Would a "Nazi France" have been equally successful as the originals?

[Living in Exile]

If an aggressive, militaristic regime had taken political control of France between the world wars, would it have experienced similar economic and military success?

My understanding of 1930s Germany is that it was economically depressed, and was rejuvinated by the Nazi's burst of military spending. It was was a short sighted policy that was unsustainable and quickly resulted in collapse, but they in exchanged had a short window of military supremacy. They then used that military supremacy to conquer, plunder and loot all continental Europe. The constant war and continuous victories kept the population faithful. Overall, it was a system that kept the war machine going, but pissed off the rest of the world in the process and led to their demise.


France seems to be in an even better position to pull this off than Germany. A French-Hitler would have had all the opportunites in the Fascist playbook. External enemies in the form of upstart Germany, the same internal enemies of Communists and Jews as the Nazis, colonial wars to be unendingly fought. Additionally, France was not the international pariah Germany was, and had many strategic advantages. Allies, a blue water navy, etc.


But what are the grim economic realities? Was France so much worse off than Germany even after winning the first world war that it couldn't have hoped to compete in the next round? Or with hindsight, can we say that France missed an opportunity to establish that continental hegemony the Nazis always aspired to? I'm just wondering what kind of alternate history opportunities can be explored down this pathway.

EDIT: To be clear, I'm talking about France becoming fascist after its victory in WWI. Germany lost WWI and became fascist. Italy won WWI and became facist. OTL, France won WWI and stayed democratic, but I'm asking what if it became fascist, Italy-style.

[Zmflavius]

1930s France has something like half the population of Germany, and much less in the way of natural resources. Certainly, France has the capacity and the will, especially in the event of a WWI defeat to go in that direction, but whether it will achieve as much is an entirely different story.

[Living in Exile]

Originally Posted by Zmflavius

1930s France has something like half the population of Germany, and much less in the way of natural resources. Certainly, France has the capacity and the will, especially in the event of a WWI defeat to go in that direction, but whether it will achieve as much is an entirely different story.

Sorry if I was ambigous in the original post, but I meant if a victorious France went Nazi. POD post-1918 or so. At that point Germany is down and out, but France has to be willing to *keep* Germany down and out. They dropped the ball repeated in the run up to WWII, but a more aggressive regime might have had fewer compunctions about rolling into the Rhineland to extract the proper amount of tribute (or "war reparations") at the first opportunity.

[Arachnid]

While Nazi Germany was obviously a very different beast from the Kaiserreich in some ways it was a logical extension. By right of population and economic power Germany "should" be the dominant power in Europe, envious other countries are standing in the way and need to be put in their place. But crucially Germany was the strongest power in Europe, it only lost because Britain could call on it's vast Empire and allied with France and Russia they were an unbeatable combination.

A France that has been knocked down a peg or two and gone Nazi simply isn't going to have the economic or military might to go toe to toe with Germany and if things are bad enough for France to have gone Nazi it has probably lost it's Empire.

[Nietzsche]

Originally Posted by Arachnid

While Nazi Germany was obviously a very different beast from the Kaiserreich in some ways it was a logical extension. By right of population and economic power Germany "should" be the dominant power in Europe, envious other countries are standing in the way and need to be put in their place. But crucially Germany was the strongest power in Europe, it only lost because Britain could call on it's vast Empire and allied with France and Russia they were an unbeatable combination.

A France that has been knocked down a peg or two and gone Nazi simply isn't going to have the economic or military might to go toe to toe with Germany and if things are bad enough for France to have gone Nazi it has probably lost it's Empire.

A France that won WW1 doesn't have much of a better chance. The population and resource differences are too great to overcome.

[juanml82]

Wait, wait, wait, wait. Every WI in this site involving the Western Allies going to the offensive in 1938 or 1939 with a proper offensive doctrine end up with (mostly) everyone agreeing on a German defeat within a few years, at most, as inevitable.
So. First issue is the French will to start a war after WWI's massive casualties. A way to turn that around would be for the French army to develop their own blitzkrieg doctrine, not much unlike the Germans and Soviets were doing in the '30s. However, while a militaristic government and the top brass might be convinced that rolling over Belgium in order to launch an armored offensive into the Ruhr is a war winner, they might not be able to convince the general population.

However, let's assume German politics go pretty much the same and Hitler still ends up ruling Germany during the '30s and, thus, there is an ATL Munich crisis or an invasion of Poland. A French army with a proper armored doctrine and, perhaps, the political will to invade Belgium to get into Germany, attacking Germany while the Wehrmatch is busy in the east, will defeat Germany. It may not have the manpower to exert something similar to the Nazi occupation of France, at least not without allies (the UK? Italy?) and it's not powerful enough to invade the USSR. But, after defeating Germany, it can very well become the dominant player in Western, continental, Europe. A serious issue would be how the UK copes with a fascist France if the French are the ones to invade neutral Belgium.

