Successful Boulangist coup 1889

Do you go down the route that he was a Republican using the Monarchists to get power, or a Monarchist using the Republicans to do the same.

Either way, he wanted to he a leader rather than a King. But the Monarchist backers might mean that he would need to install some sort of constitutional monarch on the throne and this meant Philippe, Count of Paris.

President Boulanger, and King Philippe VII, in other words. Might Boulanger have given himself some other title?
 

VVD0D95

Banned
Do you go down the route that he was a Republican using the Monarchists to get power, or a Monarchist using the Republicans to do the same.

Either way, he wanted to he a leader rather than a King. But the Monarchist backers might mean that he would need to install some sort of constitutional monarch on the throne and this meant Philippe, Count of Paris.

President Boulanger, and King Philippe VII, in other words. Might Boulanger have given himself some other title?
Don’t tbink he can be president if there’s a king over him
 

ebb2k98

Banned
Do you go down the route that he was a Republican using the Monarchists to get power, or a Monarchist using the Republicans to do the same.

Either way, he wanted to he a leader rather than a King. But the Monarchist backers might mean that he would need to install some sort of constitutional monarch on the throne and this meant Philippe, Count of Paris.

President Boulanger, and King Philippe VII, in other words. Might Boulanger have given himself some other title?
Maybe King Philippe VII and Prime Minister Boulanger would be the two dictators of France. Once this is achieved, Boulanger might build up the French army and reach an agreement with Russia in order to get revenge on the Germans.
 

Deleted member 109224

In an old thread, somebody by the username Titus_Pullo wrote the following, which seems fairly convincing to me. I bolded some choice bits.

I think we'd probably see a Constitutional Monarchy in France in which Boulanger is the all-powerful one and the monarch mostly a figurehead. Many Republicans were fine with this notion. A monarchist France would have an opening to cut a deal with Russia, since Russia wouldn't be as opposed to a Royal France compared to a Republican France. Diplomatically, this is a big plus for France at a time when Russo-German relations were getting testy.

Boulanger's title could be Prime Minister, it could be First Minister (like Richeleu and Mazarin), or perhaps it could be Marshal (as in Marshal of France).

War would likely happen in 1889. Either the Germans will go after France preemptively, or France will try to preempt the Germans. The Germans were absolutely terrified of the notion of a Boulanger regime and would take action ASAP. Based on the comparison of the French and German militaries (see below) I think France would win quite handily. They'd have Naval Supremacy, better organization, more heavy artillery, improved military infrastructure relative to 1870, and a superior/more modern general staff.

The author below envisions a big French-Danish-Russian ganging up on Germany. I'm not sure how plausible that is. Denmark had mostly resigned itself to its smaller size following its defeat by Germany, no? Maybe I'm wrong. If the French were to land on the German North Sea Coast, perhaps that would bring the Danes in. Denmark could reclaim Schleswig, but I do not think Holstein would be on the menu.

France could probably seize Alsace-Lorraine and the Rhineland south of the Moselle. I'm not sure if they'd really be able to get across the Rhineland.

Perhaps Russia would get opportunistic and see an opportunity to grab some Polish lands. However, I think if the Germans see the Russians mobilizing they'd try to cut a deal with Boulanger ASAP.

In 1889 there was also a military staredown in Samoa between the United States and Germany. The US could opportunistically join the French in attacking Germany. Alternatively, the Germans in Samoa might hear they're at war but make the wrong assumption of who they're at war with. Or the Germans abandon Samoa and the US seizes the whole archipelago. Or the Germans screw up in their movements and get fired upon by the Americans. There are lots of scenarios to think about.


At the time of the Boulanger Crisis, I believe had the Germans launched the preemptive war Waldersee favored should Boulanger actually come to power, I think the French would have won.

