (used to be St. Petersburgh) - with parts of the Germans on the Soviet side (Red Saxony and Poland) - so we refight the Seven Years War?...
Umm... Hungary did look a bit larger on the map, yep, as did Austria - so I just assumed it to imprecission of hand drawing... if it's intentional, it will just piss everyone (except the Hungarians) off, for now good purpose.
(late 1920 Hungary is not in a situation to be a valuable ally for anyone, so angering Czechoslovaks, Romanians and Yugoslavs just for the fun of it can't be a wise policy - and if Austria would really hold some parts of northern South-Tyrol, it would annoy the Italians as well...
complete agreement
.. as above...
well - absolutely impossible - and the Soviets are further away than the Germans, so they are the lesser threat (from a French PoV).
If German resistance is suicide for the Germans or the French - or Britain, for that matter - would depend on the outcome, which seems fairly open.
A few years ago I did a scenario on SHWI based on the same PoD -fall of Warsaw in August 1920. It was part of a collaborative effort for what on AH.com would be called a 'Red Army wank'.
As the initial challenge didn't allow a earlier PoD, France's reaction to the collapse of Poland became the key..
Firmly convinced that in 1920, rearming Germany is absolute anathema for France, they decide they have to take bold action. The only reasonable way to rescue Poland is across Germany. Rescuing Poland per se doesn't mobilize enough people in France - so the stated goal is to 'Rescue Poland to screw Germany'. To secure supply lines, the French army has to take control over the German railroad network. German railroad workers go on strike and form armed militias. The German government - split over the question about resistance to France or fighting against the communists - resigns. Ebert nominates a leader of the USPD (this party did just have big gains at the Reichstag elections in June) as Chancellor, who forms a coalition with SPD, KPD, other far left groups, union-milita leaders and 'patriotic elements' of the Reichswehr, who support the resistance against France. Some right wing Germans and Reichswehr elements form a 'White German' opposition government. With the Red Germans successfully playing the 'patriotic card', and allying with Soviet Poland and Soviet Russia agianst French agression, the situation soon get's out of hand. As the war seems more and more a class war between the working classes of all countries and big monney, French unions go on strike, defection is high, and within a few months, the allied Red armies decide the German civil war in their favour and are crossing the Rhine to intervene in the French civil war....
Faeelin
Banned
Why?
The fate of Upper Silesia wasn't determined until a plebiscite in April (I believe) of 1921, with tensions on the ground between the French, the British, the Poles, and the Germans.
The chances of a Conservative Cabinet going along with giving Poland part of Silesia, IMO, are zero. France's are about just unlikely.
Britain still has troops in the Rhineland; and the LoN Commissioner in Danzig is British.
(And OTL was helping Danzig grab all the territory it could, in August).
Okay, except it's France that's violating the treaty by trying to break Germany up, no? Whereas Germany is just trying to respond in response to the red threat; something that people in New York, Rome, London (and even Paris) can sympathize with.
In OTL, when Germany was prostrate, France abandoned any plans to braek off the Rhine in order to keep its alliance with Britain. What changes here?
Next question. Why, when Lloyd George asked in OTL about this prospect and the French president Millerand said no, does this change?
Why would Germany possibly decide to help France, which has instigated it?
It's also not clear to me how you gt Moscow on the same side as Paris.
In short, what your proposing makes sense, but requires a brain transplant for the people who actually ran French politics. In far less chaotic circumstances, the Ruhr occupation was still somethnig no one really wanted to do. This just threatens to blow Europe up.
(I also find the idea of Briand masterminding this unlikely).
Austria doesn't hold South Tyrol; that is an error. As for the rest? OTL as in ATL, the French are very unhappy about Czech indecision during the war.
Last edited:
Principally the fact that OTL Germany was so de-fanged post Versailles. The French were top-dogs in Europe for the better part of two decades and everyone knew it. French Politicians could therefore imagine that a perpetual alliance with Britain was better than trying to force the issue with a Germany who was by British (or well, Keynes) accounts already prostrate. The British could imagine that the French were just seeking to play the global hegemon rather than seeking to solve genuine strategic concerns.
In this timeline Germany will not be prostrate. She is not going to be limited to an extremely small army. She will likely outnumber France somewhere in the region of 2 to 1. Reparations are unlikely to ever arrive if the German state is shelling out on defences against the red menace. It is going to therefore appear far more sensible for the French to occupy up to the Rhine and establish it as their new defensive border against the rest of Europe, regardless of its political make up. The idea that the British would go to war with France over the issue is simply ludicrous. The idea that the British would 'boycott' France over the issue is simply ludicrous. They might think it unduly harsh on the French (although if Germany has swallowed half of what was eventually Poland in OTL, thats definately not certain, Germany would be very powerful in such a situation once fully rearmed) but they are unlikely to oppose it nearly as much as you are suggesting.
