AHC Franco-German Allience

So I've been toying with the idea of a Franco-German Alliance for a While. The rules are Both are independent and Unified states, Germany would include all of WWI Germany. give or take a region. I would wonder who they would ally against and how the politics of such an alliance would work out. Also how would their Cultures play with each other? This can go as far back as 1400 for a POD
 
You don't have to go that far back really. 1848 is a good jumping point, or 1866, but really even by 1870 the great rivalry that defined the later part of the 19th century and early 20th could be avoided. Getting from there to an alliance is a bit trickier, why is why I suggest 1848, but even with a different Austro-Prussian or Franco-Prussian War it could still be done, likely involving Anglo-European antagonisms over their colonial empires and expanding Russian influence in eastern Europe.
 
So I've been toying with the idea of a Franco-German Alliance for a While. The rules are Both are independent and Unified states, Germany would include all of WWI Germany. give or take a region.
In order to ally with the French, the Germans cannot have fought a war with them and won. Therefore, Alsace-Lorraine will need to remain within France's territory.

I have a hard time seeing how southern Germany could be united to the rest of the country without the French intervening militarily to stop it.
 
In order to ally with the French, the Germans cannot have fought a war with them and won. Therefore, Alsace-Lorraine will need to remain within France's territory.

I have a hard time seeing how southern Germany could be united to the rest of the country without the French intervening militarily to stop it.


Maybe if The Prinzregent had listened to Bismarck and gone to war on the French side in 1859. Would Nappy III have turned on his ally?

Trouble is, I don't see how Wilhelm could be persuaded. Maybe if he died, and Fritz were Regent?
 
Maybe if The Prinzregent had listened to Bismarck and gone to war on the French side in 1859. Would Nappy III have turned on his ally?

Trouble is, I don't see how Wilhelm could be persuaded. Maybe if he died, and Fritz were Regent?

Wait, what? Why would France turn on Piedmont in 1859 during the Campagne d'Italie?
 
I meant turn on a Prussia which had allied with him.

Ha, I can't think anything Louis-Napoléon could do that would piss Eugénie off more than allying with the Prussians.

My understanding was the Prussia was in the middle of an army modernization program in 1859, including working on her mobilization which had been allowed to slacken. How much would they really able to provide to the French aside from opening a new theater against the Hapsburgs?
 
Ha, I can't think anything Louis-Napoléon could do that would piss Eugénie off more than allying with the Prussians.

My understanding was the Prussia was in the middle of an army modernization program in 1859, including working on her mobilization which had been allowed to slacken. How much would they really able to provide to the French aside from opening a new theater against the Hapsburgs?

Enough. Both the French and Austrian armies were also pretty inefficient, and with both France and Prussia against him, Franz Josef would have to quit the war fast.

Think about that great heatwave, where the coyote chases the jackrabbit and they're both walking.
 
I can imagine two scenarios;

1. They get a common enemy. Britain or Russia is a good bet, or for extra effect you can even have Britain AND Russia against the Franco-German alliance.

2. Germany wins WWI, annexes Briey-Longwy. Why is this important, you ask? Because most of the French heavy industry is there; without it, they don`t have the means to start a revanchist war. France becomes a former great power with a gigantic colonial empire, and eventually gets to join the economic union the Kaiserreich sets up, most likely unwillingly all things considered.

For added effect you could make Russia go Red (again) and make it look like a threatening power; that might make the Westren Europeans fear the Red Menace more then they dislike each other, thus forcing them into an alliance.

As for how the alliance will work, I think the initial distrust and outright hostility between the two would go down given time spent in an alliance, and especially if they fight a war against someone together.
 
In order to ally with the French, the Germans cannot have fought a war with them and won.

But they fought a war with Austria? And they fought WWI and WWII with the French and the cooperation between these two shapes the European Union?

Therefore, Alsace-Lorraine will need to remain within France's territory.


If Alsace had gained independence during the Congress of Vienna, it could have ended within a unified Germany, joined France lateron or had developed into a neutral country in its own right, similar to Luxemburg or Switzerland. In either case there would be no alienation between Germany and France.
 
But they fought a war with Austria? And they fought WWI and WWII with the French and the cooperation between these two shapes the European Union?




If Alsace had gained independence during the Congress of Vienna, it could have ended within a unified Germany, joined France lateron or had developed into a neutral country in its own right, similar to Luxemburg or Switzerland. In either case there would be no alienation between Germany and France.

The reason Austria, mere years after the Austro-Prussian War, was effectively Germany's number two was because Bismarck knew that alienating Austria too much would prove disastrous for the whole Kleindeutschland affair. Hence there being no significant cessions between Austria itself and Prussia after the said war, save perhaps the former's share in the Schleswig-Holstein condominium.
 
Maybe if The Prinzregent had listened to Bismarck and gone to war on the French side in 1859. Would Nappy III have turned on his ally?

Trouble is, I don't see how Wilhelm could be persuaded. Maybe if he died, and Fritz were Regent?
Bismarck's actual plan (pace Pflanze) seems to have been to seize the moment when both France and Austria were both otherwise occupied in Italy to dissolve the Confederation and conquer 'little Germany', presenting the rest of the world with a fait accompli. This seems to have been so far out of sync with the rest of Prussia's foreign ministry that there's no wonder it was ignored.

While, in general, he supported the concept of an alliance with the Second Empire during the 1850s and the very early 1860s, he does not seem to have approved of it in the specific context of 1859, because it would have shifted the focus of the fighting to Germany from Italy - much to hot for his liking, and a move likely to bring widespread ruination to the Germany he wanted to bring under the rule of the Hohenzollerns.
But they fought a war with Austria? And they fought WWI and WWII with the French and the cooperation between these two shapes the European Union?
These are radically altered circumstances, shaped by the horror of two separate conflicts unparalleled in human history and by Germany's complete and unconditional defeat at the hands of France and her allies. In 1871, Bismarck justified his decision to seize Alsace-Lorraine in the Treaty of Frankfurt by arguing that the French would retain considerable animosity towards the new Germany whether he took the province or not; the mere act of having lost a war would drive the French to an unreasoning hatred for decades. It is hard to disagree with him.
Monty Burns said:
If Alsace had gained independence during the Congress of Vienna, it could have ended within a unified Germany, joined France lateron or had developed into a neutral country in its own right, similar to Luxemburg or Switzerland. In either case there would be no alienation between Germany and France.
Um, okay, but there was literally no chance that Alsace would have become independent in 1814-5.
 
Top