There was a window of time in the 1880s when France had the better army. So let's set the Second Franco-Prussian War in 1889. The ironic element in the story of Boulanger, who provided the most serious internal threat to the Third Republic in its history, is that he was promoted Minister of War on the basis that he was about the only republican general to be found in the French army; most of the others were monarchists. His subsequent reforms of the French army caused that window of opportunity when France had the better army in the 1880s and any war between France and Prussia within this time period meant that the mistakes of the 1870-71 war would not have been repeated.

Boulanger's appeal was fairly broad, though, as he came to embody French hopes for a successful war of revenge against Germany (in an extraordinary move, Bismarck even named him in a speech as the single greatest obstacle to amiable Franco-German relations. Boulangism rose at exactly the same time there was a serious deterioration in Russo-German relations. The fear was that a successful coup by Boulanger would restore the monarchy in France; while the Tsar would not cut a deal with republican France, he would not have such an aversion to monarchial France (thus Waldersee's call for a preemptive war against France in case of a successful coup by Boulanger). Even French republicans seemed inclined to accept a constitutional monarchy, with Boulanger as the strongman.

Of course, this all fell apart when Boulanger turned out to have feet of clay. Had he successfully seized the government, it is hard to see how Boulanger could have avoided a confrontation with Germany. Let's have Boulanger leading a sucessful revolt in April 1889. In OTL (Our Timeline) Boulanger failed to seize the opportunity and fled the country after the French government issued a warrant for his arrest on the charge of reasonous activities. In this timeline a constitutional monarchy is established with Boulanger as the real power behind the monarchy. Before the Germans could even attack, Boulanger launches a preemtive strike and immediately seizes Alsace-Lorraine, and pushes the Germans back who were caught completely unprepared, to their pre-1871 border. A relief force of 100,000 Germans are defeated at the Second Battle of Sedan andWaldersee himself is captured. By May of 1889 the French cross the border into Germany capturing the Rhineland and Westphalia. The French offensive encounters stiffer resistance as they try to cross the Rhine and are repelled back to the Rhineland. The war settles down to a daily exchange of artillery fire, cavarly and infantry skirmish as both sides lose the offensive momentum. By the winter of 1889 the war had taken on the semblance of trench warfare.

In the spring of 1890, Russia sensing a potential German collapse sends troops to the East Prussian border. Bismarck, ever the pragmatist, and realizing that his worst nightmare of having to fight a two- front war may be coming to pass, sues for peace rather than have to suffer total defeat in case of a two-front war, and be
made to accept an unconditional surrender.

In May of 1890 the Treaty of Metz is signed in which Germany cedes the Rhineland to France, except a small peace of North Rhine Westphalia. In addition Germany had to pay an indemnity of $2 billion dollars to France to be paid within the next four years.

The German navy hadn't yet attained the regional threat status around 1889, and the French navy would probably end up virtually being uncontested in the North Sea and defeat any German fleet that can be mustered against her. So we get a French naval victory at the Battle of the North Sea sometime in the fall of 1889 or spring of
1890. The French navy blockades Wilhelmshaven and commences a massive bombardment of German coastal areas. Meanwhile the Franco-Danish Army retakes Schleswig-Holstein and then proceeds on their march to Berlin. The Germans would probably have to divert troops from the Rhine to defend the city for the coming siege and the French army coming in from the Rhineland area encounters lighter resistance and takes Franfurt as well.

The war doesn't look good for Germany as she has never won a multi-front war in history. She may or may be able to defeat any further Franco-Danish offensives and delay a linkup between France's Rhineland army and the Franco-Danish army, but she'd just be prolonging the inevitable defeat. France can continue sending troops into
Schelswig Hostein because she controls the North Sea. So in any case we still get the Treaty of Metz in which Germany still cedes the Rhineland to France, but France gives up Hessen and North RhineWestphalia, Denmark gets back what she lost in 1864 Schleswig-Holstein, and Germany pays a 4 billion dollar indemnity to France.

