The creation of a proto-NATO after the end of World War I

WolfBear

Well-known member
OK thanks. I think I will play safe.

Sorry about the late reply but the heat has been so bad the past few days and my computer like me has seen better days so I cut useage to the minimal to avoid any risk of it giving up on me. A good bit cooler now so trying to catch up today.

You can also take a look at parts of Lloyd Ambrosius's books here:


Absolutely no risk here, legal or otherwise!
 

stevep

Well-known member
You can also take a look at parts of Lloyd Ambrosius's books here:


Absolutely no risk here, legal or otherwise!


Many thanks. Skimmed through the pages and related ones for most of the links. There seem to be a bit of difference between Ambrosius's view and at least one of the lower ones where it says the Republicans were deeply critical of France's search for security as a way of "maintaining French hegemony". They don't seem to realise how much France needed reparations of a decent level to meet the combined demands of repairing war damage and repaying war loans.

However if Ambrosius's stance is right then there does seem to have been a decent possibility if Wilson had been less obcessed with his League that a defensive alliance between the three primary allied powers could have been agreed which would have boosted French security and might as a result have improved Franco-German relations and hence secured the peace of Europe both directly and possibly by avoiding the collapse of Republicanism in Germany.
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
Many thanks. Skimmed through the pages and related ones for most of the links. There seem to be a bit of difference between Ambrosius's view and at least one of the lower ones where it says the Republicans were deeply critical of France's search for security as a way of "maintaining French hegemony". They don't seem to realise how much France needed reparations of a decent level to meet the combined demands of repairing war damage and repaying war loans.

However if Ambrosius's stance is right then there does seem to have been a decent possibility if Wilson had been less obcessed with his League that a defensive alliance between the three primary allied powers could have been agreed which would have boosted French security and might as a result have improved Franco-German relations and hence secured the peace of Europe both directly and possibly by avoiding the collapse of Republicanism in Germany.

Which specific lower book are you thinking of here?

Also, I wonder what effect a peacetime Franco-Anglo-American alliance would have on France's post-WWI Eastern European alliance system.
 

stevep

Well-known member
Which specific lower book are you thinking of here?

Also, I wonder what effect a peacetime Franco-Anglo-American alliance would have on France's post-WWI Eastern European alliance system.

Looking again its prominent in Leffler's book, Safeguarding American Capitalism, p98-102. Possibly that was the only one that raised this point as looking at the neighbouring links they don't seem to do so.

I think it might depend on the exact details of the alliance and how it develops. If its purely defensive, i.e. only applies if France is attacked itself its more risky for France to offer support to eastern powers such as Poland or Czechoslovakia - at least against a German threat, and possibly to a degree supporting the Little Entente against possible Hungarian revanchism. Although if you did get German revanchism taking a strongly militaristic stance - whether Nazi or some other form - it would be difficult for Paris to stand aside for threats to say Belgium and the Netherlands and Britain at least would likely support them there. In a war starting because of a German attack on Belgium or the Netherlands what would be the stance of Washington?

Afraid this means that if militaristic revanchism occurs in Germany then eastern Europe might be sacrified, although OTL the western allies proved unable to defend or even seriously aid any of those states so with our knowledge that might not seem a big matter.
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
Looking again its prominent in Leffler's book, Safeguarding American Capitalism, p98-102. Possibly that was the only one that raised this point as looking at the neighbouring links they don't seem to do so.

I think it might depend on the exact details of the alliance and how it develops. If its purely defensive, i.e. only applies if France is attacked itself its more risky for France to offer support to eastern powers such as Poland or Czechoslovakia - at least against a German threat, and possibly to a degree supporting the Little Entente against possible Hungarian revanchism. Although if you did get German revanchism taking a strongly militaristic stance - whether Nazi or some other form - it would be difficult for Paris to stand aside for threats to say Belgium and the Netherlands and Britain at least would likely support them there. In a war starting because of a German attack on Belgium or the Netherlands what would be the stance of Washington?

Afraid this means that if militaristic revanchism occurs in Germany then eastern Europe might be sacrified, although OTL the western allies proved unable to defend or even seriously aid any of those states so with our knowledge that might not seem a big matter.

Thanks; I might check it out later on.

