French Failure

[LordIreland]

I was just wondering why is it that in any CP victory TL the French Fascist equivalents are never able to overrun Germany in the same way that Fascist Germany did France IOTL.

Most TLs seem to have them stall at the rhine or thereabouts. Why is this? Is it because the French are widely viewed as 'Cheese eating Surender Monkeys' incapable of enacting a daring blitzkreig (or whatever the equivalent in French would be) assault?

Or is it simply that most CP victory TLs are shameless German wanks and it would not suit the author's general ATL direction?

If anyone knows of any such TLs please feel free to post the link, I have searched, but have yet to find one.

[Wanderlust]

Originally Posted by LordIreland

Or is it simply that most CP victory TLs are shameless German wanks and it would not suit the author's general ATL direction?

Most likely this one. If you take my favourite example, Harry Turtledove's, Germany is able to defeat not only Action Francaise France, but Britain and Russia as well Presumably Einstein invented handwavium for them.

[Nietzsche]

Originally Posted by LordIreland

I was just wondering why is it that in any CP victory TL the French Fascist equivalents are never able to overrun Germany in the same way that Fascist Germany did France IOTL.

Most TLs seem to have them stall at the rhine or thereabouts. Why is this? Is it because the French are widely viewed as 'Cheese eating Surender Monkeys' incapable of enacting a daring blitzkreig (or whatever the equivalent in French would be) assault?

Or is it simply that most CP victory TLs are shameless German wanks and it would not suit the author's general ATL direction?

If anyone knows of any such TLs please feel free to post the link, I have searched, but have yet to find one.

Let's look at our world as an example. Even after Versailles, Germany was more powerful than France. This is after Germany lost and France won. Now, what do you think a world where Germany has won is going to look like? All that money and resources flooding in from their eastern puppets and client-kingdoms.

[LordIreland]

Nietzsche
Let's look at our world as an example. Even after Versailles, Germany was more powerful than France. This is after Germany lost and France won. Now, what do you think a world where Germany has won is going to look like? All that money and resources flooding in from their eastern puppets and client-kingdoms.

These are all fair points. However, the German 1940 victory was in reality out of all proportion to the force ratio. France & Britain had more tanks, nearly twice as many artillery pieces and a comparable manpower. The only area where the Germans had a distinct advantage was in aircraft.

But then we should consider other factors, such as the fact that nearly half the German tanks were Panzer 2s. French leadership was at best poor, at worst non-existent (points finger at Gamelin). Also, a good dose of victory disease, always prevalent amongst the winning side from last time round. On the german side a desire for revenge, a leader willing to take a gamble and a fresh set of tactics based on 'revolutionary concepts'. End result....a victory so complete that a Great Power ceases to be.

Money and resources are only really useful in war if they have been applied to military production. British and French finances and resources far outstripped those of Germany during the inter-war period IOTL, but they weren't funnelled into military production. The Germans on the other hand mortgaged their mid to long term economic growth to finance a complete rearmament in the here and now. Each new conquest brought them booty to fund the next one (a simplification I know, but still a truth nonetheless)

So, my point still stands, why does no one ever think that the same situation in reverse couldn't apply to France, after all if they can defeat the Germans in as short a time as the Germans did them IOTL real economic/manpower strength doesn't have a chance of coming into play.

[Susano]

Well,m even if we assume everything else to be equal, Germany in 1940 has nearly double the population of France, (39.0 compared to 70.8m), and with no lost war will probably continue to be the leading industrial power of Europe, which it was since the 1880s. IIRC not only the population was larger, but the GDP pc, too.

And of course, while the French were not as, ah, routinely idiotic in military matters as often presented, it did help that Germany had a long tradition of good military organisation (the General Staff as German/Prussian intervention etc) and superb training (especially for NCOs).

There is of course much superior strategy, tactcis, doctrine, training and equipment can do. But in the end its still very difficult if not close to impossible to overcome such a size gap if the technological levels involved are comparable - as Germany itself experienced IOTL in the war with the USSR.

[Valdemar II]

Originally Posted by LordIreland

I was just wondering why is it that in any CP victory TL the French Fascist equivalents are never able to overrun Germany in the same way that Fascist Germany did France IOTL.

Most TLs seem to have them stall at the rhine or thereabouts. Why is this? Is it because the French are widely viewed as 'Cheese eating Surender Monkeys' incapable of enacting a daring blitzkreig (or whatever the equivalent in French would be) assault?

Or is it simply that most CP victory TLs are shameless German wanks and it would not suit the author's general ATL direction?

If anyone knows of any such TLs please feel free to post the link, I have searched, but have yet to find one.

