Intermarium: Eastern European federaction after WW1

[Stormy Sky]

I've recently found out about a plan Józef Piłsudski to create a huge federation in Eastern Europe after WW1 between Russia and Germany.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Międzymorze
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Józef_Piłsudski

1. What chance did this dream have of coming true (if any)?

2. What would be potential names for this federation had it been created?

3. If the Intermarium had been formed and remained cohesive and intact for much of the 20th century (assuming here that it could, and did), what impact would this state have on European and world history from 1918 to present?

 

[Kuamong]

I've recently found out about a plan Józef Piłsudski to create a huge federation in Eastern Europe after WW1 between Russia and Germany.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Międzymorze
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Józef_Piłsudski

1. What chance did this dream have of coming true (if any)?

2. What would be potential names for this federation had it been created?

3. If the Intermarium had been formed and remained cohesive and intact for much of the 20th century (assuming here that it could, and did), what impact would this state have on European and world history from 1918 to present?

1. Personal opinion, very little chance of success

2. Federation of Eastern European States, Federated States of Europe

3. I could see the bloc becoming an EU-like state, single currency, and possibly having a united military. WWII might kill the nation entirely, with both the Soviets and Germans able to overwhelm the nation with sheer numbers and better weapons and tactics. Could possibly become a Yugoslavia, breaking up into several smaller nation-state, trying to kill each other over border disputes and the like.

 

[kasumigenx]

I've recently found out about a plan Józef Piłsudski to create a huge federation in Eastern Europe after WW1 between Russia and Germany.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Międzymorze
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Józef_Piłsudski

1. What chance did this dream have of coming true (if any)?

2. What would be potential names for this federation had it been created?

3. If the Intermarium had been formed and remained cohesive and intact for much of the 20th century (assuming here that it could, and did), what impact would this state have on European and world history from 1918 to present?

I think if Pilsudski and the Habsburgs got together it would be possible but under the Habsburgs.

 

[wolf_brother]

I think if Pilsudski and the Habsburgs got together it would be possible but under the Habsburgs.

Never gonna happen. Ever.

 

[TyranicusMaximus]

Never gonna happen. Ever.

/thread

Nice and short

 

[hefajstos]

I've recently found out about a plan Józef Piłsudski to create a huge federation in Eastern Europe after WW1 between Russia and Germany.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Międzymorze
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Józef_Piłsudski

1. What chance did this dream have of coming true (if any)?

2. What would be potential names for this federation had it been created?

3. If the Intermarium had been formed and remained cohesive and intact for much of the 20th century (assuming here that it could, and did), what impact would this state have on European and world history from 1918 to present?

A broken Germany, a Trotsky Soviet state, and a treating Hungry and/or Bulgaria are a must, in order to form at least a intergovernmental organization that might be a foundation for such a state. Military alliances are another avenue to explore, many did in fact come close but there might be too many conflicting goals. Perhaps a this intergovernmental organization mentioned previously might protect industrial privileges and minority rights, but once again it ran counter the Nationalist thinking of the period. Outside Treats[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]®[/FONT] and the blessings of the remaining powers(UK & France) are what is called for. Maybe if we can get a list of conflicts of interests we can widdle the problem down a bit to simply unlikely rather then *gasp* ASB!

 

[kasumigenx]

Never gonna happen. Ever.

I think a Central or Eastern European Federation is possible if Congress Poland was given to Austria, I think that might lead to that.

 

[hefajstos]

I think a Central or Eastern European Federation is possible if Congress Poland was given to Austria, I think that might lead to that.

Theres a little problem with that, Czechoslovakia was independent by then. Also Austria wasn't look favorably by the Yugoslavs or Romanians (and to a lesser degree the Czechoslovakians & Hungarians)

Here's a question, "Where would the capital be?"

 

[Razgriz 2K9]

Impossible. The shear idea is simply ludicrous...

If World War I had taught us anything, nationalism is a fickle thing. Yes Pilzudski did want to create a federation, but it would require the states of the Ukraine and Belarus, which was also independent after WWI to lose its independence. I doubt everyone would've supported such a federation and could've led to various nationalist conflicts in Eastern Europe. Plus Poland would've been tangled in the mess that was the Russian Civil War, granted that they did wind up in the mess OTL anyway.

To be honest, Poland probably would've been better off with the later plan of creating a series of buffer states between it and the Soviet Union rather than various attempts at recreating the old Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.

 

[kasumigenx]

Theres a little problem with that, Czechoslovakia was independent by then. Also Austria wasn't look favorably by the Yugoslavs or Romanians (and to a lesser degree the Czechoslovakians & Hungarians)

Here's a question, "Where would the capital be?"

