What if France would have rejected all notions of an alliance with Russia and instead, allied itself to Britain and/or Italy?
Last edited:
No Franco-Russian Alliance
- Thread starter Montgomerie Ward
- Start date
It was a mistake, I corrected it already. Though, a timeline of isolation does sound interesting. What do you think might of happened if France pursued a policy of isolation?
raharris1973
Gone Fishin'
European peace, or wars that bypass France, or war(s) that see France get involved in the middle rather than at the beginning, possibly to France's advantage.
Oh if we want to play that card, no other nation know had good they have and decide to squander all they tresure and a generation of citizen in a futile war.
More seriously, in the understanding of the time, being in an alliance mean a better security and more diplomatic power and France was pretty isolated so she searched someone.
The British was a no go, Italy was pretty burned due to Tunisia, Crispi, Napoleon III etc. etc. and now in the Triple, Spain a non-factor, the Ottoman weak and more importantly too courted by Germany, remained just Russia
Why would France see Russia as an enemy/threat? Potential Russian expansion did not threaten France...and potential German expansion was another thing entirely. Not to mention the German expansion that had already happened in 1871, leaving a lot of people very sore.
France might actually have been fairly okay.
Western Europe was basically divided up (between neutrals, France, Germany, and Italy - and Spain, if you want to count it as non-neutral) with British backing, and only France had important claims left (Italy claimed some French stuff, but I don't think many people cared). Germany was secure in its superiority and wasted time bickering about useless deserts and Balkan provinces (this was, no doubt, bad for French egos, but not for France).
Now, it would essentially abandon all claim to Elzass-Lothringen, which means, again, bad for egos, but it would leave France free to pursue most of the same policies as historical. Of course, the whole Austrian-Russian rivalry over the Balkan made even a slightly revanchist France very likely to ally Russia (since Germany had decided to back A-H)...
Western Europe was basically divided up (between neutrals, France, Germany, and Italy - and Spain, if you want to count it as non-neutral) with British backing, and only France had important claims left (Italy claimed some French stuff, but I don't think many people cared). Germany was secure in its superiority and wasted time bickering about useless deserts and Balkan provinces (this was, no doubt, bad for French egos, but not for France).
Now, it would essentially abandon all claim to Elzass-Lothringen, which means, again, bad for egos, but it would leave France free to pursue most of the same policies as historical. Of course, the whole Austrian-Russian rivalry over the Balkan made even a slightly revanchist France very likely to ally Russia (since Germany had decided to back A-H)...
Yes I agree with this. France is fine. Germany is not going to move westward. So absent the revenge mania festering over several decades why the need for an alliance with the (apeshit crazy) Russia?
Consider a Europe with a defeated Germany and Austria-Hungary. Russia's protegee Serbia is on the Adriatic and Russia is presiding over a post '45 like empire as well as being in the Straits.
How's that working out, France?
Consider a Europe with a defeated Germany and Austria-Hungary. Russia's protegee Serbia is on the Adriatic and Russia is presiding over a post '45 like empire as well as being in the Straits.
How's that working out, France?
Germany's WWI war aims did involve a westward border change.
How was Russia "apeshit crazy"?
How does Serbia/Yugoslavia, of all countries, threaten France?
Russia, out of all its "post-45 Empire" will have...Poland. And maybe Czechoslovakia.
Also, there is no Communism - nor any other exportable dangerous ideology tied to Russia.
Which again brings us to the question - just how does the Russian Empire endanger France?
Sorry, but it seems like you're translating the 1945 situation to 1918 (and a 1918 with no USSR too), and the contexts are too different in too many ways to count.
Derek Pullem
Donor
Don't understand this scenario either?
If France does not ally with Russia and Russia and Austria fall out over Serbia then assuming Russia is daft enough to enter a war against Austria and Germany (and probably Turkey too) without allies then it will lose in fairly short shrift (say 1916), even with British and French help.
What is more likely is that Britain and France threaten war with Germany if Russia is too badly beaten. Germany might be so full of the victory disease as to take them on but more likely Poland is split between Germany and Austria (possibly as puppet state, possibly not) and maybe the Baltics are ripped away from Russia as well.
That isn't going to upset the diplomatic apple cart too much and it probably isn't enough for Russia to collapse into civil war. Germany is much stronger (Austria is arguable not strengthened by even more minorities
) and a second round is almost inevitable over some cause in the West but that is for another thread. Russia would probably want payback too so Germany ends up fighting a second war against better prepared opponents (France will have seen the impact of trench warfare in the Austro-German-Russian war and would be planning accordingly).raharris1973
Gone Fishin'
I would be interested in the financial effects of a France not aligned with Russia. On the one hand, France had a lot of funds for foreign investment, and Russia was a developing economy. But French alliance strategy probably accounted for the direction of so much funding there. Without those considerations, where else might the French have invested. Might they have found some ways to apply some of that capital to domestic S&T or industrial development. That's one option and probably some types of reforms or differences in demography might be necessary to make that an option. Other options would include sinking tons more money into the colonies (Trans-Saharan railroad?) or the Americas.
Meanwhile- Russia's going to attract foreign capital to its extractive resources even without the alliance (although perhaps not quite as much). How might Russian development differ with a more balanced set of differently motivated investors? Perhaps less railroad development in Poland?
