France After World War I Loss

[Tank Cdr]

My questions about what France would do if it was defeated in WWI has nothing to do with a short war or a long war. If France is defeated by the Germans, does this fundamentally change France and French society and government? How will other nations view France? Will anyone, including the French themselves, believe that they will ever be able to defeat Germany in a conflict? Germany will only be stronger economically and militarily and France will only be weaker economically and militarily, no matter how the victory was acheived Germany will ensure that!

Thanks everyone for the great discussion, I am looking to do a German WWI victory story, because clearly we do not have enough of those.

 

[Giysqun Wilde]

Well, let's say that the French might become more isolationist and look outside of Europe for any glory, which they will be enbittered against. They will not be able to trade with Britain any more by the September Program and had much of their industrial lands destroyed and taken anyways, so they will need to focus more on agriculture, though I wouldn't be surprised if the Kaiser or the Prussian general-nobles would take major vineyards as their private possessions.

A good several hundreds thousand would probably be deported from ports, French Flanders, and the lands in Lorraine, adding to the number of dispossesed who would need to go somewhere else. Indochina and north Africa may be their best bets, meaning that where the French Protectorates may lose stability and conflict begins on the lines of the Spanish and Portuguese settlers in the Americas against the Iberians trying to run them after being thrashed by Napoleon.

The lands taken from France would be interesting population wise, for if their would be a mass exodus, government expulsions, or the choice for becoming German-Belgian. Which generals-politicians-admiral that were in charge for the successes means their own policies might get more airing.

 

[Snake Featherston]

So you are saying no France, no Russia and Germany can't win? I just want to be clear.

The S plan was a very flawed plan but despite it flaws it had a chance of working. I agree it was a bad plan all things considered but it wasn't hopeless, it was a risk and a throw of the dice, VERY PRUSSIAN in other words.

As to the French army being better than the German army I would love to see a source for that. I have read several on the pre-war arms races and during the war itself and NONE of them contend that the French army was a better force.

The ranking in terms of quality such as it was went down like this from what I have read.

1) British Army
2) German Army
3) French Army

Start to see a big drop off in terms of quality / capability

4) Russian Army
5) Hapsburg Army
6) Italian Army

Germany had a much better chance to win it all in WW1 than in WW2. The harder logistical task was taking out Russia and that was done in 1917. German diplomacy and strategic short horizons being what it was managed to add enemy, after enemy during the war.

Germany can't win against most of the rest of the Industrialized world. It is really hard to take down and it can take out 2 or even 3 other great powers. A war fought vs. Russia and France is very winnable, not easy but certainly winnable.

Michael

Yes I am in fact saying precisely this. The German army does not have the logistical power in 1914 to advance the distance required by the plan and capture Paris, period. It's not there, and it certainly won't be there when Germany faces two invasions at once. Germany made several bids to directly knock France out of the war, the most famous being the Battle of Verdun. What happened there was that the Germans discovered the French were far stronger than what they expected them to be, and this pattern holds even truer for 1914, when the war is mobile, and before the massive losses of 1915-6.

To win a short war with France? I agree the odds are against it, its not however a total impossibility. The Germans were not idiots by any stretch of the imagination, they made the choices they did for reasons that AT THE TIME looked reasonable to them.

The S plan the result of a specific set of circumstances that came to be following the Russo-Japanese war. By 1910 things had changed and by 1914 a great more so.

A good case can be made that the time for the S plan had passed by and a number of Germans at the time did make this claim. There was a big debate as to what strategy to follow.

IF the Germans can some how pull it off and take Paris odds are France asks for an armistice. German diplomacy being what it was odds are they would find some way to put their for in their mouth, they had a real talent for it after Bismarck was gone.

Michael

Michael

The problem is 1914 they cannot pull it off. Their armies were being logistically overstretched well before they even neared Paris. The Germans did not have the manpower to meet the French invasion, Russia's invasion, and to both mask Antwerp and push through Belgium and France alike to fight French troops. In fact there weren't even enough Germans to mask Paris in the first place. The Germans took casualties at Liege, at Mons, at Charleroi, Namur, Morrhange, they had to equip and supply army groups whose leaders were mutually incompatible.....

The plan as directed is an inherent no-go. They cannot win in 1914 with the existing plan, facing the existing reality. A different reality means a different plan and thus a different war.

 

[Xgentis]

They might had a chance if Belgium let them pass then again it would put Belgium in very delicate position of being at war with the Entente. And for that you need to change the King Albert I personality.

