DeGaulle finally pushes Churchill, Truman and Ike to far. The Allies decide that France will not be allowed to station forces in Western Germany and they stop all weapons shipments to the French. Food and medical supplies are still shipped to France. So what happens?
France not an occupying power in West Germany
- Thread starter NoOneFamous
- Start date
The easiest way is to give in to Stalins initial refusal to give France an occupation zone and place in the Allied control council
I think that Netherland are very willing to take a occupation zone at long there Borders
While British and Americans take bigger occupation zone.
But out come would be a different Map of Germany
No french founded Saarland, Rhineland-Palatinate or Baden-Württemberg ?
instead of North Rhine-Westphalia and Rhineland-Palatinate a British controlled Rhineland and Saarland-Palatinate (Saarland-Pfalz)
While Westphalia is part of Lower Saxony and Schleswig-Holstein is bigger toward the south.
on Baden-Württemberg
I think it will exist because the Americans will cut up there occupation zone. in Hessen Bavaria and rest become Baden-Württemberg
While British and Americans take bigger occupation zone.
But out come would be a different Map of Germany
No french founded Saarland, Rhineland-Palatinate or Baden-Württemberg ?
instead of North Rhine-Westphalia and Rhineland-Palatinate a British controlled Rhineland and Saarland-Palatinate (Saarland-Pfalz)
While Westphalia is part of Lower Saxony and Schleswig-Holstein is bigger toward the south.
on Baden-Württemberg
I think it will exist because the Americans will cut up there occupation zone. in Hessen Bavaria and rest become Baden-Württemberg
France say f*ck you to the western allies latter. No US force will be allowed on the french soil much sooner, no cooperation at all. France will be a non-alligned power or worse might allign with the USSR. Good job you killed NATO before it is even born and given the USSR better card to play.
No NATO ever, no European Union, France align with the USSR when Germany is rearmed by the US and the UK.
Doing anything like stopping weapons trade is a lot bigger than just denying France an occupation zone in Germany, especially given the colonial shenanigans that France has to deal with at the time. The one doesn't necessarily go with the other.
If it was just a matter of denying France an occupation zone, without all the other stuff… well, it would harm de Gaulle's "we're a great power, we liberated ourselves by our own might, and we have a voice in determining the future of Europe" shtick, with corresponding consequences for the politics of grandeur and potentially negative results for the French political right (and thus a boost for the political left), but I doubt it would have such a huge impact as France siding with the Soviet Union. In particular, remember that in this scenario Stalin is the one who refuses to let France have an occupation zone and all that the United States does is to obey the Soviet Union's decision; from the perspective that IOTL the United States did protest that and gave France an occupation zone anyway, the USA looks like the bad guy to France ITTL, but ITTL it looks like the Soviets are the ones who delivered that blow. So all these supposed French reactions of "Moscow said we can't have an occupation zone in Germany, so we hate… Washington! And we side with… Moscow!" don't sound very realistic. Of course, let me hasten to add, if the Americans take the much more extreme step of denying France military support, that's a very different matter; it's just that I don't think that's necessarily associated (as the OP implicitly presumes) with denying France an occupation zone in Germany.
I'm inclined to think that West Germany would be closer to the western powers in the scenario of no French occupation zone; if there aren't blatant land-grabs like the Saarprotektorat committed by the western powers against Germany, pro-western politicians like Adenauer "the Allies' Chancellor" may well be under less fire from the West German political right. France, conversely, will probably be rather less fond of the Anglosphere than IOTL… but not as much as some people seem to be saying.
If it was just a matter of denying France an occupation zone, without all the other stuff… well, it would harm de Gaulle's "we're a great power, we liberated ourselves by our own might, and we have a voice in determining the future of Europe" shtick, with corresponding consequences for the politics of grandeur and potentially negative results for the French political right (and thus a boost for the political left), but I doubt it would have such a huge impact as France siding with the Soviet Union. In particular, remember that in this scenario Stalin is the one who refuses to let France have an occupation zone and all that the United States does is to obey the Soviet Union's decision; from the perspective that IOTL the United States did protest that and gave France an occupation zone anyway, the USA looks like the bad guy to France ITTL, but ITTL it looks like the Soviets are the ones who delivered that blow. So all these supposed French reactions of "Moscow said we can't have an occupation zone in Germany, so we hate… Washington! And we side with… Moscow!" don't sound very realistic. Of course, let me hasten to add, if the Americans take the much more extreme step of denying France military support, that's a very different matter; it's just that I don't think that's necessarily associated (as the OP implicitly presumes) with denying France an occupation zone in Germany.
