AH challenge - get US to intervene in the Franco - Prussian war

[oudi14]

3 times over a period of about 70 years, there ocurred, in western Europe, a great tribal war between the same opponents; France and Germany. The outcome of these conflicts clearly favoured the Germans. The score was 0-1-2 in their favour. For France, no wins, one tie -1914, and two losses, 1870 and 1940. Now along came the doughboys in 1918 and saved the day for France, and their sons returned in 1944 to pull the fat out of the fire again. Of course the Brits, Canucks et al did their share also, but without those millions of Americans, the German army probably couldn't have been dislodged.
Now, how can a situation arise, to allow the US in 1870-71 to do the same thing, or at least try. Of couse the nation was exhausted after the civil war, but could it have done anything to help France? Maybe allow ex-CSA soldiers to join in the ranks of the AEF? Could any such force be sufficient to defeat the Prussians. What US [or ex CS] general could have matched the skill of Von Moltke [Lee was dead by now] How would the Springfields/Spencers/Henrys that they would be carrying by now, as opposed to the muzzle loaders of the ACW, fare against the Dreyse rifles of the Germans?
Thoughts, anyone?

 

[Roberto]

I don't think that the US could really afford to get involved in an overseas war for a while, especially so soon after the ACW.

 

[Bear Flag Oligarch]

Who says they'll intervene on France's side?

 

[Philip]

The war lasted less than one year. I doubt that the US could decide to act, organize, and deploy in that amount of time. The effects of ACW and the resources needed for the Western expansion make the intervention just about impossible.

 

[oudi14]

Who says they'll intervene on France's side?

If they had intervened at all, I'm sure it would have been to help France. Remember the ARW, when the French helped them. Some no doubt believed that they 'owed one' to the French. And I don't disregard the fact that there were a huge number of German immigrants in the US by then. But their grandsons took up arms in 1918 without much grumbling about having to fight their German cousins.

 

[Blue Max]

I think for this to happen, you need France to have dorked around in the ACW. What might be possible is the USA acting against France's puppet leader in Mexico. If the Mexicans lose on Cinco De Mayo Mexico might become a short lived royalist vassal of France--a situation that's not cool with the USA. Given that France is going to be distracted with Prussia, the time to act would be then, and the USA probably would have gone to war in this case to safeguard their southern border.

 

[Zyzzyva]

I think for this to happen, you need France to have dorked around in the ACW. What might be possible is the USA acting against France's puppet leader in Mexico. If the Mexicans lose on Cinco De Mayo Mexico might become a short lived royalist vassal of France--a situation that's not cool with the USA. Given that France is going to be distracted with Prussia, the time to act would be then, and the USA probably would have gone to war in this case to safeguard their southern border.

There you go! If you have the States declare war on Mexico and its mommy France, than they're (technically) involved in the war. That's probably the closest you're going to get without an unrecognizable WW0 Franco-Prussian war, though.

 

[dummnutzer]

"From Gravelotte to Sedan." by Philip H. Sheridan shows some serious dislike of Napoleon III and a firm belief in a German victory. Just read the conversation between Grant and Sheridan.

The US, having pushed France out of Mexico, aids said nation against proto-Germany, that has literally no interests in the New World?

There is the logistical question of quickly fielding a volunteer army and shipping it to Europe before the war is over.

 

[Chengar Qordath]

I'd have to say that between the French adventure in Mexico and their efforts to help the Confederacy during the ACW if the US were to get involved in the Franco-Prussian war at all it would be most likely not be on the French side.

Of course, as others have pointed out the fact that the war went so quickly in OTL probably means the US would not be able to make a significant impact either way; by the time an army could be raised, supplied, and shipped to Europe the war would already be over.

 

[Dave Howery]

Could any such force be sufficient to defeat the Prussians. What US [or ex CS] general could have matched the skill of Von Moltke [Lee was dead by now] How would the Springfields/Spencers/Henrys that they would be carrying by now, as opposed to the muzzle loaders of the ACW, fare against the Dreyse rifles of the Germans?
Thoughts, anyone?

if the US could even get a force over there in time, I think we'd do badly... this time frame is not the glory time for the US armed forces... in general, our weapons and tactics were behind those of Europe, and Germany in particular... it wasn't until after the Spanish American war that the US really got serious about arming itself...

 

[Blue Max]

I think the USA making a "Police Action" into Mexico and engaging small French Forces in the Country is probably the most likely way this could happen. The Alternate choices require something like France supporting the CSA--which is borderline ASB (Indeed, the CSA winning at all is a shade better than ASB in General).

The US doesn't have the logistics or the reasons to intervene against France or Germany otherwise, and what would the reasons for it be? The USA would be recovering from the Civil War, and short a major violation of the Monroe Doctrine there is no grounds for a fight.

 

[Fiver]

I'd have to say that between the French adventure in Mexico and their efforts to help the Confederacy during the ACW if the US were to get involved in the Franco-Prussian war at all it would be most likely not be on the French side.

Of course, as others have pointed out the fact that the war went so quickly in OTL probably means the US would not be able to make a significant impact either way; by the time an army could be raised, supplied, and shipped to Europe the war would already be over.

I'd expect US contributions to be confined to seizing French possessions in the Caribbean and perhaps if things go very well an invasion of French Guiana.

 

[Chengar Qordath]

I'd expect US contributions to be confined to seizing French possessions in the Caribbean and perhaps if things go very well an invasion of French Guiana.

Sounds about right to me; the French aren't likely to have much in the way of military force in the Carribean, and the logistics for an invasion there are much simpler for the US. What would the US end up doing with their newly acquired islands?

