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

[stevep]

@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:

Anatoly Karlin 🧬⏩ (@powerfultakes)

It makes zero sense for Russia because it is burning it's own bridges. Makes some sense for the US. Come what may, it raises bargaining power of Intermarium, most pro-US part of Europe. It further disincentives Russia from peace deal, but TBF nobody interested in that anyway.

nitter.1d4.us

In that case something like that would be quite likely. A lot would depend on the circumstances but you might still have the pressures to keep
a) the Americans in - depending on US internal politics as your likely to get an attempt to revive political/diplomatic isolationism at some time.
b) The Russians out - depending on what is happening in the east.
c) The Germans down - after they again started a major conflict, especially if you had something like the Nazis coming to power.

I would say that if you get the US involved in such an alliance and hence avoid the fall of France - assuming that Hitler isn't deposed as soon as he makes clear his determination to go to war with such an alliance - then there's probably no eastern front. At least not unless whoever is in charge of Russia decides to start it. The Germans aren't going to be strong enough to start a war in the east after failing to conquer France no matter how deranged their leader is.

 

[WolfBear]

In that case something like that would be quite likely. A lot would depend on the circumstances but you might still have the pressures to keep
a) the Americans in - depending on US internal politics as your likely to get an attempt to revive political/diplomatic isolationism at some time.
b) The Russians out - depending on what is happening in the east.
c) The Germans down - after they again started a major conflict, especially if you had something like the Nazis coming to power.

I would say that if you get the US involved in such an alliance and hence avoid the fall of France - assuming that Hitler isn't deposed as soon as he makes clear his determination to go to war with such an alliance - then there's probably no eastern front. At least not unless whoever is in charge of Russia decides to start it. The Germans aren't going to be strong enough to start a war in the east after failing to conquer France no matter how deranged their leader is.

Agreed with your analysis here, Steve. One thing that I might want to point out, though, is that if the US will enter the war in 1939 (or whenever it will start--which is not guaranteed considering that this alliance would only protect France against unprovoked German aggression), then it might not be willing to launch a draft and instead might only send volunteers to fight in France. Would that actually be enough to prevent the Fall of France? I mean, it might be, if they're sent to the Ardennes/Sedan sector and/or there are any butterflies, such as no Mechelen Incident.

 

[stevep]

Agreed with your analysis here, Steve. One thing that I might want to point out, though, is that if the US will enter the war in 1939 (or whenever it will start--which is not guaranteed considering that this alliance would only protect France against unprovoked German aggression), then it might not be willing to launch a draft and instead might only send volunteers to fight in France. Would that actually be enough to prevent the Fall of France? I mean, it might be, if they're sent to the Ardennes/Sedan sector and/or there are any butterflies, such as no Mechelen Incident.

True if there's enough of a butterfly net that so much remains the same despite a big PoD 20 years prior. France might still fall if Germany comes up with the same mix of military brilliance, sheer luck and political insanity as OTL although that would make the US wake up to a full war footing at least a year earlier and might also deter Italy joining the conflict. [For all his faults I don't think Mussolini was as delusional about the US's military capacity] That could mean that Barbarossa still goes ahead and Stalin is likely to be

Plus if the US is in the war from the start, even if only in small numbers in air and ground terms there's a good chance that France fights on, even if from FNA and the rest of the empire, which would also significantly change things. You might also see an attempt at establishing some bastion or stronghold, probably in the Brittany area or the south, although this could be costly for the allies as there would be a clear chance of a Breton one failing. A southern one with a neutral Italy could be an interesting factor. Its difficult to reinforce but the terrain also makes it difficult for the Germans to fight their way in if the allies can block routes through the higher ground. Especially if their had a tougher fight in the initial break-through because of a US military presence.

 

[raharris1973]

True if there's enough of a butterfly net that so much remains the same despite a big PoD 20 years prior. France might still fall if Germany comes up with the same mix of military brilliance, sheer luck and political insanity as OTL although that would make the US wake up to a full war footing at least a year earlier and might also deter Italy joining the conflict. [For all his faults I don't think Mussolini was as delusional about the US's military capacity] That could mean that Barbarossa still goes ahead and Stalin is likely to be

Plus if the US is in the war from the start, even if only in small numbers in air and ground terms there's a good chance that France fights on, even if from FNA and the rest of the empire, which would also significantly change things. You might also see an attempt at establishing some bastion or stronghold, probably in the Brittany area or the south, although this could be costly for the allies as there would be a clear chance of a Breton one failing. A southern one with a neutral Italy could be an interesting factor. Its difficult to reinforce but the terrain also makes it difficult for the Germans to fight their way in if the allies can block routes through the higher ground. Especially if their had a tougher fight in the initial break-through because of a US military presence.

The ATL US intervention force has to be of some degree of size and sophistication and deployability greater than OTL's of the Sept 1939-May-June 1940 situation in order to make a difference in a Franco-German battle in mainland Western Europe. The level of US naval, air and infantry forces at that level might be able to make more of a difference in a sideshow theater like Norway, and as an overall strategic influencer in doing things like encouraging Italy to take a pass, and France to fight on from North Africa or possibly as close as Corsica.

