The US insists on unconditional surrender in World War I

[WolfBear]

What if the US would have insisted on unconditional surrender in World War I, either under President Woodrow Wilson (if Wilson would have been heavily influenced by Republicans such as Teddy Roosevelt and Henry Cabot Lodge in order to avoid looking soft on Germany) or under a President Charles Evans Hughes had he won the US Presidency in 1916 (and likely subsequently been influenced by the war hawks within his own party, who would have wanted the war with Germany brought to a successful conclusion on US and Allied terms)?

My own thoughts:

-I wonder if, in this scenario, Germany could have actually maintained military discpline after the fall of 1918. On the one hand, Germans could have still been losing hope in victory, but at the same time, they would also know that the post-WWI peace settlement would be a diktat ahead of time. I suppose that in theory the US could still issue something like the 14 Points, similar to how it issued the Potsdam Declaration in regards to Japan in 1945 in WWII, but they would only be promises and not be legally binding per se, though it would be considered an act of moral injustice to violate these points after telling the Germans that they should expect a peace settlement based on them:

Potsdam Declaration - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

-If the Germans do decide to fight on in 1919, I expect Metz to be a bloodbath similar to 1916 Verdun, but with the Allies eventually prevailing but suffering extremely massive casualties in the process. The casualties would not be a surprise in this TL since that is sort of what unconditional surrender implies. But if the Germans do decide to fight on, then there will be a cleaner WWI victory for the Allies and no subsequent Stab-in-the-Back myth in Germany.

-I wonder if a longer World War I could have actually made the Allies sufficiently determined to overthrow the Bolsheviks in Russia, considering that as 1918 progressed, the Bolsheviks began acting more and more like tools and stooges of German imperialism. In his book The Deluge, Adam Tooze argued that it was only Germany's quick surrender that prevented the Allies from overthrowing the Bolsheviks in 1918-1919. What do you think about this, however?

Thoughts on all of this?

Another thing that I want to mention is that there might be less anger at the post-World War I peace settlement in the US in this TL since the US would have been more blunt about what it wants in the peace settlement and would have made it clear that while it desires a relatively just peace, it also wants to impose a diktat on Germany rather than any kind of negotiated peace with Germany.

 

[sillygoose]

US public support would dry up. The entire point of the war in propaganda was to make the Germans quit and if they're offering to surrender that would be it. There is also indication that the French wouldn't make it into 1919 given the state of their economy and manpower losses.

 

[WolfBear]

US public support would dry up. The entire point of the war in propaganda was to make the Germans quit and if they're offering to surrender that would be it. There is also indication that the French wouldn't make it into 1919 given the state of their economy and manpower losses.

Were the Germans offering to surrender in 1918? Or merely to agree to an armistice? I do wonder if the Germans would have agreed to unconditional surrender in November 1918 if they would have still been given the expectation that the post-WWI peace settlement would be based on the 14 Points, though.

Could France be propped up with loans and manpower from elsewhere? From their colonies, from the British Empire, from the US, et cetera?

 

[sillygoose]

Were the Germans offering to surrender in 1918? Or merely to agree to an armistice? I do wonder if the Germans would have agreed to unconditional surrender in November 1918 if they would have still been given the expectation that the post-WWI peace settlement would be based on the 14 Points, though.

Could France be propped up with loans and manpower from elsewhere? From their colonies, from the British Empire, from the US, et cetera?

They were offering peace on Wilson's 14 points terms. Wilson and the US establishment actually did not want unconditional surrender, there was a group set up by Colonel House (who was very tight with the British establishment and he actually blocked negotiations in 1916 on the request of his British friends and I have sources on that) at the behest of Wilson called 'The Inquiry', which later evolved into the Council on Foreign Relations, which effectively ran US foreign policy from the 1930s to 60s. Seems like the power brokers came up with the 14 points and were actually quite pleased Germany wanted to quit as they were deathly afraid that communism would breakout in Germany too.

Loans weren't going to help the lack of manpower or labor unrest and generally sickness of the war in France. There was zero stomach to conquer Germany due to the cost even with the US taking the lead. Plus again everyone was terrified of communist revolutions all over Europe.

 

[WolfBear]

They were offering peace on Wilson's 14 points terms. Wilson and the US establishment actually did not want unconditional surrender, there was a group set up by Colonel House (who was very tight with the British establishment and he actually blocked negotiations in 1916 on the request of his British friends and I have sources on that) at the behest of Wilson called 'The Inquiry', which later evolved into the Council on Foreign Relations, which effectively ran US foreign policy from the 1930s to 60s. Seems like the power brokers came up with the 14 points and were actually quite pleased Germany wanted to quit as they were deathly afraid that communism would breakout in Germany too.