The actual facts:
Post-1871, France underwent a remarkable military revival, as the politicans of the Third Republic had not yet turned against the army and the nation supported the army's rehabilitation. If war had broken out at the time of the Boulanger Crisis, there would have been more French infantry battalions and artillery batteries in the
field than the German army could muster AFTER mobilization, and the difference in the number of cavalry squadrons was closing (Germany had 465 to France's 385).

While there was little difference in the cavalry and artillery tactics of the French and the Germans, French infantry had the most progressive tactics of their time. They broke from company columns into smaller formations that assumed a broader, loose order front to survive defenders' fire. Additionally, in 1886, the French began to
rearm with the Lebel magazine rifle that had a rate of fire nearly twice that of the German M-71/84 Mauser.

There were a whole series of innovations in the French army that were not found anywhere else: state of the art observation baloons and tricycles for velocipedists of the messenger corps; gun cotton was replaced with cordite (a smokeless explosive) and melinite (a stable nitrogen compound) far superior to the unstable and highly volatile gun cotton employed in the German army. While the speed of mobilization was still lower than in the German army, the gap was not as great as you presume and it was closing, as all militaries in the wake of the German Wars of Unification realized its centrality to Prussia's accomplishment; rail capacity between Paris and the
fortresses on the eatsern frontier tripled in between 1877-86
. French reservists were to hold the fortresses, while the regular armies would flank the forts, employing a defensive strategy which would have been quite effective given German infantry tactics of the time (see below).

The French were only going to counter-attack after the Germans had bashed themselves against the fortesses, which German artillerists were pessimistic about breeching, especially after 1887, when the French fitted the forts between Verdun and Belfort with steel towers and reinforced concrete (and which, by the way, provided the French a huge advantage in heavy artillery-more below on this) and trenches of eastern France, proving they had digested the lessons of the Franco-Prussian War. Also, there was no Belgium option, as in 1914 - the French knew exactly where the Germans were going to strike. (this is the premise of the above about the French destroying and or capturing a force of 100,000 German reinforcements in 1889)

The notion that the fortress building program was drawing money away from the regular army is a faulty one; there is no evidence to support this. Also, one should not confuse the French reserves of the early Third Republic with those of the late Second Empire. Drawing upon the lessons of the Franco-Prussian War and the poor performance of the garde mobile, the law of 1872 addressed the quality of the reserves. Realizing that reserves were the cheapest way of maintaining a strong military, the law required that after five years active service, conscripts enter the reserve, where they would be required to do about two months service per year (past 30, reservists were required to provide a months service). There would be no shortage in the French army of NCOs if one included the reservists (it was only post-1890 that prejudice against the reserves became more prominent). Remember that revenge is an underlying factor behind this war, this ran strong within the French
army from the highest General down to the lowliest private, the prejudice that French troops would be less motivated than the German troops stems from hindsight to 1940, and not the late 1880s when there was a revival of French militarism and innovations comparable to the Napoleonic period.

In OTL they were itching for a war of revenge with Germany and combined with the improvements in the French army in the years following 1871 would have made for a deadly combination against a German army that had become complacent, more backward in its thinking. More on this below. Furthermore, given the Third Republic's mania for public education, the differences in schooling between the soldiers of both armies would not have been all that great by the late 1880s.

On the administrative side, there existed great divisions, surrounding the forcing out of Armold von Kameke from the War Ministry, which only served to make worse the bitter rivalries that had developed from the mid-1870s between the infantry, cavalry and artillery (and, in the latter case, within its own arm).

The German army of the 1870s-80s was mired in the past concerning its ideas when it came to the battlefield, which is why general trends cannot be projected from 1864-71 to the mid- to late- 1880s. The German army's history during this period was not a steady climb to ever increasing efficency - anything but. In fact, the greatest improvements in the German army came post-1906, not before.

Technopobic senior officers dominated all three branches, managing to write their positively atavistic doctrines into the regulations. Drawing the wrong lesson from St. Privat, the infantry was to attack in massed company and battalion columns because management wasdeemed easiest in such formations - of course, they also provided un-missable targets in the age of repeating rifles; compounding the problem, the Germans drew the wrong lessons from Mars-la-Tour, with the infantry adopting the three wave tactics of the previous century.