Because it's simply implausible for France to overrun Germany (even conquering the Cisrhine territories are rather implausible in my opinion), of course Fascist France attacking would demand the entire French government replaced by complete idiots. Victorious Germany would have twice the population of France (with a large ration of young to middleage male meaning greater recruitment base), a industrial output even greater (plus German industry are a lot "heavier" than Frances), likely a higher GDP per capita. Beside that there's also the element that the Rhine are easy to defend and Germany would need to do so to protect the Ruhr, while when Germany has come over the Ardennes most of France are a lot more open.

[Susano]

Oh right, I forgot - with the 2.1m people of Alsace-Lorraine with Germany instead of Germany, and ca. 5.2m people not lost in the eastern territories that would be 37.9m people vs 78.1m. Thats MORE than double. And with the Briey region, where the majority of the French arment industry was located, pklus furtehr heavy industry, annexed to Germany...

[machine3589]

Originally Posted by Susano

Oh right, I forgot - with the 2.1m people of Alsace-Lorraine with Germany instead of Germany, and ca. 5.2m people not lost in the eastern territories that would be 37.9m people vs 78.1m. Thats MORE than double. And with the Briey region, where the majority of the French arment industry was located, pklus furtehr heavy industry, annexed to Germany...

Perhaps even more if Southern Belgium is annexed and some odd regions here and there...

Not to mention the possibble resource bonus from gained colonies. Plus the same good officers from OTL still being there.

And they also have Metz ITTL, which was one of the most fortified cities in Europe in the mid-20th century OTL, and is likely to be so ITTL if the French begin to re-arm.

[Susano]

Originally Posted by machine3589

Perhaps even more if Southern Belgium is annexed and some odd regions here and there...

Not to mention the possibble resource bonus from gained colonies. Plus the same good officers from OTL still being there.

And they also have Metz ITTL, which was one of the most fortified cities in Europe in the mid-20th century OTL, and is likely to be so ITTL if the French begin to re-arm.

Well, to be fair, if we reserve that - the Maginot line was no great help, either. Then again Belgium wont be a neutral country here, and probably be integrated into any German defense concept... so, the French would have to cross either the Vosgues or the Ardennes first, and then the Rhine. If they are singularily competent and lucky, and the Germans singularily incompetent and unlcuky (whichc an happen, and did happen reversed IOTL to a degree) then the French might even manage that, but then the German industrial advantage will kick in and the Germans can simply drown the French in numbers...

[LordIreland]

Ok, so, now we're getting somewhere. Impossible due to manpower levels etc. So, why is it acceptable for germany to beat Russia in WW2 in numerous ATLs?

My points here are: that victory breeds complacency; manpower pools shouldn't play a major role if the victory is swift enough; the introduction of new tactics invalidates traditional military thinking and deployment; political instability can cause military paralysis; the victors not wishing to fight another costly conflict; inertia and complacency can take a toll on military leadership. All these factors came into play IOTL for France, why shouldn't/couldn't the same be true for a victorious post ww1 Germany?

Perhaps France alone might struggle to overwhelm a corpulent victorious Germany, but what about throwing in GB and Russia as well? GB alone would go a long way to evening the force ratio.

What about having the German airforce in the middle of upgrading like the French Air Force was IOTL?

[Susano]

Originally Posted by LordIreland

Ok, so, now we're getting somewhere. Impossible due to manpower levels etc. So, why is it acceptable for germany to beat Russia in WW2 in numerous ATLs?

Because many TLs here simply ARE unrealistic? And either way, I know of no TL where the USSR is taken in a Blitzkrieg, so your initial question of the Franco-German situation being reversed IS entirely out of the question

And Id still say that Nazi Germany beating the USSR is more possible - if you go against the USSR you can use the non-Russian peoples as allies, and logistics can wreak havoc on either side - without landlease, the USSR might run out of oil to simply move its troops. Whereas the French troops would encounter a densely populated territory with good ifnrastructure - admittedly bad terrain for partisans, but it means a superb logistics network for the defenders.

Still, IMO, both are rather unrealistic.

My points here are: that victory breeds complacency; manpower pools shouldn't play a major role if the victory is swift enough; the introduction of new tactics invalidates traditional military thinking and deployment; political instability can cause military paralysis; the victors not wishing to fight another costly conflict; inertia and complacency can take a toll on military leadership. All these factors came into play IOTL for France, why shouldn't/couldn't the same be true for a victorious post ww1 Germany?

I disagree completly - its not just manpower levels, its rather economic size, which comes with population and GDP pc. Soldiers win battles, but the economy wins wars. All the factors you list are covered under what I said would only take you so far.