I don't think your appreciating just how much people did imagine that this might be the war to end all wars and that all that talk of mutual disarmament, which was later on to be shown to be just hot air, was actually believed. In this timeline such is going to be stillborn. The French are going to know full well that Germany, who is likely to be re-armed in a matter of years rather than decades, is more than likely to come after France. They have to secure their safety against such an attack. An alleged promise with London is going to appear alot weaker than a border on the Rhine.
Ok
The French public would have been delighting by an expansion up to the Rhine in the immediate aftermath of the war. It would not be domestic political suicide for the French to do so. I really don't think your getting just how anti-german the common person of 1919-1920 was. I don't see why a French annexation up to the Rhine means that the German state collapses. You shall have to explain the reasoning behind this one.
Faeelin
Banned
Why "could imagine"? I'm not so sure what's so unreasonable about the fear that France was trying to dominate Europe; they'd have everyreason to want to, after all.
France will not allow a larger Germany army than a French one. Likewise, Britain doesn't need to go to support Germany, so I don't know where you're getting that idea from. It just needs to say "Arlight, we're withdrawing all financial support not guaranteeing this border."
As you point out, there are still more Germans. So what stops Germany from giving France a smackdown a few years down the line?
Germany didn't even grab all of its pre1914 territories. How is this aggressive, in lieu of the alternative?
I simply cannot see why men like Winston Churchill, who saw a stable and well ordered Germany as the key to Europe, would not have a problem with France breaking up Germany. I can't see why Curzon would be in favor of it.
France can try it if it wants, but it would have to ditch the Entente.
Faeelin
Banned
I came across an intresting quote that seems relevent here, from Poincare to Clemencau in 1919.
"We will not perhaps have the peace that you and I like. We shall have to make sacrifices, not to Germany but to our allies."
What changes to make France's leadership, umm, crazy? Especially when, by OTL December of 1920, even Poincare recognized the necessity of not destroying Germany?
"We will not perhaps have the peace that you and I like. We shall have to make sacrifices, not to Germany but to our allies."
What changes to make France's leadership, umm, crazy? Especially when, by OTL December of 1920, even Poincare recognized the necessity of not destroying Germany?
I suspect we may just fail to convince each other. I don't see why this is 'crazy' on the part of the French.
The fact that in this timeline Germany is going to have a large army. The French will have zero influence throughout Europe about two years after Germany has stabilized which presumerably is desired by all parties except the Soviets. Germany shall have roughly twice the potential manpower and possibly going three times as much industrial production of steel, coal and so on. How can France 'prevent' Germany having a larger army than the French one? They both have say half a million soldiers. Germany now says they are raising it to one million. Who can the French go to to complain? If they declare war they risk being defeated (and France really didn't want a war so soon after one which saw 1/7th of their population dead or wounded). They cannot maintain an arms race with such an obviously superior power. Ultimately Germany is going to keep a large enough army to fend off the Soviets. Paris doesn't get to determine the size of the Red Army.
The point is however, a border on the Rhine would be extremely difficult to cross. Building something like Maginot line together with the Rhine would significantly ease France's strategic concerns. It would be a massive force multiplier. They would no longer have to concern themselves so much about the fact that Germany had a greater military potential.
France probably has to accept de facto German hegemony on the continent. They would rather do so in a situation where Germany is much less likely to roll over them should the whim take them.
The point is that Germany will not appear to have been properly defeated. In OTL the British establishment, influenced in part by Keynes, viewed Germany as prostrate. Her armies were destroyed. The militirists under the Kaiser had been cast out of government. She could return to being a civilized industrial trading power intent only upon the status quo rather than a scary military giant. In this timeline, with substantial military expenditure required to fend off the Soviets such a conclusion is going to be impossible to draw. There shall be much more sympathy with French concerns over their security, rather than laughing it off as Gallic spite trying to kick someone when they are down.
The British would still view a stable Germany as the key to Europe. Germany however is not stable. There would be serious considerations of what to do should she collapse. Abandoning the French for no purpose if infact Germany has infact collapsed is just deeply stupid.
