AHC: Franco-German alliance by 1880

Having been around for the better part of two years, I have yet to see a single timeline where France and a united Germany have gotten along. Now I can see why, both are strong when united and border each other, creating a predisposition to tension and conflicting interests. So, I propose a challenge: have France and a united Germany be allies, great European powers, and not be puppets by 1880. They can have as much fighting as you want, but they have to be on the same side in 1880.
Bonus points if they are actually friendly rather than swallowing pride to defeat someone else.
 
Well, an issue is the fact there was no Germany prior to 1870 and there can be no alliance after that.

Before the war, France was actually rather friendly with Bavaria and Austria, weren't they?

Say, Sadowa gets another way, the 1866 war lasts longer, allowing time for France to mobilise and attack Prussia from the West. Germany gets a pseudo-unification under the head of Austria/Bavaria.

Such a Germany would be fairly friendly to France
 
Well, an issue is the fact there was no Germany prior to 1870 and there can be no alliance after that.

It doesn't have to be the OTL Germany, just a unified one.

Before the war, France was actually rather friendly with Bavaria and Austria, weren't they?

Say, Sadowa gets another way, the 1866 war lasts longer, allowing time for France to mobilise and attack Prussia from the West. Germany gets a pseudo-unification under the head of Austria/Bavaria.

Such a Germany would be fairly friendly to France

I have a feeling that this Germany would be created only if France has heavy influence, but I guess it works.
 
Well, an issue is the fact there was no Germany prior to 1870 and there can be no alliance after that.

Before the war, France was actually rather friendly with Bavaria and Austria, weren't they?

Say, Sadowa gets another way, the 1866 war lasts longer, allowing time for France to mobilise and attack Prussia from the West. Germany gets a pseudo-unification under the head of Austria/Bavaria.

Such a Germany would be fairly friendly to France
Impossible, the submition of all Prussia would probably be opposed by Russia and Italy and the UK would also not be for it given they don´t have to choose between it and OTL Germany.

Though I think it´s possible that Saxony would gain some pre Napoleon territory and that some border regions would go to the smaller states and France(Saarland in some form probably).

Also it wouldn´t unify, why would it? Nobody in Austria wanted it and surely nobody in the other 3 kingdoms ever thought about it given it was what they were fighting against.

Also no, France fought for Italy against Austria just a decade ago, I wouldn´t call it friendly relation, just not hostile.
 
The Habsburgs were against the German Unification, since it meant giving up a lot of their non-German dynastic holdings (Hungary), should they win the Brother's War they'll simply restore the German Confederation and that is.
 
The only solution is to have a very different war in 1871. The balance is tricky. The 1870 war is needed for Germany to exist in OTL form but the 1871 treaty destroyed any possibility of alliance between France and Germany for a long time.

If the war is still a german victory but a narrow one and the treaty does not include any territory annexion in France mainland (colonies are OK and were indeed proposed by the french OTL) except symbolic ones (e.g. full german authority on the Rhine; Fleckenstein Castle - but not village - becomes German... etc), this is a possibility.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
The only solution is to have a very different war in 1871. The balance is tricky. The 1870 war is needed for Germany to exist in OTL form but the 1871 treaty destroyed any possibility of alliance between France and Germany for a long time.

If the war is still a german victory but a narrow one and the treaty does not include any territory annexion in France mainland (colonies are OK and were indeed proposed by the french OTL) except symbolic ones (e.g. full german authority on the Rhine; Fleckenstein Castle - but not village - becomes German... etc), this is a possibility.


what's the easiest, most plausible way for France to narrow the margin of Prusso-German victory? What type of regime would this leave in France?

what is the most plausible way for the Prussians to screw up so they barely win and unify, but cannot get more out of the treaty than colonies or Fleckenstein Caastle?
 
what's the easiest, most plausible way for France to narrow the margin of Prusso-German victory? What type of regime would this leave in France?

what is the most plausible way for the Prussians to screw up so they barely win and unify, but cannot get more out of the treaty than colonies or Fleckenstein Caastle?

What if Napoleon leads a smaller army into Germany that gets overwhelmed, but buys enough time for the French to get enough men onto the border to hold out?
 