The artillery situation in the German army was equally dismal and very divided. The field artillery, still basking in the glory of Sedan (a situation which was unlikely to happen again) consumed virtually all the funding to the detriment of the heavy artillery. Thoughtful officers who pointed to the lesson of Plevna were simply disregarded or shunted off into perhaps the greatest dead end in the German army of the time - the heavy artillery, relegated to fortresses. The belief that the Germans would have enjoyed an advantage in heavy artillery at the time of Boulanger is a faulty one, given it was probably the most underfunded branch of the German army.

the Germans were living in the past - and many of them were accepting of this based upon a chimera. One German military writer, while noting that Germany's wealthy neighbors may have superior equipment, weapons, technical education, and an armor of fortresses ... their officer corps could not match Germany's in warlike intelligence, independence, initiative and moral strength - this clearly is a recipe for slaughter. German casualties likely would have been disastrously high in a war with France at the time of Boulanger, and not everyone in the German army was blind to this.

Von der Goltz, a thoughtful officer, observed the French maneuvers of 1878 for the General Staff and left impressed by how modern the French army appeared, compared to when he had last seen it in 1870. He mused that the tendency of the winner in a war to grow complacent has overtaken the German army and realized that what had succeeded in 1870 was unlikely to work again - the French army was more up to date than the German army; eight years later, French observers at the German manuevers came to exactly the same conclusion as von der Goltz had. Even Waldersee, who was the proponent of the preemptive strike against France should Boulanger stage a successful coup, admitted there were serious problems in the German army. There was an inclination to return to antiquated battle formations (the cavalry was perfecting Frederickian tactics) and, as he stated, the more distance there is between us and our last war, the more backward our judgement has become.

The French had a very good chance of defeating Germany at the time of the Boulanger Crisis. And the result of a Franco-Prussian War in 1889-90 would have more likely resulted in a resounding French victory.

Furthermore, The German army at the time of Boulanger was hardly an unbeatable one. At its senior uniformed level, it was a virtual gerontocracy, with 18 rather elderly corps commanders whom the aged Kaiser Wilhelm refused to retire out of personal affection. The average age was 64 but a few were in their 70s, the oldest being 76 (the youngest was 49); they largely were averse to field service ( for obvious reasons) and the French were well aware of this.
 
In an old thread, somebody by the username Titus_Pullo wrote the following, which seems fairly convincing to me. I bolded some choice bits.

I think we'd probably see a Constitutional Monarchy in France in which Boulanger is the all-powerful one and the monarch mostly a figurehead. Many Republicans were fine with this notion. A monarchist France would have an opening to cut a deal with Russia, since Russia wouldn't be as opposed to a Royal France compared to a Republican France. Diplomatically, this is a big plus for France at a time when Russo-German relations were getting testy.

Boulanger's title could be Prime Minister, it could be First Minister (like Richeleu and Mazarin), or perhaps it could be Marshal (as in Marshal of France).

War would likely happen in 1889. Either the Germans will go after France preemptively, or France will try to preempt the Germans. The Germans were absolutely terrified of the notion of a Boulanger regime and would take action ASAP. Based on the comparison of the French and German militaries (see below) I think France would win quite handily. They'd have Naval Supremacy, better organization, more heavy artillery, improved military infrastructure relative to 1870, and a superior/more modern general staff.

The author below envisions a big French-Danish-Russian ganging up on Germany. I'm not sure how plausible that is. Denmark had mostly resigned itself to its smaller size following its defeat by Germany, no? Maybe I'm wrong. If the French were to land on the German North Sea Coast, perhaps that would bring the Danes in. Denmark could reclaim Schleswig, but I do not think Holstein would be on the menu.

France could probably seize Alsace-Lorraine and the Rhineland south of the Moselle. I'm not sure if they'd really be able to get across the Rhineland.

