Valdemar II
Banned
No Poland was quite good at alienate its neighbours in OTL, and I can't see them doing it differently in TTL, and Czechoslovakia would have even less interest in a Anti-German alliance without Hitler.
Holding Out for a Hero: Gustav Stresemann Survives
- Thread starter Faeelin
- Start date
No Poland was quite good at alienate its neighbours in OTL, and I can't see them doing it differently in TTL, and Czechoslovakia would have even less interest in a Anti-German alliance without Hitler.
Ah, Czechoslovakia: surely the dyslexic's Nemesis.
Anyway... where is this TL going now? We seem to be stuck on general discussion - that's not a problem in itself, but do you (Faeelin) know where you're going with it?
Faeelin
Banned
Well, you had German delegates in Parliament, German political parties in Cabinets, etc. Stresemann will probably push for more minority rights (and get it), but nothing else.
Heck, personally he'd probably accept the return of Danzig and a few extraterritorial roads. Whether he can get that, well...
Faeelin
Banned
This is a great timeline...and how do you come up with such good titles?
Anyhow, this world does seem to be too good for Stresemann, Although I do like that...
Well, what's wrong?
About as strong as OTL in the 1930s, before Hitler came to power. So pretty good, with their mutual dislike of Poland.
Faeelin
Banned
Every time I know where I'm going, I get lost along the way.
So while I have a pretty good idea, the devil is in the details.
It might be possible, but it would probably require Poland doing something to piss off France. Or, failing that, circumstances which would make it hard for Stresemann not to claim slightly more (the entire Corridor, mostly).
Er... but I think I'm just rambling on things I don't know so well, so I'll stop now
.Faeelin
Banned
“When is a tank a defensive weapon?”
“When the French have it.”
“When is the aircraft carrier a defensive weapon?”
“When the British have it?”
“When are fortifications an aggressive weapon?”
“When we have them.”-German diplomat, 1932
If the Conference is not a success… then there is nothing before the world but a war more disastrous than any the world has ever seen, which would bring our civilization down with a greater crash than the fall of Rome-Aristide Briand
When the World Disarmament Conference returned from its Easter break, little more was done until June, by which point the situation had changed. In Germany, the spectacular defeat of the DDVP and SDP in the Reichstag elections brought the Nazis to their electoral peak of 24% of the Reichstag’s seats. In an effort to appease Right Wing voters, Stresemann believed he had to become firmer with Germany’s demands. Yet in France, the election results had brought the left wing to power, and with them the possibility of an accommodation.
Into this volatile atmosphere, President Hoover made a dramatic proposal: the abolishment of all tanks, mobile guns, bombers, and chemical warfare. Given Hoover’s ability to pressure the French with the promise of abolishing their war debts, there is a heady atmosphere, and it seems as if disarmament can succeed. Then some jerk asks what a tank is, and a subcommittee spends several weeks hashing that term out. Meanwhile, the British argue that since aircraft carriers only serve as a base for air planes, they are not, in and of themselves, offensive weapons. [1]
A discussion of Geneva could continue for several more pages, and has elsewhere. The real problem is that Germany wanted equality with French; yet France could only accept that with the promise of British security. Britain, however, had no desire to be bound to a French alliance. [2] And while Stresemann might have been willing to make conciliatory gestures, he required the backing of the German army to ensure his position in the first few years.
It is not until November of 1932 that a treaty is proposed, and thought by many to be a cynical compromise. The treaty bans the construction of tanks about twenty tons, and the use of bombers against civilian targets. Bombers, moreover, would have to weigh less than three tons. Armies on the European continent were to be standardized on the basis of 8 months service, and each country was allocated a number of average daily effectives. Germany was to be allowed a total of 200,000, France 400,000
(200,000 metropolitan and 200,000 abroad), Italy 250,000 (200,000 metropolitan and 50,000 abroad), and the USSR 500,000. No figures were given for Britain. Mobile land guns were to be 105 mm maximum, though existing guns up to 155 mm could be retained, and the maximum size of coastal defence guns would be 406 mm. The Treaty was a failure in some respects, such as the lack of discussion about naval forces, and future generations would reminisce about what might have been. Yet overall, it provided a firm foundation for peace in Europe.
And if Russia and Germany are carrying out weapons test in the Ukraine, well, who will stop them?
A Question Mark in a Babushka: The Soviet Union and Stresemann
Since the mid 1920s, the Soviet Union and Germany had a close relationship. As early as 1923 the Soviets had assisted Germany, warning Poland about taking advantage of the French invasion of the Ruhr, and military collaboration had proven fruitful. Soviet orders kept some German factories afloat during the Depression, and Stalin’s Five Year Plan called for extensive imports of German machinery. There was nothing, in short, to keep the USSR and Germany from continuing their fruitful relationship well into the decade. Indeed, Germany’s relations were good with all of its neighbors, except, of course, Austria.
But that’s a story for another time.
[1] You can’t make this up.