An alliance between France and the NCG (aka Prussia and assorted midgets) is not ASBish at all, provided that Louis Napoleon is convinced that after Mars-la-Tour the military situation is not recoverable, and decides to cut his losses. A request for a ceasefire is granted, and military operations end during the last decade of August. LN moves to Paris to put a stop to the unrest in Paris, and keep the regime alive (and the empresson a short leash). The government of Cousin-Montalban (who replaced Ollivier after the vote of noconfidence on 9 August) will have to be dismissed, since the only reasonable way out is to form a government of national unity backing the regime and the attempt to signe a peace treaty with Prussia and friends. The problem is who is going to head this government of national unity: Ollivier is completely discredited, the emperor cannot draft MacMahon who is needed in Chalons at the head of the last standing army of France, it would be politically impossible to choose anyone from the Left or from the Mamelukes: I'd put my money on gen. Trochu, who had not been tainted by the recent defeats and could read the writing on the wall, but I'm not completely sanguine on this (if someone can suggest a credible candidate I'd be very happy). Peace talks start soon after (possibly in Switzerland or in Belgium: Bismarck wants this peace treaty too, so he should be willing to save the emperor's face). I'll go out on a limb, and assume that Prince Bonaparte (Plon-Plon) will lead the French negotiating team: it is a kind of stretch, since in the 1860s relations between LN and his cousin were not the best; OTOH Plon-Plon and Trochu were the strongest voices to oppose the mad ride to Sedan, and it's not that LN has a lot of options. My position has always been that in such a scenario Bismarck would not go for the jugular, and be satisfied with a demilitarization of the Rhenish border on the French side plus the demolition of the fortresses of Metz and Strasbourg and a reasonable amount of reparations (B. does not want a long war and even less a republic in France). The peace treaty should therefore be signed in September, and LN can concentrate on how to save the regime and the inheritance of his son. Some empty words about future eternal amity between the NCG and Imperial France will certainly be added to the peace treaty.

The formal alliance treaty will not be signed immediately, but if the regime survives the first bumpy year or two it may look like the best solution to the sick French emperor, and might come to pass before 1875. One might wonder why Bismarck would choose France over Austria-Hungary: economically there would be better synergies between the NCG and France, such a treaty would do wonder to reduce the worries of the southern German states that a revanchist France might raise in the future, more simply a weakened France may look a much better partner than the A-H empire (where in any case B. would still enjoy good relations with the Hungarian half). If B. manages to bring home this coup and at the same time keeps his traditional good relations with Russia, Prussian dominance in continental Europe would be almost certainly assured
 
It is a bit of a stretch, since the actions of the cast would likely not be as rational as I posited. OTOH, the OP is very clear and if the goal of an alliance is to be reached the path is more or less forced. I'd like to find some other French politicians to be involved in the scheme, so if you have any suggestion I'd be happy to hear them.

In terms of colonial expansion, it would be clearly in Bismarck's interest to prod France on this path (he did exactly that IOTL, to keep France engaged outside of Europe and to avoid any chance of France getting closer to Great Britain; ITTL this policy would be even more attractive since he would reap the benefits of access to markets and resources in Asia and Africa without going to the bother and expenses to foot the bill and would also be in a position to play the role of the honest broker in any flash-out between the French and the British).
Incidentally, I would believe that also Italy would be sucked into this Franco-"German" alliance, which would also strengthen the "German" position in the Mediterranean at no cost.
 
It is a bit of a stretch, since the actions of the cast would likely not be as rational as I posited. OTOH, the OP is very clear and if the goal of an alliance is to be reached the path is more or less forced. I'd like to find some other French politicians to be involved in the scheme, so if you have any suggestion I'd be happy to hear them.

In terms of colonial expansion, it would be clearly in Bismarck's interest to prod France on this path (he did exactly that IOTL, to keep France engaged outside of Europe and to avoid any chance of France getting closer to Great Britain; ITTL this policy would be even more attractive since he would reap the benefits of access to markets and resources in Asia and Africa without going to the bother and expenses to foot the bill and would also be in a position to play the role of the honest broker in any flash-out between the French and the British).
Incidentally, I would believe that also Italy would be sucked into this Franco-"German" alliance, which would also strengthen the "German" position in the Mediterranean at no cost.

