Challenge: Best Case Scenario for France

France had been declining for centuries. In 1700, many(if not most) would have declared France the strongest nation in Europe(strongest army and most populous).

By 1900 they had a smaller industrial base then America, Britain and Germany. They had a weaker army then Germany, and weren't far ahead of Russia or Austria-Hungary. By the outbreak of WWI, they had a smaller population then Germany, Austria-Hungary, Russia, or the United States.

By 2000, France went from having a gigantic oversea's empire to next to nothing, a weaker economy then they previously had(relative to the rest of the world), a military that many could say(possibly wrongly, but this isn't the point of the topic) wasn't top 5 in the world, and a small shrinking population.

With a POD of 1900, what's the best case for France? What is the largest, strongest, and most influentional they could be?
 
Last edited:
France had been declining for centuries. In 1700, many(if not most) would have declared France the strongest nation in Europe(strongest army and most populous).

By 1900 they had a smaller industrial base then America, Britain and Germany. They had a weaker army then Germany, and weren't far ahead of Russia or Austria-Hungary. By the outbreak of WWI, they had a smaller population then Germany, Austria-Hungary, Russia, or the United States.

By 2000, France went from having a gigantic oversea's empire to next to nothing, a weaker economy then they previously had(relative to the rest of the world), a military that many could say(possibly wrongly, but this isn't the point of the topic) wasn't top 5 in the world, and a small shrinking population.

With a POD of 1900, what's the best case for France? What is the largest, strongest, and most influentional they could be?


To not of Lost 1.5 million Men in WWI or had 3.5 million injured in the War .
Rember by 1919 Frances industrial output was less then Half of what it was in 1913 .
 
Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. World War I was what basicly stripped France of Great Power status.

Though I don't see how any scenario post-1900 could put France as a dominant power again.

Perhaps if you go 30 years earlier, with a French victory in the Franco-Prussian war, Germany wouldn't rise to become it's chief rival and overpower her?
 
France had been declining for centuries. In 1700, many(if not most) would have declared France the strongest nation in Europe(strongest army and most populous).
France was easily the most powerful country in Europe up until the end of the Napoleonic Wars, and even then, it took all of Europe to beat them.
Also, until the formation of Germany, they were still the most populous country in Europe, and their army was still amongst the best, sadly it has perpetually suffered because of poor leadership (at least in the XIXth century and beyond).

By 1900 they had a smaller industrial base then America, Britain and Germany. They had a weaker army then Germany, and weren't far ahead of Russia or Austria-Hungary. By the outbreak of WWI, they had a smaller population then Germany, Austria-Hungary, Russia, or the United States.
These comparisons are 1) Unfair and 2) Unbalanced. Germany, America and Britain are the undisputed superpowers of the time, and no one held a candle to them. This of course doesn't take into account the fact that, socially, France is very different from those country, and has been for most of its history a very rural and traditionalist country. There might also be something to the idea that Catholic Countries have more trouble industrializing or modernizing (it can't be just coincidence that the three industrial powerhouses of the time were vastly protestant).
As for the population, Austria-Hungary ruled a vast, multicultural empire with little to no cultural cohesion across the Empire, Germany was a recently unified country which, and this applies to Russia as well, held considerably more territory than France. Also, Russia's population was nowhere near as well off as any of the other European countries.
You also have to keep in mind that, demographically, France is an anomaly, since they seem to have transitioned into a far more modern demographic structure much, much earlier than any of its neighbors, so while all of its neighbors were experience the industry-fueled population explosion, France had already seen its population growth pretty much stabilize.

By 2000, France went from having a gigantic oversea's empire to next to nothing, a weaker economy then they previously had(relative to the rest of the world), a military that many could say(possibly wrongly, but this isn't the point of the topic) wasn't top 5 in the world, and a small shrinking population.
By 2000, every single country that ever had an overseas empire has been reduced to, essentially, nothing, this also applies for Spain, the UK, Germany, Portugal... you get my drift. This, of course, does not take into account that France still has sizable overseas possessions, and if I'm not mistaken, actually has the largest exclusive economic zone in the world, thanks to all the tiny islets they have.
Also, their economy may be weaker than it was before, but that is more as a result of a worldwide growth in regions that traditionally weren't really wealthy, such as East Asia and Latin America, and as a result, every country's relative wealth has "shrunk". And despite that, I would still not call France's economy much weaker than any of its neighbors, since they all suffer very similar problems.
As for the retarded notion that France's military is anything but top notch, seriously, people at AH.com should honestly know better. The walkover that was WW2 was an aberration, that even the Germans weren't expecting, and was more a result of poor strategic planning and its upper echelons being firmly rooted to WW1 strategies than anything else. Today, France has an army that is just as good as any of its neighbors, including one of the top air forces in the world.
Also, considering that the only two countries that could actually be better than France militarily are the UK and the US, I fail to see how it's at all possible that France isn't amongst the top 5 armies in the world. Really, who could have a better army? Russia?

Oh, and France's population isn't small, considering it's currently just over 60 million, and it's also not shrinking, one of the few populations in Europe that's actually growing naturally. There's going to be a generational "gap" caused by the baby boomers retiring, but after that things should stabilize for France and its population will continue to grow (it's fertility rate is somewhere around 2.0 and 2.1, which is the ideal number for natural growth).

