A Demand Too Far-Franco-Prussian War Alt End

Edit: Aaaannnd I meant to put this in the Pre-1900...Mod help please?

So following the major defeat of France, their were two views on demands to the French government. On one hand we have Bismarck who wanted to simply defeat France, get reparations, and not really do alot of damage to France. On the other hand we have several members of the Prussian Military Leadership who wanted to totally occupy northern France and attempt to utterly take it out of the game of world affairs. It was only though Bismarck's politicing that his proposal came to be.

What would have happened if the Prussian Military had rejected Bismarck and gone with this occupation of France>? Most likely the war would have alarmed several neighboring powers...
 
Edit: Aaaannnd I meant to put this in the Pre-1900...Mod help please?

So following the major defeat of France, their were two views on demands to the French government. On one hand we have Bismarck who wanted to simply defeat France, get reparations, and not really do alot of damage to France. On the other hand we have several members of the Prussian Military Leadership who wanted to totally occupy northern France and attempt to utterly take it out of the game of world affairs. It was only though Bismarck's politicing that his proposal came to be.

What would have happened if the Prussian Military had rejected Bismarck and gone with this occupation of France>? Most likely the war would have alarmed several neighboring powers...

OTL, Bismarck ideas were rejected as :

- parts of France were occupied until war reparations were paid, last german troops evacuated France in september 1873 so more than 2 and half years after the treaty of peace,

- parts of France were annexed as Alsace and Moselle become German,

If the treaty of peace of january - february 1871 will be harsher for France, it will not be accepted by the French parliament, and war will continue. 1/3 of the Parliament voted against the peace in february 1871...

It will be become very quickly a guerrilla war as french Francs-Tireurs will become more active and of course Germans will answer with their own methods of pacifying rebellious civilians by hostages taking and killings.

And if Paris don't surrender in January 1871 after 5 months of siege, the city will be bombarded for punishment of its stuborness and taken by assault. The parisian population will resist as during the Commune and probably the Prussian will kill several thousands civilians more than the french government troops during the Commune.
 
Last edited:
What Intosh said.

A large-scale occupation would in effect be a vicious circle of violence (Francs-Tireurs take potshots, Germans line up hostages and kill them, that prompts further Francs-Tireurs attacks). The cost of occupation will rise up, which means the reparations slapped on France will rise even more, which in effect will result in looting writ large.
 
Last edited:
Large scale occupation will definitely lead to guerilla warfare. But I think the Germans could get through with more demands - note that I do not say that it would benefit them. Belfort and Longwy-Briey may be added, as could some colonial outposts in Africa - I doubt that Britain would tolerate much more.

The only chance to weaken France even more would be if Italy joins the war, maybe annexing Nice, Savoy and Corsica and occupying parts of Southern France for 2 years.

In any case, any harsher peace treaty has the danger of other European powers stepping in to "save" France.
 
The only chance to weaken France even more would be if Italy joins the war, maybe annexing Nice, Savoy and Corsica and occupying parts of Southern France for 2 years.

The problem for both Italy and France in a war against each other is just to cross the Alps... The Alps on these border are the hightest mountains in Europe...

And if the other side don't want you to cross the Alps even by a small military presence, it will be very difficult for you...

It was demonstrated in June 1940 by french Alpine troops against the Italians, and in 1944-1945 by italian and german mountains troops against the French and the Americans. In both case, the defenders weren't in the best military situation.

Also the lack of mobility of the austro-italian front in 1915-1918 or the Italian campaign 1943-1945 show how it is difficult to fight in mountainous terrain.

One more argument, before the building of the Mont Blanc tunnel in the 60's, it was impossible to cross during severals months of winter the border between France and Italy in the Mont Blanc region... It was the main reason why France never try to annex the Val d'Aoste region even if it was a french speaking region...

In military history, one of the most famous achievements was to simply march an army across the Alps into northern Italy. Hannibal did it during the Second Punic War ; French armies did it severals times during the Italians Wars ; Napoleon did it in 1800. I don't think, it was be possible for the italians troops in 1870-1871, or even in 1914.


To take Corsica in 1870-1871, you need to invade it and take it.

- First it is difficult, because french fleet was severals times more powerful than italian fleet.

- Second is nearly impossible as Corsicans already show that it is difficult to take all the island without their consent. At best, the campaign will be very long and bloody. And there is no love among corsicans for the italians.


And OTL history show that italian opinion was more in french favor than german, as Garibaldi was able to form a voluntary corps of italians fighting for the French in 1870-1871...


Italian intervention both in 1870-1871 or in 1914 against France is an old fantasm of some posters on this forum but in both case, the geography of the Alps make this war nearly impossible, not counting the favorable opinion of the French among italian population both in 1870-1871 and in 1914.
 
Last edited:
Top