I think that it's possible that this alliance could eventually get extended to Belgium and the Netherlands since they're so close culturally-wise to France and Britain. Even extending it to Italy is possible if Italy actually remains democratic, though that's probably unlikely due to Mussolini and the Italian King's willingness to appease him. FWIW, I'm not saying that it's guaranteed that this alliance will eventually be extended to the Benelux countries, but it nevertheless is very possible. But Czechoslovakia, Poland, Romania, Yugoslavia, et cetera are all no doubt an astronomically harder sell.

And Yes, I've also wondered about that: Whether France would be less willing to make security commitments and alliances with Eastern European countries if it would have already had a solid trans-Atlantic alliance with the Anglo-Americans. Of course, France could still rely on Eastern Europeans as a backup option in the event that the Anglo-Americans will prove themselves to be unreliable, but only while Germany is still weak. Once Germany recovers, France might consider its Eastern European allies to be more disposable than they were in real life. This could make a Nazi-Polish alliance in 1939 more likely than it was in real life, for instance.
 

stevep

Well-known member
Thanks; I might check it out later on.

I think that it's possible that this alliance could eventually get extended to Belgium and the Netherlands since they're so close culturally-wise to France and Britain. Even extending it to Italy is possible if Italy actually remains democratic, though that's probably unlikely due to Mussolini and the Italian King's willingness to appease him. FWIW, I'm not saying that it's guaranteed that this alliance will eventually be extended to the Benelux countries, but it nevertheless is very possible. But Czechoslovakia, Poland, Romania, Yugoslavia, et cetera are all no doubt an astronomically harder sell.

And Yes, I've also wondered about that: Whether France would be less willing to make security commitments and alliances with Eastern European countries if it would have already had a solid trans-Atlantic alliance with the Anglo-Americans. Of course, France could still rely on Eastern Europeans as a backup option in the event that the Anglo-Americans will prove themselves to be unreliable, but only while Germany is still weak. Once Germany recovers, France might consider its Eastern European allies to be more disposable than they were in real life. This could make a Nazi-Polish alliance in 1939 more likely than it was in real life, for instance.

Well given Hitler's long term aims any such alliance is likely to be temporary. However faced with an unbeatable bloc to the west - although one which may as a result have given up on the rest of Europe he might consider that as a quick way of getting at the Soviets. Plus in that case Poland would make a good body-shield against the Soviets and do a lot of the dying for him.
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
Well given Hitler's long term aims any such alliance is likely to be temporary. However faced with an unbeatable bloc to the west - although one which may as a result have given up on the rest of Europe he might consider that as a quick way of getting at the Soviets. Plus in that case Poland would make a good body-shield against the Soviets and do a lot of the dying for him.

If the Germano-Poles will win their war against the Soviet Union, then I suspect that Poland's fate will be secure so long as it behaves like a good little Nazi lapdog and also aggressively tries encouraging its Jews to move en masse to Palestine to Siberia or Central Asia or wherever.
 

stevep

Well-known member
If the Germano-Poles will win their war against the Soviet Union, then I suspect that Poland's fate will be secure so long as it behaves like a good little Nazi lapdog and also aggressively tries encouraging its Jews to move en masse to Palestine to Siberia or Central Asia or wherever.

I think more of a doormat than a lap-dog. Once the Soviets/Russians are defeated Hitler no longer needs the Poles as an ally and its decent land adjacent to eastern Germany.
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
I think more of a doormat than a lap-dog. Once the Soviets/Russians are defeated Hitler no longer needs the Poles as an ally and its decent land adjacent to eastern Germany.

Though at the same time, he will also get so much Soviet Lebensraum that additional Polish Lebensraum won't be necessary for a very long time!
 

stevep

Well-known member
Though at the same time, he will also get so much Soviet Lebensraum that additional Polish Lebensraum won't be necessary for a very long time!

Possibly but continental states always prefer a continuous land link. Don't forget it was only really necessary in terms of the Nazi cult of warfare and racial superiority and continual expansion.
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
Possibly but continental states always prefer a continuous land link. Don't forget it was only really necessary in terms of the Nazi cult of warfare and racial superiority and continual expansion.

Germany would have had a land lank due to the extraterritorial land bridge over the Polish Corridor, which would likely be a prerequisite to any Nazi-Polish alliance.
 

stevep

Well-known member
Germany would have had a land lank due to the extraterritorial land bridge over the Polish Corridor, which would likely be a prerequisite to any Nazi-Polish alliance.