[2] And while the British think that while bombing London is bad, the RAF should have some on hand to subdue the restless natives.
“When the French have it.”
“When is the aircraft carrier a defensive weapon?”
“When the British have it?”
“When are fortifications an aggressive weapon?”
“When we have them.”-German diplomat, 1932
If the Conference is not a success… then there is nothing before the world but a war more disastrous than any the world has ever seen, which would bring our civilization down with a greater crash than the fall of Rome-Aristide Briand
When the World Disarmament Conference returned from its Easter break, little more was done until June, by which point the situation had changed. In Germany, the spectacular defeat of the DDVP and SDP in the Reichstag elections brought the Nazis to their electoral peak of 24% of the Reichstag’s seats. In an effort to appease Right Wing voters, Stresemann believed he had to become firmer with Germany’s demands. Yet in France, the election results had brought the left wing to power, and with them the possibility of an accommodation.
Into this volatile atmosphere, President Hoover made a dramatic proposal: the abolishment of all tanks, mobile guns, bombers, and chemical warfare. Given Hoover’s ability to pressure the French with the promise of abolishing their war debts, there is a heady atmosphere, and it seems as if disarmament can succeed. Then some jerk asks what a tank is, and a subcommittee spends several weeks hashing that term out. Meanwhile, the British argue that since aircraft carriers only serve as a base for air planes, they are not, in and of themselves, offensive weapons. [1]
A discussion of Geneva could continue for several more pages, and has elsewhere. The real problem is that Germany wanted equality with French; yet France could only accept that with the promise of British security. Britain, however, had no desire to be bound to a French alliance. [2] And while Stresemann might have been willing to make conciliatory gestures, he required the backing of the German army to ensure his position in the first few years.
It is not until November of 1932 that a treaty is proposed, and thought by many to be a cynical compromise. The treaty bans the construction of tanks about twenty tons, and the use of bombers against civilian targets. Bombers, moreover, would have to weigh less than three tons. Armies on the European continent were to be standardized on the basis of 8 months service, and each country was allocated a number of average daily effectives. Germany was to be allowed a total of 200,000, France 400,000
(200,000 metropolitan and 200,000 abroad), Italy 250,000 (200,000 metropolitan and 50,000 abroad), and the USSR 500,000. No figures were given for Britain. Mobile land guns were to be 105 mm maximum, though existing guns up to 155 mm could be retained, and the maximum size of coastal defence guns would be 406 mm. The Treaty was a failure in some respects, such as the lack of discussion about naval forces, and future generations would reminisce about what might have been. Yet overall, it provided a firm foundation for peace in Europe.
And if Russia and Germany are carrying out weapons test in the Ukraine, well, who will stop them?
A Question Mark in a Babushka: The Soviet Union and Stresemann
Since the mid 1920s, the Soviet Union and Germany had a close relationship. As early as 1923 the Soviets had assisted Germany, warning Poland about taking advantage of the French invasion of the Ruhr, and military collaboration had proven fruitful. Soviet orders kept some German factories afloat during the Depression, and Stalin’s Five Year Plan called for extensive imports of German machinery. There was nothing, in short, to keep the USSR and Germany from continuing their fruitful relationship well into the decade. Indeed, Germany’s relations were good with all of its neighbors, except, of course, Austria.
But that’s a story for another time.
[1] You can’t make this up.
[2] And while the British think that while bombing London is bad, the RAF should have some on hand to subdue the restless natives.
Valdemar II
Banned
Yes he will accept that if he can get it peacefully, but if a German-Polish war is started he will go after the pre-WWI borders.
Faeelin
On the arms control agreement a few points:
a) When you say no discussion of naval limits does this mean the disastrous 1930 round of the London Treaty was avoided? That was when the drive for disarmament at virtually any cost really saw Britain shoot itself in the foot.
b) You hint that the US could apply pressure on France by offering to cancel war debts. Would that actually be possibly given how grasping the US was historically, coupled with the fact there's a very deep depression in the US and its an election year?
c) You seem to have a problem with your footnotes on the last section as they bear little/no relationship to where the markers are?
d) I hope the various delegates took a bit more care in defining their terms. I.e. what is a bomber. Cue someone building 'defensive fighters' with two engines and a large empty space in their central fuselage. Not to mention if no way of checking what's actually produced, especially by the larger states, then the agreement is very dangerous. Think how much even a fairly controlled Germany cheated on the Versailles Treaty OTL. [Given we're got the Communists in Russia I wouldn't trust that 500k figure. Not to mention with their huge borders and probably tension with Japan they would have a basis for arguing for more].
e) You mention details for 4 continental powers. Were other nations included and details not given for simplicities sake or was it just those 5-6 powers involved? [Say 6 as some mentioned of Hoover's involvement].