[Bureaucromancer]

Basically I'd think that no, it couldn't possibly be as successful. There are just too many social, political and cultural issues to overcome IMO. Even ignoring for the moment the economic, population and industrial problems the culture just isn't ready to go on international adventures after the WWI experience. In some real way the war itself was far more painful, especially in proportion to its aftermath, for France than for Germany, and that's going to play a big role in how well the country can or will prepare itself for aggressive foreign wars.

I suppose you could draw up a scenario where a Nazi esque government rises in France and not Germany, but I think it's pretty likely to get curb stomped, especially if it tries to take on Germany (even a few years before 1939). Even if such a government didn't have to come about through a major civil war and/or come with seriously significant domestic resistance I don't see any way to get the French army to even the level of readiness that the German was at in 1939.

Beyond all that of course you have the basic question of why on Earth France would go that way politically, but that's separate issue from OP's question I suppose. Really though if you want France to be aggressive and expansionist in this era I'd think it's much easier to make it communist than fascist.

[whitecrow]

Originally Posted by Arachnid

A France that has been knocked down a peg or two and gone Nazi simply isn't going to have the economic or military might to go toe to toe with Germany and if things are bad enough for France to have gone Nazi it has probably lost it's Empire.

Why? Just have the 1934 February Crisis be more successful and you could end up with fascist France with its empire intact.

[Nietzsche]

Originally Posted by juanml82

Wait, wait, wait, wait. Every WI in this site involving the Western Allies going to the offensive in 1938 or 1939 with a proper offensive doctrine end up with (mostly) everyone agreeing on a German defeat within a few years, at most, as inevitable.

The problem is that a Fascist* France is something the UK would find hard to swallow. Without British support, the fight becomes much more even between France and Germany.

[Wolfpaw]

A lot of this depends on whether or not France respects Benelux neutrality.

[Nietzsche]

Originally Posted by Wolfpaw

A lot of this depends on whether or not France respects Benelux neutrality.

Eh, totalitarianism sees all ends as justifying means. Why care about liberating your French brothers from the oppressive rule of the "Jewish Flem-Dutch Cabal"?

[HeavyWeaponsGuy]

Originally Posted by Wolfpaw

A lot of this depends on whether or not France respects Benelux neutrality.

Pretty much.

Truth be told though, I see your average French fascists being pragmatic enough to try and keep the British alliance, for France to go it alone against the Germans is impossible, even post-WWI France with a nasty case of victory disease realizes that.

[Nietzsche]

Originally Posted by HeavyWeaponsGuy

Pretty much.

Truth be told though, I see your average French fascists being pragmatic enough to try and keep the British alliance, for France to go it alone against the Germans is impossible, even post-WWI France with a nasty case of victory disease realizes that.

How sure of this are you, exactly? I'm not trying to be condescending, I'm genuinely curious.

[oberdada]

I really don't know.

Just a thought though:

A fascist France would not allow a German rearmament.
If Hitler isn't butterflied away and he tries to do a 1936 Rhineland remillitirasion thing fascist France could simply delare war and annex Germany west of the Rhine and occupy the Rhineland.
---> Hitler kaputt!
and the world (basicly Britain) is not going to complain (much).

But appart from (Walonian) Belgium and French Switzerland there really isn't much way to expand in Europe, Germany is a bit to large to swallow...

Colonial Ambitions while be out to hold by Brittain who might even ally with a (reinstituated) German Republic.

Best regards (just this once)

o.

[Simreeve]

Originally Posted by HeavyWeaponsGuy

Truth be told though, I see your average French fascists being pragmatic enough to try and keep the British alliance, for France to go it alone against the Germans is impossible, even post-WWI France with a nasty case of victory disease realizes that.

How about a French-Italian Axis? I'd still consider their victory over Germany impossible, but would they? What if Germany had gone Marxist after losing WW1?

[juanml82]

Diplomacy doesn't follow the Civilization model where countries align to one another based on their government system. A fascist France would be able to keep resurgent nazi Germany down, and that's good for Britain. And, at the same time, Germany is too powerful so France can't pull a 20th century Napoleon. It keeps things in Europe without a dominating continental power.

[HeavyWeaponsGuy]

Originally Posted by Nietzsche

How sure of this are you, exactly? I'm not trying to be condescending, I'm genuinely curious.

Effectively because it's impossible to do anything else, France cannot contain Germany alone.

They aren't about to align with Germany (the USSR is a consideration considering its value as a potential force with which to contain the Germans), Britain is the anchor in containing Germany, that was always a keystone of interwar French policy, a fascist government is going to seek the British out.