True and that would isolate the Polish sub-state from the sea and hence external influences. However I doubt given the nature of the Nazis and that you have an extremely militaristic Germany that Poland would have much in the way of self-government for long.
 

sillygoose

Well-known member
True and that would isolate the Polish sub-state from the sea and hence external influences. However I doubt given the nature of the Nazis and that you have an extremely militaristic Germany that Poland would have much in the way of self-government for long.
How would that isolate Poland from the sea? The extra territorial corridor was set up so it did not interfere with Polish access to Gdynia, which by volume was Poland's main port. They were purposely transitioning away from using Danzig by the 2nd half of the 1930s.
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
How would that isolate Poland from the sea? The extra territorial corridor was set up so it did not interfere with Polish access to Gdynia, which by volume was Poland's main port. They were purposely transitioning away from using Danzig by the 2nd half of the 1930s.

Yep, @stevep, the German road was meant to be elevated, IIRC. So, Polish transport could still go below on the ground while the German road would look like an elevated bridge on top of it.

Like this:

main-qimg-dd29954dcbdf6d11d4765d9e8fd698c6.webp


Polish traffic would have went below while German traffic would have went above.
 

stevep

Well-known member
Yep, @stevep, the German road was meant to be elevated, IIRC. So, Polish transport could still go below on the ground while the German road would look like an elevated bridge on top of it.

Like this:

main-qimg-dd29954dcbdf6d11d4765d9e8fd698c6.webp


Polish traffic would have went below while German traffic would have went above.

OK good points as long as the treaty is maintained.
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
OK good points as long as the treaty is maintained.

Yeah, such a land route seems quite ideal for Nazi Germany to access its desired Lebensraum! ;) But it would probably need control of the Baltic countries in order to actually reach its Russian territories. In such a scenario, I would expect Poland to be able to expand up to the old eastern borders of the PLC if it so chose:

4fabd33061-450.png


But the Nazis will likely insist on the Baltics and on Russia itself for themselves. Well, if the Nazis and the Poles can actually jointly defeat Russia in a war, that is.
 

stevep

Well-known member
Yeah, such a land route seems quite ideal for Nazi Germany to access its desired Lebensraum! ;) But it would probably need control of the Baltic countries in order to actually reach its Russian territories. In such a scenario, I would expect Poland to be able to expand up to the old eastern borders of the PLC if it so chose:

4fabd33061-450.png


But the Nazis will likely insist on the Baltics and on Russia itself for themselves. Well, if the Nazis and the Poles can actually jointly defeat Russia in a war, that is.

Well they will want the Baltics for easy access further east as well and western Ukraine for its grain capacity. They might be willing to give up the relatively undeveloped Belarus region provided they have links further east. However this all assumes a rational Hitler/Nazis which seems unlikely.
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
Well they will want the Baltics for easy access further east as well and western Ukraine for its grain capacity. They might be willing to give up the relatively undeveloped Belarus region provided they have links further east. However this all assumes a rational Hitler/Nazis which seems unlikely.

Western Ukraine would have to go to the Poles due to its relatively large Polish minority population (this map is in percentage terms out of the total population):

Poles1926ua.PNG


The grain there could, of course, go to Germany in large amounts as per of any subsequent German-Polish deal.
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
Western Ukraine would have to go to the Poles due to its relatively large Polish minority population (this map is in percentage terms out of the total population):

Poles1926ua.PNG


The grain there could, of course, go to Germany in large amounts as per of any subsequent German-Polish deal.

It is only in southern Ukraine that the German percentage in 1926 was larger than the Polish percentage in 1926:

Germans1926.PNG
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
@stevep One thing that I want to point out here is that if a proto-NATO is created after the end of WWI (with the US, UK, France, and maybe eventually some or all of the Benelux countries as members) and there is subsequently an alt-WWII where there is no Fall of France and thus a Western Allied rather than a Soviet liberation of Poland, then it's possible that this proto-NATO will subsequently be extended to a reformed Germany, Poland, et cetera after the end of this alt-WWII.

In real life, some people refer to Intermarium as the most pro-US part of Europe, so in this TL, even the US might be willing to sign off on this:

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top