My POD is during the Congress of Vienna actually, I think the Possible capital would be Krakow or Bratislava.

 

[Stormy Sky]

A broken Germany, a Trotsky Soviet state, and a treating Hungry and/or Bulgaria are a must, in order to form at least a intergovernmental organization that might be a foundation for such a state. Military alliances are another avenue to explore, many did in fact come close but there might be too many conflicting goals. Perhaps a this intergovernmental organization mentioned previously might protect industrial privileges and minority rights, but once again it ran counter the Nationalist thinking of the period. Outside Treats[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]®[/FONT] and the blessings of the remaining powers(UK & France) are what is called for. Maybe if we can get a list of conflicts of interests we can widdle the problem down a bit to simply unlikely rather then *gasp* ASB!

I was expecting the final part to be ASB. Why do you think a Trotsky Soviet state would be needed? After WW1 there was a perfect window for this as Germany WAS broken, and Brest-Litovsk meant much of the former Russian Empire was in German hands and being evacuated leaving a huge power vaccuum. The main problem isn't the opportunity but the stance of the major powers and the nationalism of the era. Who in 1918 had the forethought to see the rise again of Germany and Russia? Not enough people with any sway.

Impossible. The shear idea is simply ludicrous...

If World War I had taught us anything, nationalism is a fickle thing. Yes Pilzudski did want to create a federation, but it would require the states of the Ukraine and Belarus, which was also independent after WWI to lose its independence. I doubt everyone would've supported such a federation and could've led to various nationalist conflicts in Eastern Europe. Plus Poland would've been tangled in the mess that was the Russian Civil War, granted that they did wind up in the mess OTL anyway.

To be honest, Poland probably would've been better off with the later plan of creating a series of buffer states between it and the Soviet Union rather than various attempts at recreating the old Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.

Yeah, that's what I thought, but assuming that somehow some form of federation gets off the ground (assume a much earlier POD that subtly effects WW1 so the different groups can work together, or ASB) how would it impact the following decades? It would probably be doomed to implode down the line, but being wedged between Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Russia must make for a good reason to work together. Munich would have been impossible or very different if Czechoslovakia was backed up by all of Eastern Europe, and France and Britain would probably be more supportive. And there is no way Hitler and Stalin could get away with dividing Poland so easily.

My POD is during the Congress of Vienna actually, I think the Possible capital would be Krakow or Bratislava.

That would probably make a very good POD. How do you think it could have played out differently? Braislava seems like the better choice as its essentially in the Belgium of the East and less likely to offend. It reminds me of the EU, Brussels or Strasbourg.

 

[hefajstos]

I was expecting the final part to be ASB. Why do you think a Trotsky Soviet state would be needed? After WW1 there was a perfect window for this as Germany WAS broken, and Brest-Litovsk meant much of the former Russian Empire was in German hands and being evacuated leaving a huge power vaccuum. The main problem isn't the opportunity but the stance of the major powers and the nationalism of the era. Who in 1918 had the forethought to see the rise again of Germany and Russia? Not enough people with any sway.



Yeah, that's what I thought, but assuming that somehow some form of federation gets off the ground (assume a much earlier POD that subtly effects WW1 so the different groups can work together, or ASB) how would it impact the following decades? It would probably be doomed to implode down the line, but being wedged between Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Russia must make for a good reason to work together. Munich would have been impossible or very different if Czechoslovakia was backed up by all of Eastern Europe, and France and Britain would probably be more supportive. And there is no way Hitler and Stalin could get away with dividing Poland so easily.



That would probably make a very good POD. How do you think it could have played out differently? Braislava seems like the better choice as its essentially in the Belgium of the East and less likely to offend. It reminds me of the EU, Brussels or Strasbourg.

Trotsky along with Lenin believed in exporting the communist revolution to the rest of Europe. The results of the Polish-Bolshevik war changed Lenin's perception of how to proceed with that, not so much with Trotsky. A communist treat coming from the east knocking old balances and understandings, that dear l'lins is what they feared whether reasonably or is up to you. Nationalism is easily the most emotionally powerful ideology at the time, these countries in question just left multi-ethnic empire that existed for centuries why give that all up to a even more multi-cultural federation that only exists in romantic minds or at best enlightened empirical paper. Ladies and gentlemen, we are not looking for a unified form of government right out of The Great World War [Part 1], that is most certainly impossible without sandwichcraft. While a federation is almost out of the question, a loose confederated union is not. Germany would use any of it resources(military and/or economic) to suppress and contain a emerging treat. That is why Germany needed to be broken not simply insulted for this to have a chance. A break down into Rump Germany, Free state of Prussia, and Bavaria might be over kill but should give you an idea of the troubles present in this question. What needs to be solved right out of the war are the borders of the new states and coordinated economic plans, that is not ASB. If pressed by a greater treat to their new independence a larger defensive alliance and a semi workable economic block might form with the blessing of the traditional powers and perhaps the United States.