This isn't 1870. Machine guns, modern artillery, barbed wire and the general rise in armies have made defensive fortifications alot more effective than they used to be. If the French fortify all across the Rhine, a German push across is likely to be defeated. At the very least its better to face them there than deeper into France and nearer to Paris. Like the Franco-Italian border, the terrain makes it a substantial force multiplier for the defender.
Theres a difference between an occupation immediately after the war as a rightful conquest taken through victory and an occupation in 1923 against a prostrate Germany because they have refused to send over a shipment of telegraph poles (or something like that).
By that logic the French shouldn't have taken back Alsace-Lorraine. If France has the border on the Rhine she is far more secure than she is without. I believe the British would understand. As it is, a perpetual border between France and Germany would serve their interests as well. The British hardly wanted to find themselves in another bloody Franco-German war.
The fact that in this timeline Germany is going to have a large army. The French will have zero influence throughout Europe about two years after Germany has stabilized which presumerably is desired by all parties except the Soviets. Germany shall have roughly twice the potential manpower and possibly going three times as much industrial production of steel, coal and so on. How can France 'prevent' Germany having a larger army than the French one? They both have say half a million soldiers. Germany now says they are raising it to one million. Who can the French go to to complain? If they declare war they risk being defeated (and France really didn't want a war so soon after one which saw 1/7th of their population dead or wounded). They cannot maintain an arms race with such an obviously superior power. Ultimately Germany is going to keep a large enough army to fend off the Soviets. Paris doesn't get to determine the size of the Red Army.
The point is however, a border on the Rhine would be extremely difficult to cross. Building something like Maginot line together with the Rhine would significantly ease France's strategic concerns. It would be a massive force multiplier. They would no longer have to concern themselves so much about the fact that Germany had a greater military potential.
France probably has to accept de facto German hegemony on the continent. They would rather do so in a situation where Germany is much less likely to roll over them should the whim take them.
The point is that Germany will not appear to have been properly defeated. In OTL the British establishment, influenced in part by Keynes, viewed Germany as prostrate. Her armies were destroyed. The militirists under the Kaiser had been cast out of government. She could return to being a civilized industrial trading power intent only upon the status quo rather than a scary military giant. In this timeline, with substantial military expenditure required to fend off the Soviets such a conclusion is going to be impossible to draw. There shall be much more sympathy with French concerns over their security, rather than laughing it off as Gallic spite trying to kick someone when they are down.
The British would still view a stable Germany as the key to Europe. Germany however is not stable. There would be serious considerations of what to do should she collapse. Abandoning the French for no purpose if infact Germany has infact collapsed is just deeply stupid.
This isn't 1870. Machine guns, modern artillery, barbed wire and the general rise in armies have made defensive fortifications alot more effective than they used to be. If the French fortify all across the Rhine, a German push across is likely to be defeated. At the very least its better to face them there than deeper into France and nearer to Paris. Like the Franco-Italian border, the terrain makes it a substantial force multiplier for the defender.
Theres a difference between an occupation immediately after the war as a rightful conquest taken through victory and an occupation in 1923 against a prostrate Germany because they have refused to send over a shipment of telegraph poles (or something like that).
By that logic the French shouldn't have taken back Alsace-Lorraine. If France has the border on the Rhine she is far more secure than she is without. I believe the British would understand. As it is, a perpetual border between France and Germany would serve their interests as well. The British hardly wanted to find themselves in another bloody Franco-German war.
I note the capital C Conservatives... so your - again - talking about Britain?
Britain isn't going to determin the facts on the ground in Silesia..
There is either a Soviet - German agreement (to split Poland - or at least the territories claimed by it...) and than many in the west will cry bloody murder - no need to allow Germany to rearm if it's in leage with the Soviets, really...
OR the question is determined by brute force on the ground - if there is a communist uprising in upper Silesia, the war might just go on, but, from a French PoV, this isn't a reason to allow Germany to defend it self.
I don't think this would be a dominant mood in Paris (and may be not even London) - the reds are a nuisance, but a rearmed Germany is worse...
BTW, I can't see why France is violating the treaty - they try to uphold it!
Germany isn't allowed to have an army that allows to defend it self against any significant threat, that was the point of the whole disarmement excerise - so the excuse that the very existance of the nation is at peril is no excuse to violate the threaty - if the choice is between Germany rearmed or no Germany at all, the conditions in Versailles were quite clear - it would have to be no Germany at all...