 

[strangeland]

If it becomes a world war of Germany and Britain vs France and Russia, the US might invade Canada to support the Franco-Russian coalition (the US was on good terms with Russia in this period)

 

[Chengar Qordath]

If it becomes a world war of Germany and Britain vs France and Russia, the US might invade Canada to support the Franco-Russian coalition (the US was on good terms with Russia in this period)

Two questions...

1) Why would Russia or Britain get involved? Russia is still desperately modernizing and reforming after the Crimean War and has good relations with Prussia; they're also none too fond of Napoleon III.

Britain has no real reason to get involved against the French either; I could see British entry if the French were driving the Prussians back and threatened to destroy the balance of power, but that seems unlikely.

Denmark and Austria-Hungary both had reasons to resent Prussia as they had recently lost wars to them, but for that very reason neither state was eager to try again. Austria-Hungary is still recovering from the effects of it's recent name change, and Denmark only needs to look at a map to figure out why war with Prussia is a bad idea.

Italy actually had a fair amount of popular support for Prussia, due to their alliance in the war against Austria-Hungary, French protection of the rump Papal States, and irredentist claims against France. However, after their poor showing against Austria four years ago the Italian government was none too eager for a war, and as I recall Prussia actually asked them to stay neutral.

2) Even if Russia and Britain (or anyone else for that matter) got involved in the Franco-Prussian war, why would that make the US enter? The US is still fairly isolationist in this time period, so unless one side or the other starts damaging their interests in some way they would be inclined to just ignore the Europeans and focus on internal affairs and reconstruction.

 

[corourke]

If Prussia tried to seize French Guyana, you could see the US getting involved that way.

 

[Chengar Qordath]

If Prussia tried to seize French Guyana, you could see the US getting involved that way.

Well, first off I don't see how or why Prussia would really want French Guyana; they only have a small brown-water fleet that was no match for the medium-sized French navy and couldn't project power all the way to the Carribean in any case. Also, Bismarck was against any colonial ventures as he felt they were a waste of resources that could be better used on the European continent.

Also, the no-transfer principle in the Monroe Doctrine wasn't around in the 1870 (as I recall it wasn't stated until later in Grant's presidency), and in any case the no-transfer part of the Doctrine would have a hard time building up much public or international support. If Grant tries to bring the US into a war with Prussia over the transfer of a European colony while the country is still recovering from the ACW he's going to have no luck Congress to approve a declaration of war.

 

[robertp6165]

if the US could even get a force over there in time, I think we'd do badly... this time frame is not the glory time for the US armed forces... in general, our weapons and tactics were behind those of Europe, and Germany in particular... it wasn't until after the Spanish American war that the US really got serious about arming itself...

As far as the army goes, that's not really true. The trapdoor Springfield would have done well against the Dreyse (or the Chassepot, for that matter), and of course, there is the possibility that the Army might be able to bring the Spencer Rifle into mass production if the war goes on long enough (which, if America is involved, it most likely will). The Spencer would have totally outclassed the arms of both Germany and France at that time, with more than triple the rate of fire. And tactically, the U.S. army was probably ahead of it's time in 1870, having digested the lessons of the Civil War. France and particularly Prussia had not done so...it was von Molkte, remember, who dismissed the Civil War as a brawl fought by two mobs chasing each other around the countryside, and Prussia launched several very costly close-order charges during the war which clearly demonstrated that they had not studied the Civil War or adjusted their tactics accordingly. Where the U.S. would have suffered is that most of it's army would have been newly raised and trained recruits and therefore, the army would not have operated with top efficiency for some time.

We would, as always, have had a lag-time while we filled up our ranks with volunteers, trained and equipped them. So we probably couldn't have intervened effectively for a year, possibly more (although the fact that there is a large pool of Civil War veterans around to draw from will shorten the training time needed considerably, so you might see effective American intervention in less than 6 months). So the war might very well be over by then (you need a POD to keep France in the war longer).

Our navy was a joke at that time...we were the only Western power still using wooden warships in any numbers by 1870, having scrapped our ironclads after the Civil War. If we entered on Prussia's side, the French navy would have severely punished us and could probably have prevented us from effectively intervening by preventing us from landing troops in Europe. The Prussians had no real navy to speak of, however, so if we enter on France's side, the French Navy can protect our convoys as they cross the Atlantic.

Now, how can a situation arise, to allow the US in 1870-71 to do the same thing, or at least try.

You would need at least 2 points of departure.

--First, a change in French behavior during the Civil War. Nappy III has an attack of good sense and does not get involved in Mexico. He also ardently supports the Union in the Civil War. Therefore relations between the U.S. and France are much better in 1870. The French military is also in somewhat better shape, so France can resist a bit longer than in OTL, allowing the U.S. time to intervene.

--Second, a provocation by Prussia. Perhaps one or more Prussian commerce raiders get loose and start preying on U.S. shipping in the early months of the war. The U.S. goes to war to protect "freedom of the seas." Neither of these possibilities would be unprecedented...Prussia (as the leader of Germany) did use commerce raiders in World War I. And the U.S. has gone to war (both officially and unofficially) on more than one occasion to protect "freedom of the seas" (France 1798, Barbary Pirates early 1800s, Britain 1812).

 

[zoomar]

Interesting that the original poster presumed US intervention on France's side, but most of the respondents believe that, if the US did intervene, it would be more likely to intervene against France. This is a sentiment I agree with.

But what would it take to have the USA come to the defense of Napoleon III?

 

[robertp6165]

Interesting that the original poster presumed US intervention on France's side, but most of the respondents believe that, if the US did intervene, it would be more likely to intervene against France. This is a sentiment I agree with.

But what would it take to have the USA come to the defense of Napoleon III?

See my edited post above.