 

[Snaut]

I don’t think a genuine federation (EDIT: On the scale originally envisioned - i.e most if not all of former Poland-Lithuania and presumably parts of the Balkans) was even remotely possible. The Balkan states certainly wouldn’t have joined for the forseeable future, and I’m not sure wether Ukraine would have been formally included into a federation and not as a somewhat independent buffer state even if Piłsudski had had his way. Besides Lithuania and Belorussia, I doubt Poland would have federated with anybody.

The closest thing to Intermarum which could have appeared would be, IMO, a more closely-knit alliance based on the OTL Little Entente and Poland (and perhaps some others). While they might not all become part of the same defensive alliance, in the best-case scenario there would be a Polish-Czechoslovak alliance with France against Germany, and an anti-Soviet alliance based on Poland and Romania (and perhaps others). If this grouping became somewhat cohesive, even the members not directly involved in said alliances ought to provide some support. Thus we have some approximation of what the Intermarum was supposed to be, even if it isn’t actually a federation and doesn’t include states like Hungary.

And shouldn’t this be in post-1900? I don’t think any pre-WWI divergence could have made this federation’s creation any more plausible, and would only create gigantic butterflies by the time TTL’s WWI equivalent would be reached.

 

[iori]

Perhaps go the opposite way, have the Revolution fail in Russia but become successful in Central and Eastern Europe leading to the (partially amicable partially forced) creation of the 'Union of European Soviet Republics', with each ethnicity not already with a homeland given one over time ala the mid-20th century SSRs and ASSRs.

 

[Tyr]

It's possible.
On account of what happened to them during WW2 people often have a tendancy to see Poland as the poor, perpetually oppressed underdog who just wants peace and happiness and love and flowers.
Inter-wars Poland though did have its moments of being downright border line fascist.
Its not too hard to imagine a scenario where Poland smashes the Soviets in their war and from there starts picking on other Eastern European countries.
We could even get a WW2 analogue in this world with Britain and France helping poor democratic Germany against the Polish invaders.

 

[Stormy Sky]

Perhaps go the opposite way, have the Revolution fail in Russia but become successful in Central and Eastern Europe leading to the (partially amicable partially forced) creation of the 'Union of European Soviet Republics', with each ethnicity not already with a homeland given one over time ala the mid-20th century SSRs and ASSRs.

I don't see that happening. A communist Eastern Europe would likely immediately face a huge existential threat as the world's capitalist states and monarchies come crashing down on it. Russia could survive it, France could (in the similar situation after the French Revolution) but I don't think Eastern Europe had a chance in hell. And it would be the perfect excuse for German and Russia to re-annex most of it.

It's possible.
On account of what happened to them during WW2 people often have a tendancy to see Poland as the poor, perpetually oppressed underdog who just wants peace and happiness and love and flowers.
Inter-wars Poland though did have its moments of being downright border line fascist.
Its not too hard to imagine a scenario where Poland smashes the Soviets in their war and from there starts picking on other Eastern European countries.
We could even get a WW2 analogue in this world with Britain and France helping poor democratic Germany against the Polish invaders.

Borderline fascist? It was downright anti-semitic and its only real redeeming feature was Stalin and Hitler were worse. Austria was also fascist at the time Hitler invaded, again not as bad. The only real democracy, and the only country in a position to fight back when Hitler came knocking was Czechoslovakia who the Western allies brutally screwed over. I don't think Poland could have done any empire-building in the interwar period. They did well as they did, but if they did it would just end up being an even less organised Austria-Hungary. A federation (or if that wasn't possible as many of you say) a confederation or alliance would have been more defensive in nature. Polish success again Russia was based on Russia's extremely poor situation at the time. The Russian numbers and resources were more than Poland could match, even if they had all of Eastern Europe, in a sustained war.

The point is a united Eastern Europe would not look so tempting and easy to take for Hitler or Stalin. Hitler took Austria on the second attempt, he backed down the first because Italy opposed him. Italy. So how much more threatening would all of Eastern Europe look if they stood together?