Steve
On the arms control agreement a few points:
a) When you say no discussion of naval limits does this mean the disastrous 1930 round of the London Treaty was avoided? That was when the drive for disarmament at virtually any cost really saw Britain shoot itself in the foot.
b) You hint that the US could apply pressure on France by offering to cancel war debts. Would that actually be possibly given how grasping the US was historically, coupled with the fact there's a very deep depression in the US and its an election year?
c) You seem to have a problem with your footnotes on the last section as they bear little/no relationship to where the markers are?
d) I hope the various delegates took a bit more care in defining their terms. I.e. what is a bomber. Cue someone building 'defensive fighters' with two engines and a large empty space in their central fuselage. Not to mention if no way of checking what's actually produced, especially by the larger states, then the agreement is very dangerous. Think how much even a fairly controlled Germany cheated on the Versailles Treaty OTL. [Given we're got the Communists in Russia I wouldn't trust that 500k figure. Not to mention with their huge borders and probably tension with Japan they would have a basis for arguing for more].
e) You mention details for 4 continental powers. Were other nations included and details not given for simplicities sake or was it just those 5-6 powers involved? [Say 6 as some mentioned of Hoover's involvement].
Steve
Well, single persons can do a great deal of difference. Not only in what they do, but also in what would have replaced them (for does-not-die-as-early TLs).Is just that 'great man of history' thingy, like the TLs in which Rommel single handedly kills Hitler, saves Germany, wins the war, frees the jews and brings ever lasting love and peace between the peoples of Europe while kicking Stalin in the groin...
Not that I dislike those TLs either...
Faeelin
Banned
Probably, yes.
Alas, no. I don't think anything stops this.
I'd actually disagree about American grasping, especially in 1931. The Hoover Moratorium, of OTL, after all, wasn't something that France welcomed. But then I've always thought Hoover was a far better president than most people think.
But yes, America used the possibility of cancelling war debts to great effect in the early 1930s.
Not necessarily following up, mind.
(For those who don't know: Basically, in 1931 to help avert the banking collapse, the US declared a one year reprieve on war debts and reparations payments. Then, a year later at Lausanne, it pushed for the abolishment of reparations, using the possibility of abolishing war debts. Once reparations were abolished, it walked off. ).
1 is; I just thought I'd point out how it's a historical proposal. 2 isn't, but I wasn't sure where to put it, and found it amusing.
I concur 100%. There were proposals for enforcement and inspection mechanisms, but I'm sure that they won't be perfect.
Well, this does give them half a million men. But yes, I'm sure the Russians will cheat.
Although note that the Russians were big supporters of collective security and disarmament in the 1930s. Litinov, almost alone among the delegates at Geneva, was vocal in his support of the Hoover plan.
The others are involved to scale, but I figure some of them are far more likely to cheat and don't know what the appropriate numbers would be. And some nations are far more likely to cheat, or simply not have an accurate way to count men. China, for instance.
Hoover probably happily accepts a limit of 100,000 men for the military, but I'm not sure what Britain would want. 400,000, like France? 500k?
I get the impression, however, that people don't buy the Disarmament Convention.
Last edited:
If arms' control is passed, might we see less paranoia and less purges in a USSR with less concerns over hostile capitalistic encirclement ??
Aniway, great TL !
Manfr
Very unlikely I fear. Paranoia in the Soviet Union depended far more on the nature of the system and the people in charge than external factors. There was a lot of mutual hostility between the Communist and non-Communist spheres but no one in the latter, before Hitler, was strongly enough concerned, with all the other factors at play to actually pose a threat to them.
Steve
Damn because that did even more damage when it came to war that the 1921 foul-up. Not to mention all the economic damage resulting from the two.
By 1931 possibly, although as you say they didn't go through with its vague promises. A decade or so earlier it was definitely hostile to a mutual canceling of war debts suggested by Britain. Which is a pity as that would have done a hell of a lot to avoid many of the problems of the 30's especially. Especially if linked to a major reduction in repariations from Germany.
1) is referring a fairly logical suggestion for a naval power. 2) as you say it just cheap anti-British propaganda as I very much doubt they thought any different to any other major power raced with unrest in colonial regions.
Faeelin
Banned
FWIW, Hoover speculated about a debt/reparations reduction in the early 1920s, but he would have wanted it tied to further disarmament. And there was support for it in some circles. No idea how plausible it is, but certainly the idea was mooted.
If it makes you feel better, there was plenty of such stuff to go around; such as the French proposal to internationalize civilian aircraft, or the claim that submarines were a defensive weapon....
The entire conference seemed vaguely silly to me, so sorry if it seems like I'm picking on Britain.
Susano
Banned
Actually, Id very much they are. The main purpose of submarines is to hunt other submarines or surface ships. You cant actually project power with them, you can only intercept other ships - seems like a very defensive concept to me. But that just BTW
Um... really? You sure you don't mean that is maximum bombload?
BTW, a carrier (apart from the few hybrid carrier/cruiser designs tried) really is not a weapon in itself. Just because its a floating airfield, which happens to contain military aircraft...