AHC: France defeats Germany in a 1-on-1 war between 1872 & 1914?

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Can we arrange a plausible PoD after the Franco-Prussian war but before the Great War in which France and Germany fight each other again without the participation of additional powers?

Furthermore, can we have France win despite its lesser weight of population and industry?
 
Can we arrange a plausible PoD after the Franco-Prussian war but before the Great War in which France and Germany fight each other again without the participation of additional powers?

Furthermore, can we have France win despite its lesser weight of population and industry?

Around 1890 France had a modern military and Germany's general staff was old men who didn't like going into the field (because of age) and were mostly still around because Willhelm II had personal affection for them.
 
Can we arrange a plausible PoD after the Franco-Prussian war but before the Great War in which France and Germany fight each other again without the participation of additional powers?

Furthermore, can we have France win despite its lesser weight of population and industry?

The implausible part here isen't so much the France winning as a major war breaking out that dosen't draw in any other power. The Franco-Prussian War occured in a very unique set of conditions set up by equal measures Bismarkian under the table deal making, French intransigence, and limiting economic and political factors in the rest of the world that both allowed for the conflict to pop up over something so inanely minor on such short notice and the other powers lacking the iniative to react. Post 71', we enter the age of GB shaking off Isolationism, AH being able to actually afford to look outward into her immediate vicinity again, and Russia having gotten through the post-Crimean reforms. They're going to want to make sure their interests are secured in the outcome, either by mediating or intervention.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
The implausible part here isen't so much the France winning as a major war breaking out that dosen't draw in any other power. The Franco-Prussian War occured in a very unique set of conditions set up by equal measures Bismarkian under the table deal making, French intransigence, and limiting economic and political factors in the rest of the world that both allowed for the conflict to pop up over something so inanely minor on such short notice and the other powers lacking the iniative to react. Post 71', we enter the age of GB shaking off Isolationism, AH being able to actually afford to look outward into her immediate vicinity again, and Russia having gotten through the post-Crimean reforms. They're going to want to make sure their interests are secured in the outcome, either by mediating or intervention.

I get what you're saying, and I think mediation or third power statements of their interests are fairly likely. Intervention is not quite inevitable though. The other powers, as you point out, are more capable of intervening after 71', (more Russia and Austria and Italy rather than Britain for awhile I think) but the 19th century did see several wars with limited line-ups, and this continued all the way until 1914, thinking it over, we had the Crimean War, which was a big coalition war(on one side), but the next war had fewer participants, France and Piedmont versus Austria. Only two of those were "great powers" by any reasonable definition. Britain and Russia were out of it. Next war after that - Schleswig War, 2 great powers versus the non-power Denmark, with Britain, France and Russia out of it. Then Austria versus Prussia, with the major flank powers out of it again. Then Franco-Prussian, with Russia and Britain out of it.

Then Russo-Turkish - Still only two great power belligerents, Russians and Turks, with small Russian clients. Other powers definitely were interested and it affected diplomacy, but did not fight.

Then Russo-Japanese - other powers interested, but "holding the ring". Then Italo-Ottoman, with none of the European top 4 participating.

So even if its getting more and more difficult for France and Germany to fight without Britain and Russia getting into the fighting, I wouldn't call it implausible.

Note I didn't specify who the aggressor is. If it is France attacking Germany, foreign intervention by big outside powers is probably a bit less likely than if it is Germany attacking France.
 
The implausible part here isen't so much the France winning as a major war breaking out that dosen't draw in any other power. The Franco-Prussian War occured in a very unique set of conditions set up by equal measures Bismarkian under the table deal making, French intransigence, and limiting economic and political factors in the rest of the world that both allowed for the conflict to pop up over something so inanely minor on such short notice and the other powers lacking the iniative to react. Post 71', we enter the age of GB shaking off Isolationism, AH being able to actually afford to look outward into her immediate vicinity again, and Russia having gotten through the post-Crimean reforms. They're going to want to make sure their interests are secured in the outcome, either by mediating or intervention.

That's true but the key word is "interests". While it was probably in the British interests to avoid a major war in Europe it could do little to influence the events directly because this would be pretty much a land-locked conflict. In OTL when Germany was (at least in theory) considering a new war against France in the mid 1870's, the Brits influenced Alexander II and his Chancellor, Gorchakov, to exert some pressure upon Berlin on the French behalf (which resulted in the beginning of the cooling of the German-Russian relations). So, at least to some degree, situation depended on a confused nincompoop (Alexander II) and the head of the Russian diplomacy suffering from the age-related mental problems (a complicated combination of the obsession with the "European Concert", memory loss and Grandiose delusions about his own importance). Objectively, interests of the Russian Empire in such a war had been nonexistent: French Republic was neither an ally nor (yet) a source of the major investments into the Russian economy while, OTOH, as a "compensation", Bismark was ready to offer Russia free hand in the potential war against the Ottomans (in OTL war of 1877 - 78; not that Russia really needed it by any stretch of imagination), which in practical terms would mean keeping A-H out of the picture and support construction of the Russian Black Sea Fleet (even if the treaty of Paris was officially denounced by Russia in 1871 Gorchakov was resisting the restoration of the Black Sea Fleet not to offend the Brits).

So, if we assume that the war really happens (whatever the outcome) while Russia is unambiguously neutral (or rather neutral-friendly to Germany), then the Brits could do little besides sailing somewhere off the French and/or German shores and making the diplomatic noises which could be easily ignored. Russian position would probably prevent A-H from interfering and you have 1:1 scenario (of course, this is a highly simplified schema ;)).
 
