An independent Saarland is created under League of Nations administration after the end of World War I

[WolfBear]

What if an independent Saarland is created under League of Nations administration after the end of World War I like British Prime Minister David Lloyd George apparently wanted, according to French Foreign Minister Andre Tardieu's 1921 book about his experiences with the post-World War I peace settlement? :

André Tardieu. The Truth about the Treaty. 1921. Chapter VIII.

net.lib.byu.edu

See Section II, March 29 for the relevant information in my link/Andre Tardieu book above.

What effects would this have had on post-WWI Franco-German relations? And could the Saarland have served as a trigger for WWII in this TL similar to Danzig in WWII in our TL?

Any thoughts on this, @sillygoose?

 

[sillygoose]

What if an independent Saarland is created under League of Nations administration after the end of World War I like British Prime Minister David Lloyd George apparently wanted, according to French Foreign Minister Andre Tardieu's 1921 book about his experiences with the post-World War I peace settlement? :

André Tardieu. The Truth about the Treaty. 1921. Chapter VIII.

net.lib.byu.edu

See Section II, March 29 for the relevant information in my link/Andre Tardieu book above.

What effects would this have had on post-WWI Franco-German relations? And could the Saarland have served as a trigger for WWII in this TL similar to Danzig in WWII in our TL?

Any thoughts on this, @sillygoose?

So basically OTL just without French administration, instead a more neutral LoN administrator like in Danzig? Basically the same result as OTL, maybe even sooner. The French really burned their bridges with the British in the early 1920s with the Ruhr occupation and made the Brits realize that an economically rehabilitated Germany was more important than France. Chamberlain later also headed up what was the British consensus at the time that by the 1930s Germany needed to be stabilized, which meant allowing them to reclaim certain ethnic German territories. Even with the Saarland hosting communist and other anti-Nazi refugees from Germany by 1935 IOTL the plebiscite to rejoin Germany was over 90%, so it is very likely the Saar would simply rejoin Germany as soon as they were allowed to vote on the matter. Pretty hard for the LoN to defy the will of the locals given all their lofty claims about the rights of people to self determine.

 

[WolfBear]

So basically OTL just without French administration, instead a more neutral LoN administrator like in Danzig? Basically the same result as OTL, maybe even sooner. The French really burned their bridges with the British in the early 1920s with the Ruhr occupation and made the Brits realize that an economically rehabilitated Germany was more important than France. Chamberlain later also headed up what was the British consensus at the time that by the 1930s Germany needed to be stabilized, which meant allowing them to reclaim certain ethnic German territories. Even with the Saarland hosting communist and other anti-Nazi refugees from Germany by 1935 IOTL the plebiscite to rejoin Germany was over 90%, so it is very likely the Saar would simply rejoin Germany as soon as they were allowed to vote on the matter. Pretty hard for the LoN to defy the will of the locals given all their lofty claims about the rights of people to self determine.

The thing is, though, that France might aggressively be willing to prop up the LoN administration in the Saarland in this TL, especially if the Versailles Treaty will declare the LoN's administration of the Saarland to be permanent. Though I suppose it might also depend on whether France thinks that it can win a defensive war against Germany (either Nazi Germany or some other kind of Germany) on its own.

 

[sillygoose]

The thing is, though, that France might aggressively be willing to prop up the LoN administration in the Saarland in this TL, especially if the Versailles Treaty will declare the LoN's administration of the Saarland to be permanent. Though I suppose it might also depend on whether France thinks that it can win a defensive war against Germany (either Nazi Germany or some other kind of Germany) on its own.

France isn't the guarantor, the LoN is. If they decide to allow it France has no say in the matter and would be in violation if they tried to stop annexation. Given how they didn't oppose the OTL reincorporation it seems like they weren't willing to fight over what was considered core German territory. Plus France couldn't act without Britain and no one was going to fight in 1935 especially given the leap the Luftwaffe had on everyone. Check out the term 'risikoluftwaffe'.

 

[WolfBear]

France isn't the guarantor, the LoN is. If they decide to allow it France has no say in the matter and would be in violation if they tried to stop annexation. Given how they didn't oppose the OTL reincorporation it seems like they weren't willing to fight over what was considered core German territory. Plus France couldn't act without Britain and no one was going to fight in 1935 especially given the leap the Luftwaffe had on everyone. Check out the term 'risikoluftwaffe'.

France didn't try to stop the annexation in our TL because, in our TL, the Versailles Treaty provided for a Saarland plebiscite in 1935. That won't actually be the case here. I'll check out that term, BTW.

Also, did the LoN agree to a reunion of Danzig and Germany in 1939?

 

[sillygoose]

France didn't try to stop the annexation in our TL because, in our TL, the Versailles Treaty provided for a Saarland plebiscite in 1935. That won't actually be the case here. I'll check out that term, BTW.

Also, did the LoN agree to a reunion of Danzig and Germany in 1939?

Ok, but you don't think that would be the case here as well? I don't think the proposal LG suggested would be the permanent removal of the Saar.

As to the LoN question, it wasn't really a factor since Poland and France said they were consider it an act of war if Danzig tried to rejoin Germany unilaterally and it would trigger the war Hitler hoped to avoid. The LoN really had no role in the issue by 1939 despite the LoN commissioner being there. Not that they would have agreed given all the treaties in place giving Poland effectively control over it.

