Snake Featherston
Banned
I agree with that. The Germans can win at the earliest in 1915 if all goes right for them. 1914 as a victory is too much of a wank for Central Powers *and* Entente powers alike. Neither has the capability to pull it off.
France After World War I Loss
- Thread starter Tank Cdr
- Start date
I agree with that. The Germans can win at the earliest in 1915 if all goes right for them. 1914 as a victory is too much of a wank for Central Powers *and* Entente powers alike. Neither has the capability to pull it off.
If the French are the first to surrender, I would assume that Great Britain would have their Army removed by the terms of the peace treaty from France. So, how long would Britain continue the war? Also, how long would Russia continue the war as well? Plus with Germany concentrating on the Russians only, how many more Tannenburg type victories are their going to be for Germany?
About as long as it takes them to negotiate a good peace. Though its important to remember that in 1915. Britain will be negotiating from quite a position of power and the Russians still havent lost the territory they did IOTL.
Tannenberg-type curbstomps? None probably. The Germans will have an upper hand, but they wont wipe the floor with any Russian army.
I could see the Republic collapsing with a short lived Socialist government and then a white reaction like what happened in Hungary after the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. The conservative regime would probably be a proto-Vichy, but there wouldn't be any restoration of the monarchy. The Monarchists were all but discredited after Seize Mai in the 1880s, but even as early as 1873 their position already sucked: the National Assembly that founded the Republic was mostly so monarchist because of fusion ticket of monarchists (Legitimists and Orléanists) and conservative Republicans that ran on a pro-peace platform. much like the Party of Order in 1849. They sought the restore the monarchy through the assembly because any referendum on the subject would fail, and the army was Bonapartist and secondly Republican. This was in 1871. By 1915/1916, the army is a solidly Republican. I doubt the Orléanist pretender would accept a throne through a dictatorship; the Orléanists also tended to rally to the Republic once there was clear there would be no Restoration. The only other pretenders is the Carlist line, but they are even more moribund and defunct than they were in 1873 when Chambord proved instrasigent over the white flag.
You make a good case, but I still disagree.
For one thing, while you do make a good point about the weakness of the monarchists and monarchism, republicanism really wasn't that much stronger in our timeline. I would argue that the Third Republic stood so long not because of any great strength of support, but because there weren't really any better options. All three branches of monarchism had ruled and all three ended up removed from power. Plus, when the Legitamists and Orleanists had a chance to restore the monarchy after the fall of the Second Empire, they couldn't get their act together, so the Third Republic was created and survived because it was "the government that divides least". Even then, if Boulanger had launched a coup while he had the chance, there's a very good chance the republic would have fallen and he would have restored some form of monarchy, whether it be Bonaparist, Orleanist, or Legitimatist. My thought is France's republicanism was mostly skin deep at the time of WWI.
For another thing, in this timeline, France just experienced the trauma of losing for a second time to Germany, the trauma of the fall of the Third Republic (if we follow my suppositions), and the trauma of a socialist regime falling, and possibly the trauma of another invasion due to the socialist regime. That's going to cause a double, if not triple, backlash against republicanism, so I still think some form of monarchy will be restored even if it's just a regency (like Horthy's Hungary) or a de facto one (like Franco's Spain).
They did have their act together, though. The Assembly in 1871 had 689 members, and about 350 of them sat on the right (that is, the extreme right, the right, and then right-center), compared to 339 Leftist Deputies. For further simplicity, Legitimists tended to be extreme right and right, while Orléanists were right-center. Conservative Republicans sat on the left-center. So Monarchists dominated that initial assembly. They had a slim majority that would've allowed them to restore the monarchy. It wasn't because the Orléanists and Legitimists were fighting. Quite the opposite. The Count of Paris went to Frohsdorf and actually pledged to the cause of Chambord, and it was understood if Chambord was restored than the Count of Paris would be his heir. Chambord was the main issue: he dithered on the flag, and although in 1873 he declared that he rejected the "Phantom of the tithes, feudal rights, religious intolerance, persecution against our separated brethren… [and that he rejected] government of the priests, the dominance of the privileged classes," Thiers and Gambetta both succeeded in painting him as an ultra-reactionary. The Orléanists supported Chambord in 1871-1873 because they knew with his death (he was already in his 50s) that their candidate would become the next King of France.