Loans weren't going to help the lack of manpower or labor unrest and generally sickness of the war in France. There was zero stomach to conquer Germany due to the cost even with the US taking the lead. Plus again everyone was terrified of communist revolutions all over Europe.

Makes sense.

And Yeah, fair points. The US could supply the extra manpower for this if necessary, but it would also result in many more casualties all around.

I like The Inquiry. Did you ever read their detailed recommendations for the post-WWI peace settlement? I did.

 

[sillygoose]

Makes sense.

And Yeah, fair points. The US could supply the extra manpower for this if necessary, but it would also result in many more casualties all around.

I like The Inquiry. Did you ever read their detailed recommendations for the post-WWI peace settlement? I did.

Yep, lot of not so good stuff in there too, the Sudentenland problem was their fault, same with the Danzig 'solution'.

 

[WolfBear]

Yep, lot of not so good stuff in there too, the Sudentenland problem was their fault, same with the Danzig 'solution'.

I think that they proposed outright giving Danzig to Poland, no?

Here's their report itself:

My Diary at Conference of Paris - vol 4 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

David Hunter Miller My Diary. At the Conference of Paris. With Documents. Volume IV. Documents 216-304

archive.org

I wonder what they would have recommended for Afghanistan had the Niedermayer-Hentig Mission actually been successful and thus Afghanistan would have entered WWI on the CP side. Thoughts?

 

[sillygoose]

I think that they proposed outright giving Danzig to Poland, no?

Here's their report itself:

My Diary at Conference of Paris - vol 4 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

David Hunter Miller My Diary. At the Conference of Paris. With Documents. Volume IV. Documents 216-304

archive.org

I wonder what they would have recommended for Afghanistan had the Niedermayer-Hentig Mission actually been successful and thus Afghanistan would have entered WWI on the CP side. Thoughts?

Sort of. What they recommended was giving Poland access to the sea. Under the discussion section (which I assume means there wasn't agreement, just options being discussed without outright recommendation) the option of Poland annexing Danzig was one of several options. Depends on how you want to interpret it. At the conference itself it was decided that since Danzig was over 90% German it was too much to simply turn it over to Poland so they baby was split. It probably would have meant even worse conflicts in the 1920s had the city simply been turned over.

I don't know that much about the Afghanistan issue, so I'm not going to venture a guess.

 

[TheRejectionist]

And Afghanistan with a Sea access would be interesting.

 

[WolfBear]

And Afghanistan with a Sea access would be interesting.

A CP Afghanistan won't get sea access unless the CPs win WWI and possibly not even then, since while the CPs could win WWI Britain could still defeat Afghanistan handily.

It probably would have meant even worse conflicts in the 1920s had the city simply been turned over.

Probably, but it also might result in Hitler agreeing to a permanently Polish Danzig in the 1930s.

 

[sillygoose]

Probably, but it also might result in Hitler agreeing to a permanently Polish Danzig in the 1930s.

Doubtful given German public attitudes as well as those of the power brokers of Germany and of course the agitation of the Danzigers themselves. Hitler might not have actually cared about the city, but the country did and since he was always obsessed with public opinion he had to deal with the issue, like it or not.
The issue might have even come to war before Hitler even rose to power since the Prussian leaders who ran the show were eager to tackle the issue and even had tacit western agreement with the Lacarno treaties.

 

[WolfBear]

Doubtful given German public attitudes as well as those of the power brokers of Germany and of course the agitation of the Danzigers themselves. Hitler might not have actually cared about the city, but the country did and since he was always obsessed with public opinion he had to deal with the issue, like it or not.
The issue might have even come to war before Hitler even rose to power since the Prussian leaders who ran the show were eager to tackle the issue and even had tacit western agreement with the Lacarno treaties.

I doubt that France would have actually simply allowed Weimar Germany to seize Danzig, and back then, AFAIK, France still had a military advantage over Germany, especially when France was combined with Poland.

Another thing worth noting is that a lot of Poles would have likely moved to Danzig had it become Polish, similar to what happened after 1945 in real life, and thus the demographic issue would have become somewhat less salient. The Poles would have said "What, you expect us to give up a city that now has a very solid Polish minority, if not even an eventual Polish majority?"

 

[sillygoose]

I doubt that France would have actually simply allowed Weimar Germany to seize Danzig, and back then, AFAIK, France still had a military advantage over Germany, especially when France was combined with Poland.

I'm thinking more like 1920 during the Polish-Soviet war when Poland was too busy and the people of the city could simply declare a city-wide strike rather than just the dock workers and start sabotaging anything that could be used to move military aid for Poland while militias and support from Germany could deal with whatever military forces could be spared to be shipped in by the French. Since France already occupied the Rheinland there wasn't much more they could seize given their WW1 casualties, state of the economy, colonies, and various other foreign missions. IOTL local Germans weren't really willing to force anything because they were protected from Poland, but if they were part of it and the Polish army started forcing Polanization we could see a Ruhr occupation type showdown that France lost historically.