Perhaps Russia would get opportunistic and see an opportunity to grab some Polish lands. However, I think if the Germans see the Russians mobilizing they'd try to cut a deal with Boulanger ASAP.

In 1889 there was also a military staredown in Samoa between the United States and Germany. The US could opportunistically join the French in attacking Germany. Alternatively, the Germans in Samoa might hear they're at war but make the wrong assumption of who they're at war with. Or the Germans abandon Samoa and the US seizes the whole archipelago. Or the Germans screw up in their movements and get fired upon by the Americans. There are lots of scenarios to think about.
Is there any possibility of a British intervention in such a war to maintain the balance of power? Considering how tetchy the UK was about revanchist Napoleon III, I would assume they’d be horrified at the French seizing the Rhineland.
 
In a war, assuming France emerges victorious, would German colonies be seized? Also any ideas on how France might be administrated? Frances industrial capacity at times in history WAS boosted by several periods, I feel like a resurgent France would also experience an economic boom.
 

Deleted member 109224

Is there any possibility of a British intervention in such a war to maintain the balance of power? Considering how tetchy the UK was about revanchist Napoleon III, I would assume they’d be horrified at the French seizing the Rhineland.

I imagine the British would try to at least be the ones hosting the peace conference in order to marginalize damage to the balance of power. The threat of British and perhaps Austrian entry would likely force the belligerent parties to the table. I also think Germany will start calling for a peace conference as soon as they notice Russian troops moving around east of Prussia.

Whether or not Denmark joins the war, I imagine they'd get an invite to the peace conference. The British could probably offer them Heligoland to take the British/German side in limiting how much France gets.

France cannot get all of the Rhineland, but at the least I imagine they are getting Saarland. I also don't think it'd be impractical for them to get Palatinate or all of the Southern Rhenish Triangle.

If France is sitting in the northern Rhineland, maybe the Germans are made to cede colonies in exchange for regaining North Rhineland.



In a war, assuming France emerges victorious, would German colonies be seized? Also any ideas on how France might be administrated? Frances industrial capacity at times in history WAS boosted by several periods, I feel like a resurgent France would also experience an economic boom.

German Colonies in 1889
  • German East Afrika (including Wituland and Jubaland)
  • German Kamerun
  • German Southwest Afrika
  • German Togoland
  • Marshall Islands
  • Nauru
  • German New Guinea (including North Solomon Islands)

I can see the French just occupying the bulk or all of Germany's overseas colonies. They'd have more men in the colonies and have a tougher Navy. Taking Kamerun and Togoland would be a matter of walking.


With regards to industry, France has reclaimed Alsace-Lorraine, taken the Saarland at the least, and the southern Rhineland at the most. The coal of Saarland and the Iron of Lorraine (both the reclaimed German bit and the iron mines of Briey-Longwy) are in one country and very approximate to one another... possibly creating a French answer to the German Ruhr. I expect a much more industrious France due to Saarland alone. Having the Rhenish Triangle would be a perk, as France has more agricultural space and more defensive buffer for its industry.

Meanwhile more industry = more urbanization = higher short-term fertility rates (if one goes off the assumption that it was French land inheritance policies that dampened population growth). Plus I imagine France will want to bring in workers to settle in the German lands they've claimed, to work in their bigger industrial center, and to work in the mines of Saarland.

OTL the lands France has claimed in this war (Alsace-Lorraine, Saarland, southern Rhineland) had about 5 million people come 1910. Here France will have 44 million people (not accounting for immigration and increased fertility). German had 56.4, but here it would have 51.4 (or less if you subtract Schleswig).
 
In an old thread, somebody by the username Titus_Pullo wrote the following, which seems fairly convincing to me. I bolded some choice bits.

I think we'd probably see a Constitutional Monarchy in France in which Boulanger is the all-powerful one and the monarch mostly a figurehead. Many Republicans were fine with this notion. A monarchist France would have an opening to cut a deal with Russia, since Russia wouldn't be as opposed to a Royal France compared to a Republican France. Diplomatically, this is a big plus for France at a time when Russo-German relations were getting testy.