I don't understand how Republicanism is only skin deep, considering by the next election in 1876 the monarchists (of all kinds, mind you) saw their share in the seats drop significantly, and the Assembly became dominated by the Republicans. The Monarchists had their shot in 1871-1873, and they missed it. The Monarchists won all their seats, not because the French people were geniunely monarchists, but because they ran on a pro-peace platform. Yes, the rural masses were conservative and the urban populace feared their votes would outswamp them. But I wouldn't say they were geniunely monarchist. After all, in the east, conservatism tended to manifest it's self not in electing a Legitimist deputy, but rather a conservative Republican.
Boulanger was also not so much a Monarchist as an opportunist. He courted all the Monarchists with promises of Restoration. But I'm fairly certain had he overthrown the Republic is would've merely placed himself at the head, with a government that did away with the weak executive and the strong Parliament. Boulangisme, after all (much like Gaullism) is a form of Bonapartism. He wasn't going to be a power behind the throne.
I see something other than another Republic or a return to Monarchy. If France lost WWI as we are discussing, both systems will be proven to have failed to protect France from the Germans. I see the rise of a totalitarian state, maybe facist, maybe communist. France has been humiliated by the Germans twice in a lifetime. I forsee upheaval and radical change.
You do have a point. It's more likely to be fascist than communist, though, if it's to survive long. I don't see France's neighbors allowing a communist state to last long. Also, there's probably also going to be alot of internal opposition in France as well. In the case of a fascist state, monarchy of some type could still potentially be restored to legitimate the fascist regime.
If they had their act together, the monarchy would have been restored, even if the throne had remained vacant for a while. Because the monarchy wasn't restored sooner, Orleanists and others who supported a return to monarchy had time to grow discontent and switch sides.
What I was getting at by saying French Republicanism was "mostly skin deep at the time of WWI" is that the French were not die hard republicans. Certainly, republicanism had become stronger over time, but the republic was still relatively fragile. There were many different opposition groups of varying strength: Socialists, Marxists, Orleanists, Legitamists, and Bonapartists. Also, the fact that the Third Republic was basically a parliamentary monarchy with a president instead of a king shows that, at that point, republicanism wasn't that deep.
As far as Boulange goes, you're right that he was an opportunist. But if he hadn't restored monarchy, even if the throne was left vacant, he would have lost basically all support and would not have lasted. So, I don't think he would have created an authoritarian republic or even a military dictatorship. However, what form of monarchy would come of his coup depends on many different unknowable factors. The various scenarios are the Legitamist, Orleanist, or Bonapartist made monarch with Boulanger as regent or prime minister, Boulanger leaving the throne vacant and declaring himself regent, Boulanger leaving the throne vacant and declaring himself regent and at a later point, declaring himself or having himself declared monarch, or Boulanger declaring himself monarch. The last scenario is again a scenario where I doubt he would last long due to losing almost all support.
No, I'm not saying that. What I'm trying to point out with that statement is that the French Third Republic was a substitute for a parliamentary monarchy. It had that particular structure because that's pretty much the structure the (proposed and almost) restored monarchy was expected to have.
In regards to France turning communist exactly how much of the general French population and how much of the French military were communist? Because from what I've heard, communism wasn't remotely popular in either group, or at least the military which is going to have a huge factor in the creation of a french communist state.
I've also heard some info on how during 1917 when France was out of money and literally on the verge of defeat (this was prior to US entry), the French general staff had plans to overthrow the government, blame the socialists for surrender and continue the war in the event of a French surrender.
Can anyone confirm/deny any of this?
I've also heard some info on how during 1917 when France was out of money and literally on the verge of defeat (this was prior to US entry), the French general staff had plans to overthrow the government, blame the socialists for surrender and continue the war in the event of a French surrender.