Another thing worth noting is that a lot of Poles would have likely moved to Danzig had it become Polish, similar to what happened after 1945 in real life, and thus the demographic issue would have become somewhat less salient. The Poles would have said "What, you expect us to give up a city that now has a very solid Polish minority, if not even an eventual Polish majority?"

Sure, which is why it would result in violence pretty immediately if they started that. Poland was not in a position to really enforce much in 1920 and Freikorps units could spring up (with German backing) to turn the situation into a revolt. I don't have evidence to back this up, but I have a suspicion the reason it wasn't done IOTL was because of the fear of exactly this. The German plurality in the US was not going to accept that especially with a Republican congress and Britain certainly wasn't, so we're probably going to see a Ruhr occupation style outcome with the US and Britain stepping in to restrain France.

 

[WolfBear]

I'm thinking more like 1920 during the Polish-Soviet war when Poland was too busy and the people of the city could simply declare a city-wide strike rather than just the dock workers and start sabotaging anything that could be used to move military aid for Poland while militias and support from Germany could deal with whatever military forces could be spared to be shipped in by the French. Since France already occupied the Rheinland there wasn't much more they could seize given their WW1 casualties, state of the economy, colonies, and various other foreign missions. IOTL local Germans weren't really willing to force anything because they were protected from Poland, but if they were part of it and the Polish army started forcing Polanization we could see a Ruhr occupation type showdown that France lost historically.


Sure, which is why it would result in violence pretty immediately if they started that. Poland was not in a position to really enforce much in 1920 and Freikorps units could spring up (with German backing) to turn the situation into a revolt. I don't have evidence to back this up, but I have a suspicion the reason it wasn't done IOTL was because of the fear of exactly this. The German plurality in the US was not going to accept that especially with a Republican congress and Britain certainly wasn't, so we're probably going to see a Ruhr occupation style outcome with the US and Britain stepping in to restrain France.

Intriguing.

FWIW, I'm not sure that it would actually result in violence if Danzig would actually have enough room for everyone. After all, there isn't any reason as to why Danzig's size/territorial limits could not be expanded, no?

 

[sillygoose]

Intriguing.

FWIW, I'm not sure that it would actually result in violence if Danzig would actually have enough room for everyone. After all, there isn't any reason as to why Danzig's size/territorial limits could not be expanded, no?

Not sure what you mean; room isn't the issue. If the city was being colonized the locals would likely revolt as it was clear what would be happening. As it was the city had to be militarily occupied by the Allies and soldiers used as stevedores to get material support for Poland unloaded in 1920. That was while under LoN's mandate and protection.

 

[WolfBear]

Not sure what you mean; room isn't the issue. If the city was being colonized the locals would likely revolt as it was clear what would be happening. As it was the city had to be militarily occupied by the Allies and soldiers used as stevedores to get material support for Poland unloaded in 1920. That was while under LoN's mandate and protection.

My point here is that this colonization doesn't have to affect the city's existing locals too much if new neighborhoods will be built for the colonists. In such a scenario, interaction between the two groups could be limited.

 

[sillygoose]

My point here is that this colonization doesn't have to affect the city's existing locals too much if new neighborhoods will be built for the colonists. In such a scenario, interaction between the two groups could be limited.

Given the ethnic tensions at the time moving in more Poles after a Polish annexation would result in lots of violence. As it was the Danzigers were furious they were detached from Germany and were run and administered by the LoN, which meant the British effectively.

 

[WolfBear]

Given the ethnic tensions at the time moving in more Poles after a Polish annexation would result in lots of violence. As it was the Danzigers were furious they were detached from Germany and were run and administered by the LoN, which meant the British effectively.

The Danzigers weren't the only ones to have LoN rule. The Saarlanders and, initially, Memellanders had the same fate. But their situations were temporary (though AFAIK the Memel situation was not intended to be temporary, it's just that Lithuania forced the international community's hand on this).

 

[sillygoose]

The Danzigers weren't the only ones to have LoN rule. The Saarlanders and, initially, Memellanders had the same fate. But their situations were temporary (though AFAIK the Memel situation was not intended to be temporary, it's just that Lithuania forced the international community's hand on this).

Lithuania just invaded and conquered Memel before anything had been decided about the fate of the city. It was a Entente (exclusively French) protectorate not a LoN one.

 

[WolfBear]

Lithuania just invaded and conquered Memel before anything had been decided about the fate of the city. It was a Entente (exclusively French) protectorate not a LoN one.

Thanks!

BTW, can you please respond to my thread here:

https://www.the-sietch.com/index.php?threads/axis-lithuania-during-world-war-ii.7203/#post-239954