Mmm - Germany will not be prostrate anymore, when it is allowed partial rearmement.. - and so the whole point of Versailles is gone...
nothing easier than that... Instead of splitting Poland with Germany, the Soviets now can split Germany (and, well, continental Europe) with France.
doesn't compare at all - the Ruhr occupation was a punitive expedition about failure to pay reparations on time - not a reaction on letal threat to the French nation - so the dimension of the cause is as far appart as a fly and an elephant.
may be something on that lines, although, if Germany goes really up in flames big - and especially if - with some Soviet help - it might look as the communists might prevail - London and Brussels might still feel that they need to go along with France - may be - in British opinion - the French screwed up - but it's still better to bail them out to have Red France follow after Red Germany, Red Poland, and Red Russia....
The situation is entirely different - allowing Germany to rearm was nowhere in the cards in 1919...
Aehm.. and how are they going to prevent that - the whole point of the arms limitations at Versailles were that if Germany doesn't comply, it can easily be overun - marching to Berlin is no real military problem if the political will is here...
If, OTOH, for whatever reason, Germany is allowed a real army (even if it would be only 60 % of the French one), the Entente doesn't have the big stick - if the Germans don't comply, the French would have to start a real war with quite unclear results. An asolute no starter in 1920...
Restrictions on armament are upkeept to the letter - any violation triggers immediate invasion, no excuses - however well founded - are accepted, under no circumstances at all..
Precisely because Germany has more people and a stronger industrial base would giving them the little finger to dangerous (meaning - allowing minimal rearmement). It has to be prevented at any cost.
Faeelin
Banned
Why not? They had troops on the ground to monitor the area before the plebiscite
I don't follow. Germans moving in to occupy Upper Silesia if Warsaw falls isn't a reason for Germany to defend itself?
I should note that everyone's assuming that Germany instantly builds an army of a million men.
Rearmament could easily entail modifying the French original proposal at Versailles, 200,000 men who were only in the army for a short time.
In London? Where people, even in 1919, were writing that going too hard on Germany would make Central Europe go Bolshevik?
Huh? This isn't clear to me, given that OTL Britain wanted Germany to have a force to defend itself.
France still needs to be rebuilt, which if they follow your proposal isn't happening.
This is not preferable to a continued Germany in Paris's eyes.
While they didn't want a strong Germany, a strong Communist state extending from the Rhine to the Pacific is not really better.
Sure it does. If you want France to have support, then it matters; since your proposal means France won't get any abroad.
Men are not potatoes, and life isn't a war game. This reads as what a rational France driven purely by being the largest nation in Europe would do, but not as what Briand or Poincare would do.Again, if you can get a way for some one who would do this to end up in power, I'm interested. But IMO you haven't.
Faeelin
Banned
Plenty of rational people were worried about this proposal; there's a reason the French wanted the alliance, after all.
Moreover, France already has troops in the Rhineland, and will for another twenty-five years. What changes by grabbing it, other than infuriating the British and Germans?
Last edited:
Faeelin
Banned
Turning to the court of the Red Tsar....
Moscow, November, 1920
Outside, the streets of Moscow were covered with snow, and the ravages of war meant that almost everyone was short of coal. Yet even the meanest hut would have been warm compared to Lenin’s voice as he looked down his nose at Joseph Stalin.
“Stalin, my dear man,” said Lenin as he looked at a paper, “I’m afraid you are a puzzle. For instance,” he said, “your actions in front of Lvov. [1] You encouraged Soviet generals to ignore Tukhachevsky’s requests for assistance. Of course, Tukhachevsky and Trotsky ultimately triumphed, and coopted the progressive forces in Poland, but,” Lenin said, “You can see why I’m concerned.”
Stalin’s face betrayed no emotion as he replied, “The fall of Lvov was necessary to secure Galicia. I believed that it was in our best interest to ”
Lenin snorted and continued. “Meanwhile, you wanted to hare off an a mission to liberate Hungary.” Lenin opened a folder, and frowned. “Yet you read the same reports from our agents saying that Hungary’s revolutionaries are in disarray, and even though you knew that it would require marching through Czechoslovakia.” [2]
Wind shook the room’s windows as Lenin continued speaking. “Anyway, then you supported dispatching Soviet troops to Gilan, who helped Mirza Khan take Tehran.” Lenin looked at a globe for a moment, and continued speaking. “A great plan, or so it appeared. For a brief moment it appeared that the Revolution would spread to the shores of the Indian Ocean, and set Asia ablaze.”
Stalin grunted. “It almost worked. Britain itself,” he said wistfully, “almost succumbed. Besides,” he added defensively, “the British blockade our coasts. What were we to do?”