Boulanger's title could be Prime Minister, it could be First Minister (like Richeleu and Mazarin), or perhaps it could be Marshal (as in Marshal of France).

War would likely happen in 1889. Either the Germans will go after France preemptively, or France will try to preempt the Germans. The Germans were absolutely terrified of the notion of a Boulanger regime and would take action ASAP. Based on the comparison of the French and German militaries (see below) I think France would win quite handily. They'd have Naval Supremacy, better organization, more heavy artillery, improved military infrastructure relative to 1870, and a superior/more modern general staff.

The author below envisions a big French-Danish-Russian ganging up on Germany. I'm not sure how plausible that is. Denmark had mostly resigned itself to its smaller size following its defeat by Germany, no? Maybe I'm wrong. If the French were to land on the German North Sea Coast, perhaps that would bring the Danes in. Denmark could reclaim Schleswig, but I do not think Holstein would be on the menu.

France could probably seize Alsace-Lorraine and the Rhineland south of the Moselle. I'm not sure if they'd really be able to get across the Rhineland.

Perhaps Russia would get opportunistic and see an opportunity to grab some Polish lands. However, I think if the Germans see the Russians mobilizing they'd try to cut a deal with Boulanger ASAP.

In 1889 there was also a military staredown in Samoa between the United States and Germany. The US could opportunistically join the French in attacking Germany. Alternatively, the Germans in Samoa might hear they're at war but make the wrong assumption of who they're at war with. Or the Germans abandon Samoa and the US seizes the whole archipelago. Or the Germans screw up in their movements and get fired upon by the Americans. There are lots of scenarios to think about.

You might be right about the state of the militaries but I have my doubts - especially in the case of France managing to launch a completly surprise attack.

But the diplomatic situation is pictured completly wrong - for 1 all the alliances of Germany are ignored for example as he is attacked in your scenario. That would bring Austria and Italy in the war on the side of Germany. But even if Germany would be the agressor its hard to see that a Russian attack wouldnt bring in at least Austria. It also completly ignores Britain who at this point is likely more sympathetic to Germany than France (colonial fonflicts and the french being the main naval rivals at the time, also tradition) and might not be willing to tolerate to many french gains.

I also think that a monarchist France would be much less stable than a republican France. Reasons:
1. Paris is the heart of France and though the majority is monarchist Paris is not - see the Empire for what you can expect.
2. Though the majority is monarchist it was different kind of monarchist - meaning they couldnt agree on which family should rule from the 3 candidates. The supporters of each preferred the republic to a monarchy ruled by the 'wrong' family which actually lent stability to the republic.

This might be owercome by a war against the hated germans and a victory might legitimize the new regime - but its still hard to see how this could be a surprise attack.
 

Deleted member 109224

You might be right about the state of the militaries but I have my doubts - especially in the case of France managing to launch a completly surprise attack.

But the diplomatic situation is pictured completly wrong - for 1 all the alliances of Germany are ignored for example as he is attacked in your scenario. That would bring Austria and Italy in the war on the side of Germany. But even if Germany would be the agressor its hard to see that a Russian attack wouldnt bring in at least Austria. It also completly ignores Britain who at this point is likely more sympathetic to Germany than France (colonial fonflicts and the french being the main naval rivals at the time, also tradition) and might not be willing to tolerate to many french gains.

I also think that a monarchist France would be much less stable than a republican France. Reasons:
1. Paris is the heart of France and though the majority is monarchist Paris is not - see the Empire for what you can expect.
2. Though the majority is monarchist it was different kind of monarchist - meaning they couldnt agree on which family should rule from the 3 candidates. The supporters of each preferred the republic to a monarchy ruled by the 'wrong' family which actually lent stability to the republic.

This might be owercome by a war against the hated germans and a victory might legitimize the new regime - but its still hard to see how this could be a surprise attack.