I would think it more a problem of getting the British to agree to cooperate with such a government than to persuade the French to reach out to them.

Originally Posted by Simreeve

How about a French-Italian Axis? I'd still consider their victory over Germany impossible, but would they? What if Germany had gone Marxist after losing WW1?

You mean like if the Spartacists had gone on from the Bavarian Soviet Republic and created an outright communist Germany? I'm not even sure that's remotely possible, there were too many disputes and divisions between the German left-wing to effectively create a cohesive communist movement that would have overthrown the German government.

It was the best time to do it, but the leftists just weren't up to snuff.

Pacts with Mussolini however (who up until very late in the interwar period had a stronger army than the Wehrmacht) have merit.

A conventional German-Italian War before German rearmament would have been a lopsided curbstomp in favor of Italy.

[wiking]

Originally Posted by Living in Exile

If an aggressive, militaristic regime had taken political control of France between the world wars, would it have experienced similar economic and military success?

How and why? Its totally out of the realm of possibility for OTL victorious France because of its population's political leanings. They were leftist very much more than any country in the world at the time save the Soviet Union. You'd have to literally brainwash the entire population to achieve this. This political leaning went back to before the first world war and one could probably trace it back to the French revolution. Basically a non-starter without making massive changes to history that would butterfly away WW1.

Originally Posted by Living in Exile

My understanding of 1930s Germany is that it was economically depressed, and was rejuvinated by the Nazi's burst of military spending. It was was a short sighted policy that was unsustainable and quickly resulted in collapse, but they in exchanged had a short window of military supremacy. They then used that military supremacy to conquer, plunder and loot all continental Europe. The constant war and continuous victories kept the population faithful. Overall, it was a system that kept the war machine going, but pissed off the rest of the world in the process and led to their demise.

Not exactly. The Nazis basically adopted the Weimar work programs and reaped the political benefits which took time to accrue. Then they started their military spending in earnest in 1935, which pretty much bankrupted the country. The conquests kept things going, but unlike what is often repeated as fact, Germany was not broke enough to need to go to war in 1939; she could have gone on spending for a few more years. There were a combination of events that pushed things along earlier than planned.

Originally Posted by Living in Exile

France seems to be in an even better position to pull this off than Germany. A French-Hitler would have had all the opportunites in the Fascist playbook. External enemies in the form of upstart Germany, the same internal enemies of Communists and Jews as the Nazis, colonial wars to be unendingly fought. Additionally, France was not the international pariah Germany was, and had many strategic advantages. Allies, a blue water navy, etc.

Except the French were pretty much anti-war at this point and very leftist. A Fascist France with a WW1 victory is impossible without ASB intervention. Action Franciase was a fringe party and had no chance of turning France into a war machine with the huge communist and socialist elements in the country that outnumbered conservatives by several times.

France also didn't have a reason to go to war or spend on war. She wanted to rebuild and have a good economy, though was still heavily in debt and really couldn't afford military spending.

Hitler got away with canceling German debts, but pretty much ended up cutting Germany off from trade as a result for several years. Ultimately Germany got by by selling all of her gold and foreign assets, even those forcibly taken from all private citizens in exchange for Reichsmarks. Plus stealing from Jews garnered something like 1 Billion RM too. That and she also worked out a deal with Britain to be able to trade/purchase through her Empire as well as set up barter agreements with virtually the entire Balkans, which produced a fair number of raw materials for German rearmament like Bauxite for Aluminum production. And then there was the Chinese barter arrangement for a while, plus trade with Japan in ball bearings and military technology.

During the war Germany also got tremendous amounts of goods via the Soviet Union, most of it unpaid for (because she attacked the Soviets).

The problem is that France cannot do this. She has her Empire, but is heavily in debt and did not produce all the materials she needed to rearm either. So she cannot borrow, nor import from her Empire what she need like Germany could through deals she worked out. And there is the tricky issue of getting the populace to vote in a Fascist regime when the vast majority of the population was Socialists, plus actually getting them to avoid riots as the government spent on the hated military rather than social programs...

Originally Posted by Living in Exile

But what are the grim economic realities? Was France so much worse off than Germany even after winning the first world war that it couldn't have hoped to compete in the next round? Or with hindsight, can we say that France missed an opportunity to establish that continental hegemony the Nazis always aspired to? I'm just wondering what kind of alternate history opportunities can be explored down this pathway.

Yes.

France was far too weak and had falling birthrates, so couldn't establish any hegemony in Europe. Germany had double her population and the British hated the French almost as much as the Germans (France was her traditional enemy after all), so didn't want to see France militarize or establish hegemony either.
OTL post war Europe was the very best situation France would have hoped for.

There are no opportunities for France down the war path, because she got just about everything she could from WW1, that is, all she could achieve given her weakening power. Peace favored France far more than war, because in war its not just Germany, but also Britain that would fight her if she picked a fight.

