AHC: Franco-Prussian War perma-cripples France

Permanently crippling France in the 19th century may be ASB...

But the challenge, should you accept it, is to get the Franco-Prussia War to cripple France (at least somewhat permanently).

50 points for Slytherin if you posit Great Britain's potential diplomatically actions once this occurs
 
The biggest challenge here is that Bismark, who arranged for the Franco-Prussian War to happen in the first place, also wanted to avoid permanent enmity - he didn't even want to claim Alsace-Lorraine, seeing that it'd cause problems down the line, but was overruled by the Kaiser.

A secondary problem is the fact that any treaty that would cripple France would call the wrath of Europe down on Prussia immediately.

I'd suggest a PoD allowing France to enter a political crisis after the war, possibly leading to a full-out civil war - this isn't likely, but it'd probably be the most plausible. Prussia avoids blame, other countries can't (effectively) intervene, and the damage could be enough to leave France weakened for decades.
 
Simple; have the Germans annex the Briey-Longwy area. Its basically a logical extension of the Elsass-Lothringen territory and robs France of some 80%+ of their iron ore deposits. That alone could basically make France a non-threat when Germany is considered.
 
Permanently crippling France in the 19th century may be ASB...

But the challenge, should you accept it, is to get the Franco-Prussia War to cripple France (at least somewhat permanently).

50 points for Slytherin if you posit Great Britain's potential diplomatically actions once this occurs

But OTL, France was to a certain extent crippled by the loss of Alsace and Moselle which were the most industrialized french territories along with the north of France and parts of south Bourgogne.

So crippling France more than OTL can, to my opinion, but be self-inflicted by some much harder commune rebellion. Because if Prussia-Germany tried to cripple France more than OTL, it would risk and internationalization of the country and isolating newly united Germany. Which would be a net loss for Germany.

I will add one last point. In fact, Britain crippled France far more in 1814/1815 than Germany did in 1871. Taking away from France the austrian Netherlands that were to become Belgium and Luxemburg was the move that would prevent France from being able to compete with Britain and Germany all along the age of heavy industries. It is the main reason why french industrial production was but half that of Germany and Britain until France caught up after WW2.
 
I will add one last point. In fact, Britain crippled France far more in 1814/1815 than Germany did in 1871. Taking away from France the austrian Netherlands that were to become Belgium and Luxemburg was the move that would prevent France from being able to compete with Britain and Germany all along the age of heavy industries. It is the main reason why french industrial production was but half that of Germany and Britain until France caught up after WW2.
I Always say that it would have been better for France, the Netherlands, the Flemish and even Europe (since it would strengthen France compared to Germany) if Belgium would have been divided by France and the Netherlands after the Belgian revolt.

That said, I think removing Belgium and the other territories gained during the revolutionary and Napoleonic wars was a pretty reasonable thing to do for Britain and the rest of Europe. Those areas weren't traditionaly French territories after all. They just conquered it during the war that was only finished with the defeat of Napoleon. It is kind of like making Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxemburg independent again after WWII.
 
Perhaps France fails to pays its war indemnities and the Germans force them to auction of their colonies or sell Nice/Lille to Itally/Belgium in order to get their money back?
As back then it apperently was normal to sell parts of your territory in order to get somebody to help you (à la the Treaty of Turin) so such a thing could happen, right?
 
I Always say that it would have been better for France, the Netherlands, the Flemish and even Europe (since it would strengthen France compared to Germany) if Belgium would have been divided by France and the Netherlands after the Belgian revolt.

That said, I think removing Belgium and the other territories gained during the revolutionary and Napoleonic wars was a pretty reasonable thing to do for Britain and the rest of Europe. Those areas weren't traditionaly French territories after all. They just conquered it during the war that was only finished with the defeat of Napoleon. It is kind of like making Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxemburg independent again after WWII.
The justification behind it would have never be accepted by any of the participants, all monarchies.
 
Top