You're probably right, for the most part.

Boulanger wouldn't just have Monarchist support, he'd have Republican support. A great many Republicans were fine with a constitutional monarchy - and I assume this would be especially true if Boulanger is the power behind (or, more accurately, in front of) the throne. Looking at Wikipedia, in 1888 Boulanger met with Jerome Napoleon Bonaparte II in Switzerland - the Bonapartists (or at least the American Bonapartes) proceeded to support Boulanger. Furthermore, the Comte de Paris had also encouraged his supporters to back Boulanger. Boulanger thus would have the Bonapartists, the Orleanists, and a large chunk of the Republicans behind him.
How this would translate into a government, I am not sure. Perhaps the House of Orleans gets the throne, but the ban on Bonapartes being in France is lifted and the family is allowed to involve themselves in French politics so long as they don't try to revive the Empire.​

You are correct on the alliances. I did not think of that sufficiently. I'm really not sure who would start the conflict, but my inclination is that Germany would mobilize as soon as Boulanger takes power - either to take action against France or to prepare for French action. In light of that, I think Britain will force a peace conference should it become apparent that Russia, Austria, Italy, or some combination thereof could/would get involved. Considering the ongoing Samoa Crisis, perhaps even the Americans would be invited to a peace conference.
I think it'd be a fait accompli by the time of any conference that Alsace-Lorraine is again French. The question then becomes - what of any other territory France manages to seize? Maybe a reversion to the borders of 1814, with France regaining Saarlouis and Landau, could occur? I think the French would desire a boundary on the Saar-Nahe Hills or the Moselle, but they could perhaps be forced to settle for less. If France occupies too much territory for Britain and Co to tolerate, I'm thinking France gets German colonial territory in lieu of lands in Europe.​
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Deleted member 109224

Separate point: What would immigration be like under Boulanger?

In @EdT's Fight and Be Right Boulanger has a program in which France pretty much has open borders to European and Eastern Christian immigration so that France could balance Germany in terms of population. Was this something Boulanger had contemplated OTL (either the specific policy idea or the general concern about something needing to be done about population imbalance) or was just something EdT came up with?
 
France encouraged immigration IOTL for exactly the same reason. A France with Alsace-Lorraine and possibly other industrial regions will probably have higher immigration though.
 
Perhaps Boulanger appoints himself regent of the Kingdom of France similarly to some fascistic or similar movements in the twentieth century.
 
He could be Marshal General of France and prime minister so as to exercise control over military and civilian affairs. If he doesn't consolidate his power in one office it'd be interesting to see what his successors do.
 
Do you go down the route that he was a Republican using the Monarchists to get power, or a Monarchist using the Republicans to do the same.

Either way, he wanted to he a leader rather than a King. But the Monarchist backers might mean that he would need to install some sort of constitutional monarch on the throne and this meant Philippe, Count of Paris.

President Boulanger, and King Philippe VII, in other words. Might Boulanger have given himself some other title?

Why? Really? He could make sure that the monarch was all but a figurehead, who might grow in his role after Boulanger himself dies, but before that not likely.
 
Boulanger as a French prime minister (or "regent" a là Franco in Spain) and Kaiser Wilhelm II in Germany... this could be highly volatile.
 
Boulanger as a French prime minister (or "regent" a là Franco in Spain) and Kaiser Wilhelm II in Germany... this could be highly volatile.
Bismarck in an alt 1889:
ai.png
 
I too am in the 'Germany would not be alone' camp. They would definitely back down and if necessary cede their interests in Samoa to the USA to guarantee their neutrality. Austria would definitely back the Germans against the tsar, if not be able to help against France. The UK would likely start off playing friendly neutral towards the Germans, but if British merchant ships start getting interdicted or sunk, the RN may well come out to play and make sure the MN has a bad day or ten.
 
What will Italy do? They stand to gain territory if they side with either Germany or France, if Austria-Hungary gets involved.

If France wins how will that affect military developments?
 
Top