Originally Posted by Living in Exile

EDIT: To be clear, I'm talking about France becoming fascist after its victory in WWI. Germany lost WWI and became fascist. Italy won WWI and became facist. OTL, France won WWI and stayed democratic, but I'm asking what if it became fascist, Italy-style.

It cannot become Fascist because of the outlook of the French people pre and post war. They were too liberal and only fought in WW1 because they were attacked. Had the Germans not declared war, the French socialists would have rioted and pretty much caused a civil war if the French politicians declared war in WW1 to aid Russia.

Originally Posted by juanml82

Wait, wait, wait, wait. Every WI in this site involving the Western Allies going to the offensive in 1938 or 1939 with a proper offensive doctrine end up with (mostly) everyone agreeing on a German defeat within a few years, at most, as inevitable.

Britain would not be on France's side if she went Fascist. Britain would actively fight France, as would Belgium, as it would find itself invaded by a Fascist France. Of course France cannot go Fascist with a WW1 victory, but let's play a What If.

Britain is crucial to France being able to go on the offensive. That's why France didn't fight Germany IOTL when the Germans rearmed: Britain wouldn't go along, even on a 1939 offensive! Here with Britain an enemy, France is cut off from international trade and lacked a resource base at home, so would wither and die. Also without the Germans invading Poland to start the war and a Fascist France starting things to topple Hitler and establish hegemony, the whole German army would be on the defensive on the Rhein, which is the opposite scenario to what 'mostly everyone' agrees would happen IOTL if the French went on the offensive in 1939. In THAT scenario the German army is in Poland, not sitting in strength on the Rhein with a much better air force than France and a pretty solid Westwall (not as good as the Maginot line, but still pretty extensive).

Originally Posted by juanml82

So. First issue is the French will to start a war after WWI's massive casualties. A way to turn that around would be for the French army to develop their own blitzkrieg doctrine, not much unlike the Germans and Soviets were doing in the '30s. However, while a militaristic government and the top brass might be convinced that rolling over Belgium in order to launch an armored offensive into the Ruhr is a war winner, they might not be able to convince the general population.

What people don't understand about WW2 doctrines is that every nation just kept the doctrine they had in WW1 and just improved it. A 'Blitzkrieg' (there really is no such thing, just German Bewegungskrieg) doctrine was what the Germans had in 1918, but with an air force and panzers.

The French would have to totally throw out their winning doctrine from WW1 for some reason and adopt a totally foreign tactical and strategic doctrine that the French soldier is not trained nor really equipped for socially.
There is just so much institutional inertia that its impossible to imagine until ASBs get involved. Remember the French won WW1 in this scenario so they have no reason to abandon the doctrine that won they the war!

Originally Posted by juanml82

However, let's assume German politics go pretty much the same and Hitler still ends up ruling Germany during the '30s and, thus, there is an ATL Munich crisis or an invasion of Poland. A French army with a proper armored doctrine and, perhaps, the political will to invade Belgium to get into Germany, attacking Germany while the Wehrmatch is busy in the east, will defeat Germany. It may not have the manpower to exert something similar to the Nazi occupation of France, at least not without allies (the UK? Italy?) and it's not powerful enough to invade the USSR. But, after defeating Germany, it can very well become the dominant player in Western, continental, Europe. A serious issue would be how the UK copes with a fascist France if the French are the ones to invade neutral Belgium.

Again the French becoming Fascist is impossible with the French people of OTL. What you're suggesting here is a France like ours, but with a totally different outlook and military doctrine. This also ignores Britain's and Belgium's responses to a French invasion of Belgium!
Frankly this entire scenario is ASB from the conception, but then you expect all to remain the same except for France, which is even more unlikely than France becoming Fascist.

[EmmettMcFly55]

Originally Posted by Living in Exile

Italy won WWI and became facist. OTL, France won WWI and stayed democratic, but I'm asking what if it became fascist, Italy-style.

Italy became fascist because though they had won the war, it had been a bloody struggle for little gains (South Tyrol, Gorizia-Gradisca and Istria - at the start even Fiume was denied to them) while the pre-war minor power of Serbia practically doubled in size, even taking territory that Italy had been promised by the Entente. Combine that with a bad economic and political situation in the chaos post-war, and it's not hard to become fascist. France had economic and political instability, but they were undisputed as one of Europe's great powers. Their war goals hadn't all been accomplished, but the main one - Alsace-Lorraine - was, and their main enemy, Germany, had been hit significantly. Therefore, the conditions in France weren't as optimal for fascism as they were in Italy, in my opinion. I'm not saying France can't become fascist after winning WWI, I'm just saying the comparison with Italy isn't really accurate.