France fights on in 1940 *and* the US already enters WWII on the Anglo-French side

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 3246
Joined: 01 Jan 2016 21:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: France fights on in 1940 *and* the US already enters WWII on the Anglo-French side

Post by Richard Anderson » 28 Sep 2020 23:00

Futurist wrote:
28 Sep 2020 19:53
This:
Despite what a Wiki entry says, insofar as I am aware no such treaty of guarantee was every formally proposed to, considered by, or disapproved by the U.S. President or Congress. It's another improbable POD tacked onto another improbable POD. You might legitimately posit the U.S. Senate passing the Versailles Treaty and joining the League, but then you have to posit a way the League would gain teeth and make such treaties feasible. Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps, perhaps...
"Is all this pretentious pseudo intellectual citing of sources REALLY necessary? It gets in the way of a good, spirited debate, destroys the cadence." POD, 6 October 2018

paulrward
Member
Posts: 444
Joined: 10 Dec 2008 20:14

Re: France fights on in 1940 *and* the US already enters WWII on the Anglo-French side

Post by paulrward » 28 Sep 2020 23:36

Hello All :

In fact, the Treaty of Guarantee was passed by both Houses of Parliament, and was part of the proposed
Treaty of Versailles that was presented to the United States Senate. In effect, had the Senate accepted and
ratified the Treaty of Versailles, it would have been simultaneously ratifying the Treaty of Guarantee.

It was, in fact, The Treaty of Guarantee which ' sank ' the Treaty of Versailles in the Senate. Sen. Henry
Cabot Lodge rose up, and with forceful and cogent arguments, convinced a sufficient number of his fellow
senators that, were the Treaty ratified, if would have required the United States to keep a Standing Army
and a Navy of sufficient power to enforce the Treaty of Guarantee at all times in the future. The cost of
this permanent armed force was an anathema to many intelligent citizens of the United States, and thus,
on consecutive votes, the Treaty of Versailles, and thus the Treaty of Guarantee, failed to achieve the
necessary two thirds majority required to pass, and thus the United States never joined in the Treaty of
Versailles, or the League of Nations.

The sad litany of foreign involvement that the United States has endured since 1945 shows the wisdom
of Sen. Lodge's position. We can only hope that, in the future, some President of the United States can
find a way to remove U.S. military forces from foreign soil and return American to Greatness Again.

Respectfully :

Paul R. Ward
Information not shared, is information lost
Voices banned, are voices who cannot share information....

User avatar
T. A. Gardner
Member
Posts: 2214
Joined: 02 Feb 2006 00:23
Location: Arizona

Re: France fights on in 1940 *and* the US already enters WWII on the Anglo-French side

Post by T. A. Gardner » 29 Sep 2020 00:07

Without looking all that up, I agree that the US would have been fools to enter into a standing agreement to enforce the Treaty of Versailles not for reasons of enforcement but due to the terms of the Treaty. That is to say, unlike the post WW 2 world, the Treaty of Versailles was extremely punitive. The French, in particular, were trying to extract both economic and social retribution on Germany for WW 1, a war they erroneously and maliciously attributed to Germany starting.
The US was smart staying out of that European debacle of revenge. If only the US had been as prescient after WW 2...

User avatar
Terry Duncan
Forum Staff
Posts: 5821
Joined: 13 Jun 2008 22:54
Location: Kent

Re: France fights on in 1940 *and* the US already enters WWII on the Anglo-French side

Post by Terry Duncan » 29 Sep 2020 14:16

T. A. Gardner wrote:
29 Sep 2020 00:07
Without looking all that up, I agree that the US would have been fools to enter into a standing agreement to enforce the Treaty of Versailles not for reasons of enforcement but due to the terms of the Treaty. That is to say, unlike the post WW 2 world, the Treaty of Versailles was extremely punitive. The French, in particular, were trying to extract both economic and social retribution on Germany for WW 1, a war they erroneously and maliciously attributed to Germany starting.
The US was smart staying out of that European debacle of revenge. If only the US had been as prescient after WW 2...
The problem with complaining about Versailles is that it really was little different from many previous treaties including those imposed during the war itself. If its terms had been enforced there would have been no WWII in the form we know it. The first real break came from the US that had insisted on 'self-determination' when it then removed itself from enforcing the treaty it had done so much to create. From a French point of view, Germany had started the war so it was reasonable to blame it, and the actual original culprit, Austria-Hungary had fragmented beyond a point where reparations were possible for the most part.

I would suggest the terms of Versailles were preferable to those of WWII, as Germany surrendered with German territory intact. After WWII, Germany was largely bombed flat, divided into two, and in certain areas anything remaining that was possible to remove was taken to other nations, ie: the USSR. Germany lost territory in both wars, but lost more of Germany itself after WWII. You could argue all day over who really should own Alsasc-Lorraine/Elsass-Lothringen, but it was always going to change hands if Germany lost.

The problem with Versailles was that after setting it up, everyone walked away not intending to enforce it other than France, and France couldnt enforce it on its own for long.

User avatar
T. A. Gardner
Member
Posts: 2214
Joined: 02 Feb 2006 00:23
Location: Arizona

Re: France fights on in 1940 *and* the US already enters WWII on the Anglo-French side

Post by T. A. Gardner » 29 Sep 2020 17:09

Terry Duncan wrote:
29 Sep 2020 14:16
The problem with complaining about Versailles is that it really was little different from many previous treaties including those imposed during the war itself. If its terms had been enforced there would have been no WWII in the form we know it. The first real break came from the US that had insisted on 'self-determination' when it then removed itself from enforcing the treaty it had done so much to create. From a French point of view, Germany had started the war so it was reasonable to blame it, and the actual original culprit, Austria-Hungary had fragmented beyond a point where reparations were possible for the most part.