I'm inclined to think that West Germany would be closer to the western powers in the scenario of no French occupation zone; if there aren't blatant land-grabs like the Saarprotektorat committed by the western powers against Germany, pro-western politicians like Adenauer "the Allies' Chancellor" may well be under less fire from the West German political right. France, conversely, will probably be rather less fond of the Anglosphere than IOTL… but not as much as some people seem to be saying.
If France was denied an occupation zone, I do not see de Gaulle continuing. Too much pride locked up in this.
Was Churchill really in favour of it?
France also had its colonial wars and had to 'beg' equipment from anybody who had anything to spare.
France was flying Junckers 88 and Me-109's and all kind of things. Anything they could lay their hands on.
Their occupation zone was a mess (See "Germany 1945" by Richard Bessel. It is about the time shortly after the war).
Maybe it would have made sense to ask France to realise that they had been conquered and that the US liberated them.
Ivan
Was Churchill really in favour of it?
France also had its colonial wars and had to 'beg' equipment from anybody who had anything to spare.
France was flying Junckers 88 and Me-109's and all kind of things. Anything they could lay their hands on.
Their occupation zone was a mess (See "Germany 1945" by Richard Bessel. It is about the time shortly after the war).
Maybe it would have made sense to ask France to realise that they had been conquered and that the US liberated them.
Ivan
Interesting.
Particularly since the impression I got from Cold War era coverage of French politics and foreign policy was always that France was far more violently opposed to the Anglosphere than it ever was to the Warsaw Pact. In particular the repeated statement that the whole point of building what eventually became the European Union was so the French could get West Germany to fund their pretentions to being a world power and "Counter-weignt to the arrogant war mongering American Cowboys".
West German foreign policy pre-Angela Merkel was described by serious commentators as consisting of "...writing blank cheques for the French to cash...". I think that quote was from a Stratfor article from a few years ago.
The same sort of articles these days keep saying that NATO isn't doing anything to counter Putin because the Germans are so Pro-Russian, through business interests and guilt about WWII.
I seem to be getting news from crazy people.
Seriously, denying the French an occupation zone because it is decided that ticking off Stalin is not worth it will injure their pride but not necessarily make them sworn enemies. Of course if they get more hostile does that mean that support for France duing the Indochina war will be butterflied away? Marshall Aid?
Would this blow to French pride be any worse that Ike forcing them to back down over Suez was? Because that was a serious public kick in the nuts, or do I have that embarassingly wrong too.
They were certainly anti-US hegemony, I'm not sure that translates fully to anti-Anglosphere. But then the Cold War and Europe were a bit different. Whilst you had the US and the Soviets as two diametrically opposed political ideologies, in Western Europe where there was a much stronger history of left wing parties in comparison to the US whilst still NATO members they often weren't as vociferously anti-communist. Apologies if I'm not being very clear trying to put things into words.
Well to quote Yes Minister on the subject of Europe
Whilst there were certainly other reasons I would say that has a certain uncomfortable kernel of truth to it.
Peter Parker
Banned
3 reasons why the Allies won't stop supporting France.
1. The US didn't want France to fall to communism. Right after WWII, the red were strong and active in France and Italy. Both would have fallen without US and British support.
2. The US wanted a strong France to help if the Soviets invaded Western Europe and started WWIII
3. The US and British did not want to have the occupation of Western Germany all to their selfs. It costs a lot if money to rebuilt the German military, economy, and infrastructure. Plus of bases and occupying troops. Let France share the cost.
1. The US didn't want France to fall to communism. Right after WWII, the red were strong and active in France and Italy. Both would have fallen without US and British support.
2. The US wanted a strong France to help if the Soviets invaded Western Europe and started WWIII
3. The US and British did not want to have the occupation of Western Germany all to their selfs. It costs a lot if money to rebuilt the German military, economy, and infrastructure. Plus of bases and occupying troops. Let France share the cost.
That's just the Francophobia of the Anglo-Saxon world. While after Suez the French did become more independent-minded (betrayal by one's ally does that) especially with De Gaulle's agrandissement policies. The point of French foreign policy in the early Cold War was quite simple a) be recognized as an equal partner in NATO to the UK and the US and b) contain/control the Germans. The second part is pretty interesting and it's linked to the French complex of inferiority present at the time as well as the crippling effect that the Indochina War had on the French economy as opposed to the West German growth.
So, no, the point of the French foreign policy was to contain Germany, because being invaded 3 times in 70 years does that to one while making sure they were taken as an equal partner with the UK and US. Although it is true that they were the least anti*Soviet of all the Western powers, but for a simple reason, many French politicians came from the Third Republic which still worked on the old France+Russia = contained Germany scheme. While this was no longer possible, inertia made this line of thinking harder to erase. Indeed, it's why up to 1955 the French were so terribly insistent in having lots of four-power conferences and such.