It doesn't have to be our Germany, just a Germany. Luxembourg can unite them so long as an alliance is attained.
 
In terms of colonial expansion, it would be clearly in Bismarck's interest to prod France on this path (he did exactly that IOTL, to keep France engaged outside of Europe and to avoid any chance of France getting closer to Great Britain; ITTL this policy would be even more attractive since he would reap the benefits of access to markets and resources in Asia and Africa without going to the bother and expenses to foot the bill and would also be in a position to play the role of the honest broker in any flash-out between the French and the British).
Incidentally, I would believe that also Italy would be sucked into this Franco-"German" alliance, which would also strengthen the "German" position in the Mediterranean at no cost.
Germany could prod France that way but colonialism is still a stupidly massive expenditure, especially in Africa where it doesn't actually give much return (especially compared to the Correze and all that jazz). It took the massive humiliation of the war to go in that very controversial project, and I mean controversial for the time. You have to see the way Ferry went about it. Even the colonisation of Vietnam was dearly opposed, and Vietnam is super rich and offers direct access to China.

Of course, such a war would still establish Germany as THE dominant power on the back of France, so you would expect other display of power now that France can't flex their muscles in Europe. Where that display might happen is kind of an open question
 
Germany could prod France that way but colonialism is still a stupidly massive expenditure, especially in Africa where it doesn't actually give much return (especially compared to the Correze and all that jazz). It took the massive humiliation of the war to go in that very controversial project, and I mean controversial for the time. You have to see the way Ferry went about it. Even the colonisation of Vietnam was dearly opposed, and Vietnam is super rich and offers direct access to China.

Of course, such a war would still establish Germany as THE dominant power on the back of France, so you would expect other display of power now that France can't flex their muscles in Europe. Where that display might happen is kind of an open question

I don't disagree on the futility of colonialism in Africa (the best piece of real estate, South Africa, has already been taken. The knowledge of the interior is still very sketchy in the 1870s, and anyway there is no readily available market); OTOH the Far East can be much more remunerative, and this might lead to a number of opportunities. There is also the game changer represented by the completion of the Suez canal, which would significantly shorten the length of a trip to Far East.
A surviving Bonapartist regime in France, propped up by an alliance with the NCG, would still need some prestige and the chance of shining: all of the former attempts of Louis Napoleon to increase French influence abroad had been failures (Mexico, Luxembourg, most recently the war with Prussia). Even when France came out "victorious (Crimea and the 1859 war in Northern Italy) did not produce the expected benefits. The penetration in Vietnam (which I agree was not planned by the French government but rather sanctioned ex-post facto) is the only bright spot, and Louis Napoleon might be willing to push in that direction, as well as in Egypt building up on the prestige of the Suez canal.
 
Let's not forget the effects on Algeria. As far as I remember the region was fairly calm by the end of the Empire but got into an uproar when they installed civilian administration and naturalised the jews.
No IIIrd Republic, none of that. An Emperor might provide a nice symbol not completely aimed at enforcing the separation between natives and colonists.

You'd keep a military administration, which had a lot of respect for the tribes (Abd El Kader and all). I don't know how they fared in the cities though
 
It is quite likely that the TTL administration of Algeria would not change in 1871, and this would mean that the commitments un dertaken by the military administration after the famine of 1866 would be kept. Another big positive is that there would be no need to resettle in Algeria the 5,000 people from the provinces annexed to the German empire, and most likely the confiscation of tribal lands would not happen. The Kabylie insurrection of 1871 would not happen for sure, and the encroachment of settlers would be kept under control. All positives for sure, even if I believe that the romantic notion of Louis Napoleon to create a "royaume arabe" (of which he would be king) in the interior would never come to pass. In the long-term however it is most likely that the settlers would slowly push toward the interior: pastoralists can never win the war against farmers

The coastal strip would remain under settlers control and civil administration as it was since 1848, IIRC, when the three districts of Algiers, Constantine and Oran were formed.
 
Top