You could, but it would be difficult, the reson fance whent to such great lengths to get great power allies (Austria first, then russia and lastly England) becuz German industry is both a lot lager then France and only getting bigger as time when on. There is a reason most people believe that had britain had not got involved in ww1 it would have ended in 1914 and even then it really took the US to to break the staile mate.
So a 1v1 mach could be created in which France could win but it would take a farly major pod (like napolion being reborn for fance and even then you would need a german comand staff worse then the shit show they had for ww1 )and is still implosable besides.
 
That's true but the key word is "interests". While it was probably in the British interests to avoid a major war in Europe it could do little to influence the events directly because this would be pretty much a land-locked conflict. In OTL when Germany was (at least in theory) considering a new war against France in the mid 1870's, the Brits influenced Alexander II and his Chancellor, Gorchakov, to exert some pressure upon Berlin on the French behalf (which resulted in the beginning of the cooling of the German-Russian relations). So, at least to some degree, situation depended on a confused nincompoop (Alexander II) and the head of the Russian diplomacy suffering from the age-related mental problems (a complicated combination of the obsession with the "European Concert", memory loss and Grandiose delusions about his own importance). Objectively, interests of the Russian Empire in such a war had been nonexistent: French Republic was neither an ally nor (yet) a source of the major investments into the Russian economy while, OTOH, as a "compensation", Bismark was ready to offer Russia free hand in the potential war against the Ottomans (in OTL war of 1877 - 78; not that Russia really needed it by any stretch of imagination), which in practical terms would mean keeping A-H out of the picture and support construction of the Russian Black Sea Fleet (even if the treaty of Paris was officially denounced by Russia in 1871 Gorchakov was resisting the restoration of the Black Sea Fleet not to offend the Brits).

So, if we assume that the war really happens (whatever the outcome) while Russia is unambiguously neutral (or rather neutral-friendly to Germany), then the Brits could do little besides sailing somewhere off the French and/or German shores and making the diplomatic noises which could be easily ignored. Russian position would probably prevent A-H from interfering and you have 1:1 scenario (of course, this is a highly simplified schema ;)).

Where is this idea that Alexander II was a confused nincompoop coming from?
 
It's possible if France can blockade the German importation of nitrates and last long enough for their supplies to dwindle down to nothing. The German government and military staff didn't really plan for a long war at any point, and as such didn't stockpile nitrates in quantities which would last for an extended period of time in a large industrial war. Germany can be knocked out of the war in less than a year without a supply of nitrates.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
It's possible if France can blockade the German importation of nitrates and last long enough for their supplies to dwindle down to nothing. The German government and military staff didn't really plan for a long war at any point, and as such didn't stockpile nitrates in quantities which would last for an extended period of time in a large industrial war. Germany can be knocked out of the war in less than a year without a supply of nitrates.

OK - so looking at the nitrate issue, I guess if France can freely import nitrates and Germany cannot the initial battles work out to be heavy firepower duels that cause ghastly casualties on both sides. Probably the first few months the Germans get the better of the exchanges. But if the French hold on for 6 months with levee en masse and mobilizing and deploying colonial troops, they can stay in the game. After that the ammo production limitations kick-in for German and its firepower reduces, giving France the upper hand, until it can advance into Alsace-Lorraine (and maybe even Rhineland), and seize them at a frightful cost in casualties on both sides?

How late can France execute a close blockade of Germany after 1872? And can they ever mount a distant blockade? What would make the French really capable of blocking nitrate reexport via neutral countries? Could France credibly threaten blockade of Scandinavia, the Low Countries, Italy, Austria and the Balkans to effectively block Germany off from resources?
 
Last edited:
It's possible if France can blockade the German importation of nitrates and last long enough for their supplies to dwindle down to nothing. The German government and military staff didn't really plan for a long war at any point, and as such didn't stockpile nitrates in quantities which would last for an extended period of time in a large industrial war. Germany can be knocked out of the war in less than a year without a supply of nitrates.

They can't. Germany will tranship in supplies via AH, the Nordic Countries, and Italy while working out alternatives, and unlike Britain France can't go around unilaterally blockading neutrals.
 
OK - so looking at the nitrate issue, I guess if France can freely import nitrates and Germany cannot the initial battles work out to be heavy firepower duels that cause ghastly casualties on both sides. Probably the first few months the Germans get the better of the exchanges. But if the French hold on for 6 months with levee en masse and mobilizing and deploying colonial troops, they can stay in the game. After that the ammo production limitations kick-in for German and its firepower reduces, giving France the upper hand, until it can advance into Alsace-Lorraine (and maybe even Rhineland), and seize them at a rightful cost in casualties on both sides?

How late can France execute a close blockade of Germany after 1872? And can they ever mount a distant blockade? What would make the French really capable of blocking nitrate reexport via neutral countries? Could France credibly threaten blockade of Scandinavia, the Low Countries, Italy, Austria and the Balkans to effective block Germany off from resources?

This only works if Russia, Austria, Scandinavia, Italy and the Low Countries all play ball all refuse to export to Germany.
 
What in his reign indicates that he was a nincompoop?

With a possible exception of Milutin's reform (which was needed but triggered uprising in Poland) pretty much everything else fits the Russian expression "tried to do good but it ended up as always": emancipation of the serfs, judicial reform, war of 1877/78, his personal affairs, mishandling of the revolutionary movement, PR. You name it and it was screwed up. He could not even arrange for his own security.
 
Top