I don't think so. They won't like it, but they could live without it provided they still get the Sarre/Saar. What would have been a huge blow to their national self-esteem (low as it was at the time) would have the establishment of a military administration over France as FDR planned (he was a notorious Francophobe, beyond and before meeting De Gaulle) that De Gaulle was able to avoid by very quickly taking over the French administration through the FFI right after the Liberation.
As funny as that joke is (and trust, i love it), it doesn't hold up all that much when you look at real life. The French were very wary of the Common Market (and not the agriculture as much as the industrial sectors), in part due to fears of becoming a German commercial colony as well as a long story of commericial protectionism. In fact the CAP alone really developed in the early 60s. It's interesting to point out that the French Parliament in 1956 also passed the EEC only in exchange that the Italians and Germans did likewise with the Euratom. Which is funny come to think of it, since Euratom (as well as the more secretive FIG nuclear weapon programme) became so irrelevant once De Gaulle decided to develop his own national nuclear project.
Last edited:
French politics during the Cold War is a very complex topic where things don't always appear to be the way they seem at first sight.
De Gaulle pulled France out of NATO command structure, but France very much remained part of NATO. De Gaulle also offered full support to the US during the Cuba crisis among other occasions.
Mitterand supported the installation of Pershing missiles in West Germany as well.
Don't forget too that wen France went all out for nuclear energy in 1970s it did so with licenced American technology, abandoning its indigenous technology in the process.
Sorry - I just really wanted to put it across in spades. Yes, a few other nations helped along as well 
))
The period straight after the liberation of France is probably still worth a few PhD's.
We have the entire communist movement which really had the potential to take over government.
The dark spot is also the amount of collaboration Germany received. And I still think there are things not having surfaced yet on that account.
How much did France spend on German occupation? I am nearly sure they were receiving aid. The French economy was not in a great shape.
That de Gaulle had ambitions on behalf of France is a fact, but he did not really have the background to claim it. Equal to the US is a tall order in 1945.
France was not invited to the Postdam conference, which says a lot.
That France was invaded three times in modern history and defeated 2 1/2 times also impacts the French pride a bit.
NATO and France is a chapter all by itself, but it is still telling that NATO (US) needed Germany in the alliance and could sacrifice France.
So, let us attack the main question:
If US/UK had told France that they were NOT equal partners and that France would NOT be regarded as a conquering nation but as liberated area, then what?
I doubt de Gaulle would have succeeded in forming a government (or taking over the reigns really).
Such a decision might lead to France being administered by a US commander as liberated area only.
With the amount of uncertainty in France of who's who (collaborators, Vichy, communists,...) it could make sense.
France as a nation would then have to turn somewhere else and it could only be Russia and leading into some sort of coup/taking over.
THAT would have consequences for Italy I think.
The other way it could go would be for France and Germany to unite as conquered nations under the administration of US
... and now Charlemagne's empire of year 800 comes back.
Ivan
))The period straight after the liberation of France is probably still worth a few PhD's.
We have the entire communist movement which really had the potential to take over government.
The dark spot is also the amount of collaboration Germany received. And I still think there are things not having surfaced yet on that account.
How much did France spend on German occupation? I am nearly sure they were receiving aid. The French economy was not in a great shape.
That de Gaulle had ambitions on behalf of France is a fact, but he did not really have the background to claim it. Equal to the US is a tall order in 1945.
France was not invited to the Postdam conference, which says a lot.
That France was invaded three times in modern history and defeated 2 1/2 times also impacts the French pride a bit.
NATO and France is a chapter all by itself, but it is still telling that NATO (US) needed Germany in the alliance and could sacrifice France.
So, let us attack the main question:
If US/UK had told France that they were NOT equal partners and that France would NOT be regarded as a conquering nation but as liberated area, then what?
I doubt de Gaulle would have succeeded in forming a government (or taking over the reigns really).
Such a decision might lead to France being administered by a US commander as liberated area only.
With the amount of uncertainty in France of who's who (collaborators, Vichy, communists,...) it could make sense.
France as a nation would then have to turn somewhere else and it could only be Russia and leading into some sort of coup/taking over.
THAT would have consequences for Italy I think.
The other way it could go would be for France and Germany to unite as conquered nations under the administration of US
... and now Charlemagne's empire of year 800 comes back.
Ivan
Germany was not surrounded by hostile nations, the bogey man of the Cold war was in the East.
I dont know where I picked it uped, but its was some sentiment that at least the Germans could fight. While the Benelux and France where mistrusted.
Call it francophobia, but the deciding people had just fought a World War against Germany and a pretty though one too.
I guess the strategy behind that was you needed West Germany with its resources, manpower and military in NATO.
France on the other hand certainly too, but not as much as WG.