Lenin made a shooing gesture with his hand. “Sure, you can say that now. But some would say your Persian Soviet [3] provoked the reactionaries in England. Now,” he said, raising his voice, “we have English troops fighting the Red Army in Persia! They could be trying to restart the Civil War!” Lenin snorted. “And you want to invade Georgia?” Lenin sighed. "Why can't you be more like Trotsky?" [4]
“It is because England wants to restart the Civil War that we must invade Georgia! It could act as a springboard for an offensive against the Cacuasus!” [5] He hesitated. “Moreover, if we let Georgia remain than we give the Mensheviks a stronghold from which to strike.”
Lenin smirked, and tapped his fingers on the desk. “Do we?” he mused. He looked at the globe once again, and rotated it so it displayed the old Russian border. “I’ve been thinking,” he mused, “about a new political policy.”
[1] Lvow. This didn’t really need a footnote, did it?
[2] This is ATL, but I think it’s reasonable that Stalin would’ve come up for it.
[3] In OTL, Lenin was pretty indifferent to the plan to support the Gilan rebels, while Stalin was one of the strongest proponents.
[4] I’m sure everyone is shocked to find that Stalin was a big proponent of conquering Georgia.
[5] Leaving aside resources such as oil, which OTL Menshevik Georgia sold to the French before the Bolsheviks conquered it.
Moscow, November, 1920
Outside, the streets of Moscow were covered with snow, and the ravages of war meant that almost everyone was short of coal. Yet even the meanest hut would have been warm compared to Lenin’s voice as he looked down his nose at Joseph Stalin.
“Stalin, my dear man,” said Lenin as he looked at a paper, “I’m afraid you are a puzzle. For instance,” he said, “your actions in front of Lvov. [1] You encouraged Soviet generals to ignore Tukhachevsky’s requests for assistance. Of course, Tukhachevsky and Trotsky ultimately triumphed, and coopted the progressive forces in Poland, but,” Lenin said, “You can see why I’m concerned.”
Stalin’s face betrayed no emotion as he replied, “The fall of Lvov was necessary to secure Galicia. I believed that it was in our best interest to ”
Lenin snorted and continued. “Meanwhile, you wanted to hare off an a mission to liberate Hungary.” Lenin opened a folder, and frowned. “Yet you read the same reports from our agents saying that Hungary’s revolutionaries are in disarray, and even though you knew that it would require marching through Czechoslovakia.” [2]
Wind shook the room’s windows as Lenin continued speaking. “Anyway, then you supported dispatching Soviet troops to Gilan, who helped Mirza Khan take Tehran.” Lenin looked at a globe for a moment, and continued speaking. “A great plan, or so it appeared. For a brief moment it appeared that the Revolution would spread to the shores of the Indian Ocean, and set Asia ablaze.”
Stalin grunted. “It almost worked. Britain itself,” he said wistfully, “almost succumbed. Besides,” he added defensively, “the British blockade our coasts. What were we to do?”
Lenin made a shooing gesture with his hand. “Sure, you can say that now. But some would say your Persian Soviet [3] provoked the reactionaries in England. Now,” he said, raising his voice, “we have English troops fighting the Red Army in Persia! They could be trying to restart the Civil War!” Lenin snorted. “And you want to invade Georgia?” Lenin sighed. "Why can't you be more like Trotsky?" [4]
“It is because England wants to restart the Civil War that we must invade Georgia! It could act as a springboard for an offensive against the Cacuasus!” [5] He hesitated. “Moreover, if we let Georgia remain than we give the Mensheviks a stronghold from which to strike.”
Lenin smirked, and tapped his fingers on the desk. “Do we?” he mused. He looked at the globe once again, and rotated it so it displayed the old Russian border. “I’ve been thinking,” he mused, “about a new political policy.”
[1] Lvow. This didn’t really need a footnote, did it?
[2] This is ATL, but I think it’s reasonable that Stalin would’ve come up for it.
[3] In OTL, Lenin was pretty indifferent to the plan to support the Gilan rebels, while Stalin was one of the strongest proponents.
[4] I’m sure everyone is shocked to find that Stalin was a big proponent of conquering Georgia.
[5] Leaving aside resources such as oil, which OTL Menshevik Georgia sold to the French before the Bolsheviks conquered it.
Why should he opposite or ignore the (possible) liberation of his homeland from menshevik-rule?
I think he was being sarcastic, because it is his homeland. Great work Faelin.
Superdude
Banned
Ok....is Germany experiencing massive civil unrest or not? I mean, there was a Bavarian People's Republic, and there were mass communist demonstrations following World War I - with a communist Soviet Union right next door, why would they just let Germany rearm to defend itself from the Red Menace?