I would suggest the terms of Versailles were preferable to those of WWII, as Germany surrendered with German territory intact. After WWII, Germany was largely bombed flat, divided into two, and in certain areas anything remaining that was possible to remove was taken to other nations, ie: the USSR. Germany lost territory in both wars, but lost more of Germany itself after WWII. You could argue all day over who really should own Alsasc-Lorraine/Elsass-Lothringen, but it was always going to change hands if Germany lost.

The problem with Versailles was that after setting it up, everyone walked away not intending to enforce it other than France, and France couldnt enforce it on its own for long.
What Versailles did was create the conditions for another war. Germans saw it as unjust and unfair revenge for a war they didn't start. That France wanted massive reparations from Germany--onerous ones that left Germany perpetually bankrupt for all intents--was at the heart of that. Occupation of the Rhineland and Ruhr to enforce this just heaped hurt on injury.

It set the German people into a mindset where revenge for all this was seen as not only justified, but a balancing of the books.

If anything, it was France's near irrational demand for vengeance and retribution against Germany for a war Germany really didn't even start that was at the heart of this issue.

Carl Schwamberger
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 7724
Joined: 02 Sep 2006 20:31
Location: USA

Re: France fights on in 1940 *and* the US already enters WWII on the Anglo-French side

Post by Carl Schwamberger » 29 Sep 2020 20:18

Futurist wrote:
28 Sep 2020 21:33

Could we actually see Western Allied troops in Russia in this scenario?
Well, there was a British ground support/training unit in the far north 1941-42. So, we might see more of that if the Allies hold on to northern Norway.

Futurist
Member
Posts: 2654
Joined: 24 Dec 2015 00:02
Location: SoCal

Re: France fights on in 1940 *and* the US already enters WWII on the Anglo-French side

Post by Futurist » 29 Sep 2020 22:30

Terry Duncan wrote:
29 Sep 2020 14:16
T. A. Gardner wrote:
29 Sep 2020 00:07
Without looking all that up, I agree that the US would have been fools to enter into a standing agreement to enforce the Treaty of Versailles not for reasons of enforcement but due to the terms of the Treaty. That is to say, unlike the post WW 2 world, the Treaty of Versailles was extremely punitive. The French, in particular, were trying to extract both economic and social retribution on Germany for WW 1, a war they erroneously and maliciously attributed to Germany starting.
The US was smart staying out of that European debacle of revenge. If only the US had been as prescient after WW 2...
The problem with complaining about Versailles is that it really was little different from many previous treaties including those imposed during the war itself. If its terms had been enforced there would have been no WWII in the form we know it. The first real break came from the US that had insisted on 'self-determination' when it then removed itself from enforcing the treaty it had done so much to create. From a French point of view, Germany had started the war so it was reasonable to blame it, and the actual original culprit, Austria-Hungary had fragmented beyond a point where reparations were possible for the most part.

I would suggest the terms of Versailles were preferable to those of WWII, as Germany surrendered with German territory intact. After WWII, Germany was largely bombed flat, divided into two, and in certain areas anything remaining that was possible to remove was taken to other nations, ie: the USSR. Germany lost territory in both wars, but lost more of Germany itself after WWII. You could argue all day over who really should own Alsasc-Lorraine/Elsass-Lothringen, but it was always going to change hands if Germany lost.

The problem with Versailles was that after setting it up, everyone walked away not intending to enforce it other than France, and France couldnt enforce it on its own for long.
France might have had a somewhat easier time enforcing Versailles had Germany been partitioned into numerous independent countries after the end of World War I. For instance, an independent Bavaria, et cetera.

Carl Schwamberger
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 7724
Joined: 02 Sep 2006 20:31
Location: USA

Re: France fights on in 1940 *and* the US already enters WWII on the Anglo-French side

Post by Carl Schwamberger » 29 Sep 2020 23:07

A better trained 'enforcement force' may have made a difference. The Ruhr occupation of 1923-1924 had the handicap of being executed with half trained & disciplined reservists. The officers were shoved into situations they were not prepared for and the friction with the German population was magnified. Unfortunately the idea of keeping even a single corps of well trained and disciplined solders standing as a intervention force was anthem to French leaders, left and right.

Had even one major power supported France in this effort the political equation might have changed significantly. The poor encouragement from the former Entente partners caused both France and Belgium to rethink their national strategies and military goals/organizations. It looks to be me like there is a direct connection between the failure of a aggressive policy in 23/24 and the French change to a defensive strategy five years later.

Discouraging for the Germans was the US effort to 'fix things' resulted in the Dawes Plan of 1925, which only ensured the continued payment of reparations and US bank loans. From the German view a effort to be civil and protest peacefully, to act without war was a failure. The Young Plan of 1929 seems to have reinforced their view. The German governments tried to bargain away the worst of the ToV, but came away from the table with nothing the voters thought worth looking at. On the US side the Coolidge & Hoover administrations were heavily influenced by isolationism & their best effort was renegotiating payments for the Dawes and Young Plans.

Return to “What if”