 

[WolfBear]

Ok, but you don't think that would be the case here as well? I don't think the proposal LG suggested would be the permanent removal of the Saar.

As to the LoN question, it wasn't really a factor since Poland and France said they were consider it an act of war if Danzig tried to rejoin Germany unilaterally and it would trigger the war Hitler hoped to avoid. The LoN really had no role in the issue by 1939 despite the LoN commissioner being there. Not that they would have agreed given all the treaties in place giving Poland effectively control over it.

I actually was under the impression that the separation of the Saarland from France here would be permanent. If not, though, then this would change things significantly, no doubt.

Yeah, that makes sense. Thanks.

BTW, what if France would have directly annexed the Saarland in 1919 with Anglo-American permission? This could perhaps be done as a part of a backup clause in the Versailles Treaty which would state that France is allowed to do this if the Anglo-Americans will refuse to ratify the Security Treaty with France, as they did in real life.

 

[sillygoose]

I actually was under the impression that the separation of the Saarland from France here would be permanent. If not, though, then this would change things significantly, no doubt.

There was no justification for removing what was considered core German territory permanently; all the lost territories had other ethnicities living in them or were historically part of another state like Danzig even though it was >90% German.
The Saar was 100% German, was highly economically valuable, and never really part of France or independent. I have the feeling that it would be considered something to fight over and reject the ToV.

Yeah, that makes sense. Thanks.

BTW, what if France would have directly annexed the Saarland in 1919 with Anglo-American permission? This could perhaps be done as a part of a backup clause in the Versailles Treaty which would state that France is allowed to do this if the Anglo-Americans will refuse to ratify the Security Treaty with France, as they did in real life.

No way that would happen. Germany would fight on for the reasons above. Why would the Anglo-Americans write into the ToV a clause that would effectively force themselves to sign on to a policy or let France act unilaterally?

 

[WolfBear]

There was no justification for removing what was considered core German territory permanently; all the lost territories had other ethnicities living in them or were historically part of another state like Danzig even though it was >90% German.
The Saar was 100% German, was highly economically valuable, and never really part of France or independent. I have the feeling that it would be considered something to fight over and reject the ToV.


No way that would happen. Germany would fight on for the reasons above. Why would the Anglo-Americans write into the ToV a clause that would effectively force themselves to sign on to a policy or let France act unilaterally?

FWIW, the western part of the Saar, along with Landau, actually was French in the c.1688 to 1815 time period. That's over a century. But Yeah, by 1919, it wasn't French for over a century, though France would have almost certainly reacquired it had it decisively won the Franco-Prussian War in 1870-1871.

Because it would give France a better position in Europe in the event that the Anglo-Americans will fail to honor their promises of security guarantees to France?

 

[sillygoose]

Because it would give France a better position in Europe in the event that the Anglo-Americans will fail to honor their promises of security guarantees to France?

I don't think they really cared or really wanted to strengthen France that much. They wanted to help her recover from the war, not be enhanced by it especially at risk of permanently alienating the Germans. Everyone knew that Germany would recover eventually and the British even realized they needed Germany to for their economy to be able to function.

 

[WolfBear]

BTW, I find it interesting that the Germans didn't refuse to sign the Treaty of Versailles in 1919 even though it permanently separated Danzig from Germany. The Germans could have refused to sign this treaty unless the allies would have changed the Danzig situation to allow a plebiscite after 20 years or something like that.

 

[sillygoose]

BTW, I find it interesting that the Germans didn't refuse to sign the Treaty of Versailles in 1919 even though it permanently separated Danzig from Germany. The Germans could have refused to sign this treaty unless the allies would have changed the Danzig situation to allow a plebiscite after 20 years or something like that.

Danzig was a relatively small city that wasn't viable without Polish trade through the port or the Polish farming areas outside the city, so it was an indignity that could be suffered given the situation in 1919. Losing the Saarland permanently would be a VASTLY different situation; it was one thing for the French to mine it until 1935, quite another for it to be annexed by France.

I think you're right that that is how the Germans would handle it if it were in the treaty, but if not then fighting would probably be considered preferable.

 

[WolfBear]

I think you're right that that is how the Germans would handle it if it were in the treaty, but if not then fighting would probably be considered preferable.

So, if the Versailles Treaty automatically gave the Saarland to France, then the Germans would reluctantly accept, but not if the France seized the Saarland on their own initiative? Just want to clarify this part.

 

[sillygoose]

So, if the Versailles Treaty automatically gave the Saarland to France, then the Germans would reluctantly accept, but not if the France seized the Saarland on their own initiative? Just want to clarify this part.

I doubt Germany would accept in either case. Danzig was different from the Saar.

 

[WolfBear]

I doubt Germany would accept in either case. Danzig was different from the Saar.

So, what was your comment a reference to? Danzig being in the treaty vs. the Poles taking Danzig without the Versailles Treaty, similar to what the Italians did with Fiume?

 

[sillygoose]

So, what was your comment a reference to?

This:

The Germans could have refused to sign this treaty unless the allies would have changed the Danzig situation to allow a plebiscite after 20 years or something like that.

 

[WolfBear]

This:

Gotcha.