Can anyone confirm/deny any of this?
This might not be a best of all possible worlds but it wouldn't be an especially bad one either. No Bolshevik revolution. No war exhaustion after millions killed. No Hitler. Perhaps a strong man would arise in France, but nobody like Hitler because the French just aren't that crazy. I think the French would try to compensate by making North Africa a part of France with a majority French population. And maybe the overseas provinces idea will take root earlier re Martinique, New Caledonia, etc. Maybe the French would make a serious attempt to settle Kerguelen and make it a springboard for French control of a vast chunk of Antarctica.
Things could get nasty for the Algerian Muslims and I doubt in the long run the Frenchification of North Africa would succeed. It might, however, stimulate the Italians to try it in their portion of North Africa which had a much, much smaller indigenous population. There, it would succeed.
Things could get nasty for the Algerian Muslims and I doubt in the long run the Frenchification of North Africa would succeed. It might, however, stimulate the Italians to try it in their portion of North Africa which had a much, much smaller indigenous population. There, it would succeed.
You are assuming that France would retain any of their African possessions after their defeat. I see a possibility that France could turn on Italy, especially if they perceive Italy to be weak enough to defeat and/or bully around.
wolf_brother
Banned
> implying the Holocaust occurred because Germans are 'crazier' then Frenchmen
ಠ_ಠ
Eurofed
Banned
Apart from the blatant Germanophobe bias, are you aware that Nazism stole pretty much all of its racist ideology, apart from anti-semitism, from a Frenchman, that pre-WWI French society was just as antisemitic as the German one, and that when given the chance, French fascists turned out to be enthusiastic imitators of the German ones in racial policies ?
Snake Featherston
Banned
Hitler was the first German chancellor to bother connecting with the German people, took Germany from strength to strength culminating in it temporarily ruling most all of Europe. He was evil the whole time, sure, but they weren't crazy to follow him. Nor did he bewitch them. If he'd done what he did to Arabs or to blacks nobody would have cared.
Eurofed
Banned
I wonder if anybody has ever bothered to develop the "WI the Nazis had picked Arabs and Blacks instead of Slavs and Jews as their victims" PoD in a TL. I did the related "WI Hitler and Mussolini had gone Lebensraum on Slavs AND Arabs" as part of my Axis victory signature TL, but this is different. It is a bit more difficult to sell to Germans for obvious geopolitical reasons, but far from impossible, thanks to the natural resources and agricultural potential of Africa and the Middle East.
It would make for a wholly different WWII. Nazi Germany would still go after Poland for irredentistic reasons, but there would be no Barbarossa, a Nazi grand strategy wholly oriented on war to Britain and France, tight cooperation with fascist Italy from the beginning, perhaps even a Nazi-Soviet genuine alliance of convenience. You are right that regardless of the ultimate outcome of the war, the bloodthirsty deeds of the Nazifascists would have drawn much less revulsion from the 1940s Western public opinion.
Snake Featherston
Banned
And from the rest of 20th Century and 21st Century public opinion. Geographic reality forbids them from doing this bar an extraordinary amount of Stupid Virus affecting Allied leadership, the USSR gets a chance to sit back and let the rival variants of imperialism fight each other to death and wait for the best opportunity to intervene.
I figure the earliest a German/CP victory could come about in France would be late 1915, maybe by having the Second Battle of Champagne anticipated and turning it into a giant encirclement with the French losing a huge chunk of their army and Germany forcing a counterattack that leads to a Paris under siege by the end of 1915 with surrender just after the New Year in 1916. Germany has endured casualties but France is humiliated and broken.
Austria annexes Romania, Serbia, and Albania directly into the Empire and settles into a Federation that eventually is ripped in three - Austria proper with northwestern Italy, Austria, Czechloslovakia, and the Adriatic coastline, Hungary inclusive of Romania, Hungary, and Bosnia, and a rump Serbian state that tried to invade Hungary to no avail. The Austrian state grows so close to Germany that many anticipate annexation to the Empire while Hungary is a stronger though less sycophantic ally.