 

[miketr]

Yes I am in fact saying precisely this. The German army does not have the logistical power in 1914 to advance the distance required by the plan and capture Paris, period. It's not there, and it certainly won't be there when Germany faces two invasions at once. Germany made several bids to directly knock France out of the war, the most famous being the Battle of Verdun. What happened there was that the Germans discovered the French were far stronger than what they expected them to be, and this pattern holds even truer for 1914, when the war is mobile, and before the massive losses of 1915-6.

Here is the problem, things happen from time to time that cut and dry rules say shouldn't happen. Removing the BEF and as late as 1912 (I believe, could be wrong) the BEF isn't going to be much of a factor till D+30, if not longer. The Germans discounted the BEF and other times counted them in. It all depends on the inputs and assumptions you make.

No BEF changes movement rates and locations of German troops. Remove BEF and there is no Battle of Charleroi or Mons anything like what happened. Maybe French 5th army gets away as historic, maybe it gets more damaged, maybe it gets pocketed and destroyed. Worse it changes the Battle of the Marne, Germans are still going to be over stretched but lack of BEF is going to make the French weaker.

The objective of the S plan wasn't to take Paris. Of course the Germans might try if they get that far. The objective was to destroy the French army in the field. Plan XVII was what the Germans wanted the French to do.

The one thing you are forgetting about the two invasions the Germans stopped them both cold and blooded the French and out right trashed the Russian.

Would you care to clarify what you are talking about with respect to the Germans finding the French better in 1914. I really am not sure where you are going with this.

The problem is 1914 they cannot pull it off. Their armies were being logistically overstretched well before they even neared Paris. The Germans did not have the manpower to meet the French invasion, Russia's invasion, and to both mask Antwerp and push through Belgium and France alike to fight French troops.

Since the Germans were doing all you subscribe till the tide turned at the Marne, you under stand if my view point is you are overstating the manpower issues. The French had their own problems and lost heavily during the battle of the Frontiers.

In fact there weren't even enough Germans to mask Paris in the first place. The Germans took casualties at Liege, at Mons, at Charleroi, Namur, Morrhange, they had to equip and supply army groups whose leaders were mutually incompatible.....

The French also lost heavily and the was if memory serves no mobile force in Paris after the reservist were sent to the Front (IE Battle of Marne) there is little need to heavily screen the French capital.

The plan as directed is an inherent no-go. They cannot win in 1914 with the existing plan, facing the existing reality. A different reality means a different plan and thus a different war.

The Germans Generals of the time had another viewpoint, they tried it and came close to success.

Michael

 

[Snake Featherston]

Here is the problem, things happen from time to time that cut and dry rules say shouldn't happen. Removing the BEF and as late as 1912 (I believe, could be wrong) the BEF isn't going to be much of a factor till D+30, if not longer. The Germans discounted the BEF and other times counted them in. It all depends on the inputs and assumptions you make.

The presence or absence of six infantry divisions and five cavalry brigades cannot alter logistical reality to favor Germany. Things that happen that theoretically shouldn't actually if looked at closely fall right into those rules.

No BEF changes movement rates and locations of German troops. Remove BEF and there is no Battle of Charleroi or Mons anything like what happened. Maybe French 5th army gets away as historic, maybe it gets more damaged, maybe it gets pocketed and destroyed. Worse it changes the Battle of the Marne, Germans are still going to be over stretched but lack of BEF is going to make the French weaker.

Not so. The Germans haven't the ability to sustain an offensive of that depth. They didn't meet much serious resistance IOTL and they still lost. This factor compensates for losses by increasing exhaustion.

The objective of the S plan wasn't to take Paris. Of course the Germans might try if they get that far. The objective was to destroy the French army in the field. Plan XVII was what the Germans wanted the French to do.

And the German counterattacks after the French offensive failed gained high casualties without anywhere breaking the French line.

The one thing you are forgetting about the two invasions the Germans stopped them both cold and blooded the French and out right trashed the Russian.

Would you care to clarify what you are talking about with respect to the Germans finding the French better in 1914. I really am not sure where you are going with this.

Then the Germans proceeded to get thrashed twice by the Russians and failed to make headway in their offensive following their thrashing of the French. They at no point broke the French lines and their logistics were starting to fail even before German armies left German soil.

Since the Germans were doing all you subscribe till the tide turned at the Marne, you under stand if my view point is you are overstating the manpower issues. The French had their own problems and lost heavily during the battle of the Frontiers.

And then established the southern part of the trench line where the Germans never crossed for the rest of the war.

The French also lost heavily and the was if memory serves no mobile force in Paris after the reservist were sent to the Front (IE Battle of Marne) there is little need to heavily screen the French capital.

Logistics prohibit a German victory in 1914 along the Marne. The armies lack supplies and effective leadership both through no fault of their own.

The Germans Generals of the time had another viewpoint, they tried it and came close to success.