 

[hefajstos]

Ok, so before this thread evolves into “nah uh never gonna happen”, and”ASB™” I will post a few questions
What are the historical grievances between these new countries?
What are the benefits of have a loose association between these states, besides security?
What are the effects of having “Federation of European States” disregarding the difficulties of its formation?
Would foreign investment still come or would it be encouraged/discouraged?
Could Czechoslovakia and Poland build into each other industrial centers if there were at least non hostile relations?
Where does Hungry and Bulgaria fall into these plans?
And last for know is there a limited form of this federation that might have a better chance of working?

 

[Stormy Sky]

Ok, so before this thread evolves into “nah uh never gonna happen”, and”ASB™” I will post a few questions
What are the historical grievances between these new countries?
What are the benefits of have a loose association between these states, besides security?
What are the effects of having “Federation of European States” disregarding the difficulties of its formation?
Would foreign investment still come or would it be encouraged/discouraged?
Could Czechoslovakia and Poland build into each other industrial centers if there were at least non hostile relations?
Where does Hungry and Bulgaria fall into these plans?
And last for know is there a limited form of this federation that might have a better chance of working?

Thank you, that was essentially the point of the third part of the question, irrelevent of how ASB it might be. Too many people on these forums just shoot down any discussion because of the logistics rather than being prepared to discuss if they happened. Kinda odd on an alternate history board.

In answer to your questions, or my take on them:

What are the historical grievances between these new countries?
Hungary's historic borders are huge, including pretty much part of any country in the Balkans, thats a major problem. There are tensions between the Czechs and Poles historically, and there was a border dispute between the Wars. I don't know much about that though. Also Lithuania was dominated by Poland during its alliance with Lithuania, so I'm sure there'd be hesitation about switching a German/Russian/Austrian hegemony for a Polish/Hungarian one.

What are the benefits of have a loose association between these states, besides security?

Beside not all people forced under the heel of German domination and then raped by Russia for almost 50 years? There are bound to be trade and economic benefits. Again I don't know enough about this myself but economically the region should benefit.

What are the effects of having “Federation of European States” disregarding the difficulties of its formation?

The main thrust of my question. Beyond what I said in my previous post, I'm not really sure. Seeing as the invasion of Poland started WW2, and the Munich Agreement's importance, they would be huge. They wouldn't be a bunch of small states that the Nazis could annex and manipulate into fighting each other. I'm interested to know what everybody's thoughts on this are.

Would foreign investment still come or would it be encouraged/discouraged?

I should think it would be encouraged, especially with its neighbours.

Could Czechoslovakia and Poland build into each other industrial centers if there were at least non hostile relations?

I guess its possible, but again not really my topic.

Where does Hungry and Bulgaria fall into these plans?

Bulgaria falls outside, being an independent country at the time according to the wiki article, though it includes some others, so I don't see why it couldn't. Hungary would probably be a very important member, but probably divisive because of arguements over its borders.

And last for know is there a limited form of this federation that might have a better chance of working?

No idea what level might be acceptable, but there's a whole range of levels of integration so

 

[Snaut]

In the aftermath of WWI, nearly all theoretical members of such an alliance had only just achieved independence after either a period of wartime occupation or outright nonexistence. Abandoning it right away won’t be too popular, not for a while after WWI. Such a federation/confederation/whatever emerging as the result of a decades-long process of gradual tightening of alliances in the face of Russian and German resurgence is incomparably more plausible. The sort of network of interlocking alliances I proposed a few posts above, preferably with some form of economic co-operation, should provide significantly better security then IOTL, without the tremendous centrifugal tendencies a single Federation would inevitably experience. Especially with strong French (and preferably also British) backing. If it were properly encircled, Germany would be less likely to try anything, and Russia/the USSR may thus be deterred from acting alone.

There is pretty much no way Hungary will join such a grouping with Trianon going largely as IOTL. It’s hate will be reserved not for Germany and Russia, but the Federation (or at least three of its members). Bulgaria’s grievances were lesser, but in itself this isn’t much of a reason to join. Ultimately, the two small states won’t be much of a loss if the Federation/alliance/whatever includes Yugoslavia, Romania, Czechoslovakia.

The entire number of local disputes in the entire area was beyond counting. If we disregard ‘petty’ local quarrels, one serious problem is the divergence between Czechoslovakia’s attitude to Russia, and that of Poland, Romania and the Baltics. The Teschen disputes would probably not have occurred if the leaders of Poland and Czechoslovakia had not percieved alliances with the other as being of little worth, if not outright liabilities.

A common economic policy on such a large area should help diversify its states’ economies, making them less reliant on trade with Germany. Which should be useful if the latter tries extending its influence through economic imperialism.