Perhaps France alone might struggle to overwhelm a corpulent victorious Germany, but what about throwing in GB and Russia as well? GB alone would go a long way to evening the force ratio.

Well, again, that wouldnt be the OTL situation reversed.

[machine3589]

Originally Posted by LordIreland

Perhaps France alone might struggle to overwhelm a corpulent victorious Germany, but what about throwing in GB and Russia as well? GB alone would go a long way to evening the force ratio.

The GB would not joyfully throw itself in another conflict against Germany after the debacle of a lost WWI. My money is on them being neutral. That is, unless the Germans attack France.

And Russia has all those puppet-states to cross first.

[HJ Tulp]

What I miss in most CP victory TLs is that Germany isn't going to be in full-hegemon mode forever. Twenty years after the CP victory Germany's WWI allies usually stick with Germany against the next nemesis. Thing is that post-war events (A-H falling apart, dividing the spoils in the East, the Balkans) will force Germany to make hard decision. The German people will not forever want to send it's sons to distant places.

[Susano]

Originally Posted by HJ Tulp

What I miss in most CP victory TLs is that Germany isn't going to be in full-hegemon mode forever. Twenty years after the CP victory Germany's WWI allies usually stick with Germany against the next nemesis. Thing is that post-war events (A-H falling apart, dividing the spoils in the East, the Balkans) will force Germany to make hard decision. The German people will not forever want to send it's sons to distant places.

Oh yes. If the Hindenburg/Ludendorff regime stays in place, and/or if Germany immidatly after WW1 decides to intervene in the Russian Civil War (which would be... Vietnamesque surely) then this would even rather be sooner than later. Not that that is necessarily bad for Germany, i.e., the German people. Its funny in a way: A devastive, longdrawn won war is probably better for politcial development in Germany than a quick, successful war reaffirming the reactionaries and militarists...

[Riain]

Another factor in the equation is the excellence of the Heer in the tactical and operational spheres. They tend to get more bang for thier buck than other countries and are let down by strategic and political decisions.

[Faeelin]

Originally Posted by HJ Tulp

What I miss in most CP victory TLs is that Germany isn't going to be in full-hegemon mode forever. Twenty years after the CP victory Germany's WWI allies usually stick with Germany against the next nemesis. Thing is that post-war events (A-H falling apart, dividing the spoils in the East, the Balkans) will force Germany to make hard decision. The German people will not forever want to send it's sons to distant places.

Sure, and let's assume there's a Bukharinist SSR off in the distance, or Austria-Hungary collapses (why would it though? In this scenario, the end result is going to be German vassalage).

Germany is still, quite simply, top dog on the continent. It controls Belgian's ore fields. It has broken the Ukraine and Baltic off of Russia. (The former especially will matter a great deal).

Hrmm.

[HJ Tulp]

Originally Posted by Faeelin

Sure, and let's assume there's a Bukharinist SSR off in the distance, or Austria-Hungary collapses (why would it though? In this scenario, the end result is going to be German vassalage).

Germany is still, quite simply, top dog on the continent. It controls Belgian's ore fields. It has broken the Ukraine and Baltic off of Russia. (The former especially will matter a great deal).

Hrmm.

Those were examples. Something will happen. Mitteleuropa will not live on forever just as the Versailles System didn't live on forever.

[Faeelin]

Originally Posted by Wanderlust

Most likely this one. If you take my favourite example, Harry Turtledove's, Germany is able to defeat not only Action Francaise France, but Britain and Russia as well Presumably Einstein invented handwavium for them.

But Germany almost beat, in OTL, those powers. And in the ATL it's Western Europe that had a "lost generation" of economic growth in the 1920s, and has to worry about a hostile America. In fact, it's not clear to me what the British are eating, in the Turtledove series.

[jkay]

If there'd been a reversed imbalance in airpower, with a similarly stupidly conquest-oriented France, starting from a similar start, I'd say France would've beaten Germany, easily. After alll, airpower was what decided matters in that war, even on the ground.

But, Susano, in real life, Fascist Germany's approach to conquered Soviet populatoins was to tell them he'd kill them, and then kill them; he only worked with the German minorities.

machine, why do you think the UK'd be different after a loss than Germany? People are people are people.

And, Faelin, are you living in Sea Mammaliana? "Almost beat, OTL, those powers?"

I think there are so many Nazi Germanies in fiction because it's such a familiar evil, and we like to read about such things.

[machine3589]

Originally Posted by jkay

machine, why do you think the UK'd be different after a loss than Germany? People are people are people.

For the very simple reason that they wouldnt feel a morsel of the consequences the Germans felt when they lost.

The most realistic outcome for Britain in a CP victory is a very lenient white peace, with only (if) losing some token territories.