 

[WolfBear]

The ATL US intervention force has to be of some degree of size and sophistication and deployability greater than OTL's of the Sept 1939-May-June 1940 situation in order to make a difference in a Franco-German battle in mainland Western Europe. The level of US naval, air and infantry forces at that level might be able to make more of a difference in a sideshow theater like Norway, and as an overall strategic influencer in doing things like encouraging Italy to take a pass, and France to fight on from North Africa or possibly as close as Corsica.

The US could build up its military more prior to WWII in this TL, no?

 

[raharris1973]

The US could build up its military more prior to WWII in this TL, no?

sure could

 

[stevep]

Frankly if WWI has ended as OTL with a large if largely unblooded US army in the west as well as the British and French then I suspect the most likely outcome would be any German leader determined to go to war with such an alliance could well suffer a sudden fatal health problem.

Especially if say closer diplomatic interaction between the US and Europe means that after the invasion of the rump Czech state it also condemns the German action and starts rearming more rapidly.

 

[WolfBear]

Frankly if WWI has ended as OTL with a large if largely unblooded US army in the west as well as the British and French then I suspect the most likely outcome would be any German leader determined to go to war with such an alliance could well suffer a sudden fatal health problem.

Not necessarily; there would still be a window for a quick German victory in France before large numbers of US troops will arrive--if they will indeed ever arrive, that is. As I said, this alliance would not commit the US to fight for France if France went to war for Poland rather than to defend itself. Though the US could still enter the war if it wanted to. An alternative choice for the US, of course, would be not to enter the war, do Lend-Lease or something similar to the max, and encourage any American who wants to fight to join, say, the French Foreign Legion just so long as it will indeed get deployed in France in 1939-1940.

 

[stevep]

Not necessarily; there would still be a window for a quick German victory in France before large numbers of US troops will arrive--if they will indeed ever arrive, that is. As I said, this alliance would not commit the US to fight for France if France went to war for Poland rather than to defend itself. Though the US could still enter the war if it wanted to. An alternative choice for the US, of course, would be not to enter the war, do Lend-Lease or something similar to the max, and encourage any American who wants to fight to join, say, the French Foreign Legion just so long as it will indeed get deployed in France in 1939-1940.

Possibly yes if the actual support of the US to their allies was unclear. I was thinking that if it looks likely that the US will commit fully when war starts then a lot of Germans are going to be very unwilling to start something in the 1st place. You did notice my 2nd paragraph on this?

If the US is lukewarm on the issue and not willing to commit until France itself is attack, say by something like the OTL strike and if also that succeeds as OTL then its a different matter and most/all of mainland France is likely to fall. You might then have a sufficiently insane enough Hitler able to get support for his strike eastwards. Although his OTL excuse for the attack - that Britain was relying on Soviet intervention against Germany - would look even more preposterous than it did OTL.

 

[WolfBear]

Possibly yes if the actual support of the US to their allies was unclear. I was thinking that if it looks likely that the US will commit fully when war starts then a lot of Germans are going to be very unwilling to start something in the 1st place. You did notice my 2nd paragraph on this?

If the US is lukewarm on the issue and not willing to commit until France itself is attack, say by something like the OTL strike and if also that succeeds as OTL then its a different matter and most/all of mainland France is likely to fall. You might then have a sufficiently insane enough Hitler able to get support for his strike eastwards. Although his OTL excuse for the attack - that Britain was relying on Soviet intervention against Germany - would look even more preposterous than it did OTL.

Yes, I saw your second paragraph, Steve. That said, though, if the US is rearming from a low base, then it might still take a bit for results to be seen. And in any case, the US will actually need to send its forces to Europe en masse as well. Not something that can be done quickly to my knowledge.

And it would still be rational for Britain to want the USSR to enter the war even if the US is already involved. And Yes, if the US is already involved, then France will likely fight on. The crucial question would then be whether the Allies can successfully hold onto any part of France, such as somewhere in coastal southern France, indefinitely. Any thoughts on this?

 

[stevep]

Yes, I saw your second paragraph, Steve. That said, though, if the US is rearming from a low base, then it might still take a bit for results to be seen. And in any case, the US will actually need to send its forces to Europe en masse as well. Not something that can be done quickly to my knowledge.

And it would still be rational for Britain to want the USSR to enter the war even if the US is already involved. And Yes, if the US is already involved, then France will likely fight on. The crucial question would then be whether the Allies can successfully hold onto any part of France, such as somewhere in coastal southern France, indefinitely. Any thoughts on this?

Apologies, I've been tied up with helping a friend. Will be an ongoing issue for a while but should have weekends free so trying to catch up now.

Yes the issue is how much the US could commit to France in 39/40 and that could be fairly low given both pre-conflict US army and also that their probably concerned about Japan. [This assumes that butterflies mean it's still as small Sept 39 as OTL] If anywhere it could be the south of France, especially if US entry means that Mussolini decides to stay neutral. - This isn't impossible because the big thing that the US will bring to the war immediately would be a powerful fleet and Italy is vulnerable to sea power. Not to mention the probability of France fighting on.

The other issue with the USN could be both hunting down German raiders quicker, possibly both German 'pocket battleships' getting caught and also perhaps the re-deployment of allied forces mean that the KM gets an even bigger hammering during the Norway campaign than OTL. Possibly even that German control is limited to parts of S Norway and looking unlikely to hold. That could affect a lot of things.