Like the 1918 offensives those claims were heavily exaggerated even then.

 

[Cook]

They might had a chance if Belgium let them pass then again it would put Belgium in very delicate position of being at war with the Entente. And for that you need to change the King Albert I personality.

We had a thread on that just recently. Acquiescing to the German ultimatum does not mean Belgium is at war with the Entente and had Albert been given a sober, realistic appraisal of the very limited capabilities of Belgium’s 7 divisions he may have made a different decision.

 

[Kooluk Swordsman]

Francophobia comment already?
Anyway a quick defeat seems rather unlikely.

An unstable mess that outlasted the British Empire.

No disrespect to the French intended. It's just that after the Franco-Prussian War, they seemed a bit unstable politically. More so after WW1.

 

[wolf_brother]

No disrespect to the French intended. It's just that after the Franco-Prussian War, they seemed a bit unstable politically. More so after WW1.

As compared to... ?

Germany fought a civil war.

Austria-Hungary collapsed.

Turkey collapsed.

Russia collapsed.

 

[SavoyTruffle]

As compared to... ?

Germany fought a civil war.

Austria-Hungary collapsed.

Turkey collapsed.

Russia collapsed.

And the Third Republic has been the longest surviving polity in France since the Revolution, until the Fifth Republic eclipses it.

 

[miketr]

The presence or absence of six infantry divisions and five cavalry brigades cannot alter logistical reality to favor Germany. Things that happen that theoretically shouldn't actually if looked at closely fall right into those rules.

See above things that shouldn't happen doesn't mean it won't happen.

Not so. The Germans haven't the ability to sustain an offensive of that depth. They didn't meet much serious resistance IOTL and they still lost. This factor compensates for losses by increasing exhaustion.

Please explain the various battles fought between BEF and French 5th army before the Marine. Your contention is that the Germans just marched from Belgium to the Marne without resistance? Ran out of supplies and then got shoved back? None of the historic battles occurred?

And the German counterattacks after the French offensive failed gained high casualties without anywhere breaking the French line.

The Germans drove the French back and then made a follow up push to see if the French would give. The French didn't and that section of the front went static in general terms for the rest of the war. The Germans took loss and so did the French such is war.

Then the Germans proceeded to get thrashed twice by the Russians and failed to make headway in their offensive following their thrashing of the French. They at no point broke the French lines and their logistics were starting to fail even before German armies left German soil.

What are you talking about with the Russians? Please provide specifics and details as I have no idea of what you are talking about right now.

And then established the southern part of the trench line where the Germans never crossed for the rest of the war.

See my comment above and neither did the French the terrain was bad for offensive warfare with force levels both sides had and the Germans knew it. Hence the S plan.

Logistics prohibit a German victory in 1914 along the Marne. The armies lack supplies and effective leadership both through no fault of their own.

You keep saying that, however argument by assertion doesn't make something true.

Like the 1918 offensives those claims were heavily exaggerated even then.

So you are saying that the pre-war debate on what to do about France. All the staff rides, the army journals, etc is a massive put up job to cover up for a plan that the Germans knew wouldn't work? I am confused by your statement here and not following what you are attempting to say here.

Michael

 

[Snake Featherston]

See above things that shouldn't happen doesn't mean it won't happen.

See above for saying that improbable things happen for the LULZ ignores those improbable things actually fall into regular categories.

Please explain the various battles fought between BEF and French 5th army before the Marine. Your contention is that the Germans just marched from Belgium to the Marne without resistance? Ran out of supplies and then got shoved back? None of the historic battles occurred?

They underestimated sorely the time it would take Liege, and after Mons and Namur there were no actual battles in the north until the Marne. In the south where the Germans advanced in 1914 they stayed until they lost the war.

The Germans drove the French back and then made a follow up push to see if the French would give. The French didn't and that section of the front went static in general terms for the rest of the war. The Germans took loss and so did the French such is war.

Surely this all-French performance has relevance to how much offensive power Germany actually had as opposed to what its fanboys suppose it to have had?

What are you talking about with the Russians? Please provide specifics and details as I have no idea of what you are talking about right now.

The German offensives toward Warsaw in 1914. They were thrashed twice and took tremendous losses, and would not get Russia out of Austria-Hungary until 1915, whereupon Russia destroyed Austria-Hungary in 1916. Their propping up the Bolsheviks got them a war lasting into 1918 leaving 1,000,000 men still there trying now to prop up White Russians.

See my comment above and neither did the French the terrain was bad for offensive warfare with force levels both sides had and the Germans knew it. Hence the S plan.

Ah, yes, I forgot that the Allied offensives of 1918 across the entire front never happened. My mistake.

You keep saying that, however argument by assertion doesn't make something true.