Belgium loses all land east of the Meuse and becomes a German satellite, with Germany potentially trying (or at least pondering) eventual annexation the territory in a few generations.
France loses Meurthe-et-Moselle, Meuse, Belfort, and Vosges while being made a client state to the new economic order in Europe (vague name for a German-run customs union). Germany picks up Morocco, Indochina, French Guyana, and lots of money in reparations, not nearly what Germany gets hit with at Versailles though.
Italy soon sees a German army on its frontier with France, causing it to immediately seek terms with the CP. Venetia becomes an Austrian state and Italy becomes a second-tier power and part of the new economic order in Europe.
Luxembourg becomes a state in the German government.
Poland is directly incorporated into Germany itself with the Poles continuing to endure cultural suppression but continuing to produce some of the finest scientists and researchers of the next generation, all of whom speak German though few are loyal to that Empire...
Russia accepts a devastating peace after Paris falls lest Russia face the unopposed weight of the German and Austrian armies. Germany picks up the Baltic states (merged into a satellite country) and a rump Ukraine is allowed independence (another satellite country). The Tsar is forced to accept a more powerful Duma and eventually becomes a constitutional monarchy that rapidly industrializes following democratic reforms
United Kingdom settles for essentially an understanding of naval balance and a non-interference policy on Ireland, India, and several other colonies. The UK does not have a base to operate from on the continent and will not gamble a major defeat or series of defeats when its colonies are on the verge of anarchy (Easter Rebellion) or secession attempts.
United States never fully exploits its potential but its ability to supply the Allies is not forgotten by the Germans, who proceed to make friends in Mexico and Argentina. It remains a quiet tiger that is underestimated for years to come...
Austria annexes Romania, Serbia, and Albania directly into the Empire and settles into a Federation that eventually is ripped in three - Austria proper with northwestern Italy, Austria, Czechloslovakia, and the Adriatic coastline, Hungary inclusive of Romania, Hungary, and Bosnia, and a rump Serbian state that tried to invade Hungary to no avail. The Austrian state grows so close to Germany that many anticipate annexation to the Empire while Hungary is a stronger though less sycophantic ally.
Belgium loses all land east of the Meuse and becomes a German satellite, with Germany potentially trying (or at least pondering) eventual annexation the territory in a few generations.
France loses Meurthe-et-Moselle, Meuse, Belfort, and Vosges while being made a client state to the new economic order in Europe (vague name for a German-run customs union). Germany picks up Morocco, Indochina, French Guyana, and lots of money in reparations, not nearly what Germany gets hit with at Versailles though.
Italy soon sees a German army on its frontier with France, causing it to immediately seek terms with the CP. Venetia becomes an Austrian state and Italy becomes a second-tier power and part of the new economic order in Europe.
Luxembourg becomes a state in the German government.
Poland is directly incorporated into Germany itself with the Poles continuing to endure cultural suppression but continuing to produce some of the finest scientists and researchers of the next generation, all of whom speak German though few are loyal to that Empire...
Russia accepts a devastating peace after Paris falls lest Russia face the unopposed weight of the German and Austrian armies. Germany picks up the Baltic states (merged into a satellite country) and a rump Ukraine is allowed independence (another satellite country). The Tsar is forced to accept a more powerful Duma and eventually becomes a constitutional monarchy that rapidly industrializes following democratic reforms
United Kingdom settles for essentially an understanding of naval balance and a non-interference policy on Ireland, India, and several other colonies. The UK does not have a base to operate from on the continent and will not gamble a major defeat or series of defeats when its colonies are on the verge of anarchy (Easter Rebellion) or secession attempts.
United States never fully exploits its potential but its ability to supply the Allies is not forgotten by the Germans, who proceed to make friends in Mexico and Argentina. It remains a quiet tiger that is underestimated for years to come...
Britain would not allow the Germans to take over any of the littoral of Mediterranean North Africa. No way.
Your idea that the French could turn on Italy is intriguing--but wouldn't the Italians make an alliance with the Kaiser to prevent this from happening? Or with the British?