Meanwhile- Russia's going to attract foreign capital to its extractive resources even without the alliance (although perhaps not quite as much). How might Russian development differ with a more balanced set of differently motivated investors? Perhaps less railroad development in Poland?
With no Russian alliance, the most beautiful bridge in Paris probably wouldn't have been built…
I would have a pod near the Crimean War of which makes the war much worse for the Russian Empire. This could result in Russia lose sing the Crimea and other areas around the Black Sea that were important for trade. Long term, Russia would be unlikely to have any major positive relations with France. The second thing that is needed is for the French military and economy to take a huge hit from the war. By the time of the Franco-German war, the German Reich will be able to truly humiliate the French. This would possibly invoke in the annexation of the mines in the north of which were an important asset to the French economy. By the time the Great War comes around, the Germans would have to put in little effort to defeat France if needed nor will they need to march through Belguim. I believe the war would be over by 1916 and will be a vastly smaller atrocity then in otl. Even though France was involved via alliance, with Revancist policy, it is possible they would use this outbreak of war to invade Germany.
LordKalvert
Banned
France did explore better relations with Italy and Britain instead of the Russian Alliance. The efforts failed because even Rudini wasn't willing to abandon the Triple Alliance and Crispi's return meant awful relations between the Italians and French. Crispi's entire campaign tactic was to blame the French for everything
French relations with Britain aren't all that bad under Roseberry The only thing holding it back is French refusal to climb down from its Egyptian pretensions. Once you get France and Britain allied, then Italy is going to be in a very difficult position and could easily join
The problem is that Britain never would have signed an alliance with any European power (and she never signs one with France and Russia)
By the way, the Entente comes very close to forming in 1894-96
That digression over, the likely consequences of a France-British-Italian coalition:
1) The Mediterranean will be partitioned as it was OTL- Egypt to Britain, Morocco to France, Tripoli to Italy
2) The four Monarchies (Germany, Austria, Russia and the Ottomans) would draw very close together. Austria will be reluctant but have no real alternative
So our two power blocs become
France-Italy-Britain vs Russia-Germany-Austria-Ottomans
In this line up, the Monarchies will win
But this is where the alliance begins to crumble. Britain is really of no help against the Russians and Germans, which would make the French very afraid
Italy can't cope with Austria and Turkey either
French relations with Britain aren't all that bad under Roseberry The only thing holding it back is French refusal to climb down from its Egyptian pretensions. Once you get France and Britain allied, then Italy is going to be in a very difficult position and could easily join
The problem is that Britain never would have signed an alliance with any European power (and she never signs one with France and Russia)
By the way, the Entente comes very close to forming in 1894-96
That digression over, the likely consequences of a France-British-Italian coalition:
1) The Mediterranean will be partitioned as it was OTL- Egypt to Britain, Morocco to France, Tripoli to Italy
2) The four Monarchies (Germany, Austria, Russia and the Ottomans) would draw very close together. Austria will be reluctant but have no real alternative
So our two power blocs become
France-Italy-Britain vs Russia-Germany-Austria-Ottomans
In this line up, the Monarchies will win
But this is where the alliance begins to crumble. Britain is really of no help against the Russians and Germans, which would make the French very afraid
Italy can't cope with Austria and Turkey either
I assume we are talking about the period up to the first world war? Personally I believe an alliance between Germany and Russia would have been a likely alternative. This would probably have meant that Austria-Hungary would have allied with Britain and France. Italy would probably have stayed neutral. They had no reason tyo ally with AH and France. If they joined an alliance it would be with Germany and Russia. An alternate triple alliance.
Italy isn't insane (or at least, not THAT mad). If Russia/Germany have to fight through A-H before reaching it, they're not likely to even join.
Austria-Hungary isn't going to join any alliance hostile to both Germany and Russia, it'd be suicide.
Don't understand this scenario either?
If France does not ally with Russia and Russia and Austria fall out over Serbia then assuming Russia is daft enough to enter a war against Austria and Germany (and probably Turkey too) without allies then it will lose in fairly short shrift (say 1916), even with British and French help.
What is more likely is that Britain and France threaten war with Germany if Russia is too badly beaten. Germany might be so full of the victory disease as to take them on but more likely Poland is split between Germany and Austria (possibly as puppet state, possibly not) and maybe the Baltics are ripped away from Russia as well.
That isn't going to upset the diplomatic apple cart too much and it probably isn't enough for Russia to collapse into civil war. Germany is much stronger (Austria is arguable not strengthened by even more minorities
If Britain and France wait Russia be badly beaten before threatening war on Germany, the german government is going to die laughing.
Given the weight of Germany in Europe, it was an obligation for France to look for a strong ally.
This was the Logic of balance of power.
France was so afraid of Germany that it was ready to pay a high price to find a strong ally.
That is why I do not understand why Germany and Russia did not become allies. Both would gain. OK, they might have some conflicts, but so did definitely Britain and Russia. Germany would gain as they would not have to fight a two-way war and a British naval blockade would not really be such a big problem as they could trade with Russia. Russia would gain as AH would have to give up any plans in the Balkans and might even have to give up Bosnia-Hercegovina (+Croatia and Slovenia??).