That is so indeed. So how about evidence that the Germans can in fact move multiple army groups to the Marne with the absence of two corps worth of infantrymen changing the outcome of the battle? You're the one making the positive claim, the burden of proof is on you.

So you are saying that the pre-war debate on what to do about France. All the staff rides, the army journals, etc is a massive put up job to cover up for a plan that the Germans knew wouldn't work? I am confused by your statement here and not following what you are attempting to say here.

Michael

What they thought and what reality did to their shiny plans was something different. The German plan displayed the incomprehension of Logistics 101 that explained why Germany lost both world wars. It was a fundamental weakness of the German military system.

 

[Rich Mullins]

The one major result of France losing WWI (whether it be in 1914, 1915, etc.) would be the almost certain end of the Third French Republic. The Third Republic from its beginning had major opposition and was only lukewarmly accepted as "the government that divides us least". What would replace it is a toss up between a Fourth Republic reminiscent of OTL Fifth Republic, a military dictatorship or Neo-Boulangist state, a monarchy, or a revolutionary socialist or communist state. My thoughts are that Germany might support a socialist state or at least allow a socialist revolution to take place because the socialists would probably not seek revenge on Germany, but such a state is likely to be short-lived.

 

[Tank Cdr]

The one major result of France losing WWI (whether it be in 1914, 1915, etc.) would be the almost certain end of the Third French Republic. The Third Republic from its beginning had major opposition and was only lukewarmly accepted as "the government that divides us least". What would replace it is a toss up between a Fourth Republic reminiscent of OTL Fifth Republic, a military dictatorship or Neo-Boulangist state, a monarchy, or a revolutionary socialist or communist state. My thoughts are that Germany might support a socialist state or at least allow a socialist revolution to take place because the socialists would probably not seek revenge on Germany, but such a state is likely to be short-lived.

Why do you believe that a socialist state would be short lived? I do believe that Germany would support one, considering they allowed Lenin free passage into Russia.

 

[Rich Mullins]

Why do you believe that a socialist state would be short lived? I do believe that Germany would support one, considering they allowed Lenin free passage into Russia.

I don't think it would have enough popular support within France to survive for one thing. Plus, if such a regime is too revolutionary and radical, Great Britain, Italy, and even the Central Powers are likely to destroy it. Even if it isn't that radical, outside powers could still seek to destroy it and there's likely to be alot of infighting between the moderate socialists and the radical socialists that more conservative elements would take advantage of.

 

[Mikestone8]

Why do you believe that a socialist state would be short lived? I do believe that Germany would support one, considering they allowed Lenin free passage into Russia.

They did that as a war measure. Once they have won the war, they have no need to patronise such elements.

Indeed, the best thing to patronise is probably the status quo. Almost any other French regime, whether of left or right, probably gives Germany more problems rather than less.

 

[Rich Mullins]

Indeed, the best thing to patronise is probably the status quo. Almost any other French regime, whether of left or right, probably gives Germany more problems rather than less.

You have a point, but I still think the most likely scenario is that the Third Republic would end to be followed by a short-lived socialist state which would be followed by a more conservative government. Again, the more conservative government is a toss-up, but I think there's a good chance either the monarchy would be restored or a military dictatorship that at a later point restores the monarchy, a la Franco in Spain, would come to power. A Fourth Republic with a strong executive is also possible, but I see that as more of a long shot at that time considering that there would be a backlash against socialism and probably liberalism as well.

 

[Tank Cdr]

You have a point, but I still think the most likely scenario is that the Third Republic would end to be followed by a short-lived socialist state which would be followed by a more conservative government. Again, the more conservative government is a toss-up, but I think there's a good chance either the monarchy would be restored or a military dictatorship that at a later point restores the monarchy, a la Franco in Spain, would come to power. A Fourth Republic with a strong executive is also possible, but I see that as more of a long shot at that time considering that there would be a backlash against socialism and probably liberalism as well.

Perhaps a Franco like military strongman that later allies with Spain? Maybe with the goal of restoring both countries former glory?

 

[Rich Mullins]

Perhaps a Franco like military strongman that later allies with Spain? Maybe with the goal of restoring both countries former glory?

That sounds like a good idea, but why just ally with Spain? Why not Portugal and even Italy as well? In OTL, Portugal had two conservative dictators around the time of WWI (Pimenta de Castro and Sidonio Pais).

 

[Mikestone8]

Logistics prohibit a German victory in 1914 along the Marne.

Probably right in the sense that they can't end the war in 1914, though I can envisage them doing sufficiently better than OTL that they go on to win in 1915. For my money, that's the earliest possible. Given the general mood in 1914 I don't see the French (or indeed anyone else) giving in at all quickly.