With a POD of 1900, what's the best case for France? What is the largest, strongest, and most influentional they could be?
Really, avoiding both world wars, or at least not suffering such huge damages (France's industrial capacity was reduced by over 40% compared to what it was in 1939 after WW2), especially population wise, would do a lot to improve France's current situation.
Maybe a more organized decolonization results in a Francophonie which is a lot more similar to the Commonwealth, but considering that 1) the Francophonie has so little in common with the Commonwealth and that 2) so many of France's ex-colonies are still pegged to France's currency, as well as France conducting military operations independant of both NATO and the UN in several former colonies (Sénégal, Côte d'Ivoire, etc.), I daresay that France is still a pretty influential and strong nation.
Also keep in mind that France, along with Germany, essentially dominates the EU, and they did after all help found one of the most important modern organizations (EU).
As for strength, in terms of relative strengh, I'm almost certain that France is probably the most powerful country on the continent (excluding Russia and the UK).
France is also a technological leader in Europe, and they depend far less on oil than most other countries do, since they have over 50% of their energy derived from Nuclear power.
I don't think france could actually get much bigger, unless they take the Saarland from Germany after one of the two world wars, and possibly take some territory from Italy as well.
 
I learned in 20th Century History that Germany wanted a coalition of the Great Powers against the United States, but the British blocked the scheme. If it went ahead, France would be much better off.
 
Maybe the best scenario for France is an early WW I, whilst they had a defensive war plan and before the Haber process and with no Antwerpen nitrates. The Germans suffer complete defeat within 18 months and the French suffer relatively few casualties. The unexhausted French can enforce maximalist war gains, and the German border moves to the Rhine in the west and to OTL post war in the East. France is also strong and confident enough to enforce German disarmament so any WWII is a rapid French victory. French industry is intact, it has not beenbegared by war loans, and is not humiliated. It retains the strength to continue with its plan of creating "Brown Frenchmen" across the world, and might just about suceed in making the Francophone world a force to be reckoned with if it plays its cards right when/if nationalism in the colonies becomes problematic.
 
Ehm:

18th Century - France was the total dominating power of Europe ahead of many other nations. I don't think any nation before Franco-Prussian war had ever beaten France alone.

Although, if France had chosen to give up their carribean islands and not Quebec during the Treaty of Paris and not selling Louisiana 1803 plus establishing more indian colonies and challange UK there, then they would have about the same colonial advantage as UK during the world wars.

19th Century - Frances declining century ( compared to other european powers ). After the Napoleonic wars, France was trapped in a state which relied on a war economy while UK had evolved into a 'modern' industrial nation. Although France managed to start their industrial revolution.

Then one of their biggest problems came ( at least I see this as the biggest problem ): The compared to rest of Europe and the US slow population growth.


FRANCE
Population2Centuries.jpg

GERMANY

1816 22.4
1820 26.1
1830 29.4
1840 32.6
1850 35.3
1860 37.6
1870 40.8
1871 41.1
1880 45.2
1890 49.4
1900 56.4
1910 64.9 ( 58.5 with 1919 borders )
1913 67.0
1922 61.9
1930 65.1
1933 66.0
1939 79.8 ( 69.5 with 1937 borders ) ( 87.1 with Bohemia-Moravia )

France raised their population with about 1.25 milion people per tenth year while Germany raised with more than 3 milion almost every year.

This is with the 'official' 19th century Germany with Holstein, Prussia, Alsace-Lorraine and the smaller states ( not Austria ) till 10 and 39 when diffrent german borders are set.

Without this population growth rate slowness France could take more punches during WWI but maybe because of incompetent leadership loose Franco-Prussian war 1871.

With a victory in the France-Prussian war than they would most likely demand that Germany never formes and the direct threat to French hagemony 'over' Europe is over.

And I think a strategic victory at Fashoda had triggered some french nationalism but that's about it.

20th Century -
WWI - In the best case it wouldn't have happened and France still owned Alsace-Lorraine.
In the secondary best case France had somehow ended the war by winning some battles at the start crippeling Germanys western front together with Russias attack.
In the worst good case is a war not tapping France on all of it's young blood in Verdun and Somme.

After the war if France still was the main figher for the Entente than they could get the areas to the Rhein under french control and not make Ferdinand Fochs scary words ( watch my sig ) come true.

WWII - Intervane aginst German Nazi party, although this is probably not possible cause they were democratic elected to power and would put the global opinion aginst France.

Protect Austria and Czeckoslovakia by declaring war aginst Germany after or during Anshluss.

More skilled use of the knowledge they got from the Mechelen Incident, so Germany didn't know that France knew more than Germany thought.

Not only trust on the Maginot Line but also see the Belgian border as a threat or using a reversed Schlieffen Plan.
Modern Time - Today, France aren't as weak as many think they are. They have one of the worlds most developed and most used nuclear programe ( in military, at least 350 nukes while US have 4000-5000 and UK 160 ), have one of the worlds most proffesional armies, navies and aircrafts, is military the together with maybe Russia strongest continental power, Europes second or third biggest economy, sells after USA most agricultural products in the WORLD and still have influence in what's called Françafrique. They as earlier said intervanes themselves outside UN and Nato and are one of todays biggest "empires".

Future -
France is predicted to pass the population of Germany in 2050 because of french pop growth, immigrants and german demographic decline, they are among the top nations in EU and maintains technologicly forward.


What could France have done then to make themselves as strong as possible?.
Not loosing Quebec, not loosing India, not selling Louisiana, no Revolution or Napoleonic wars ( the best would be if France had got Napoleon as leader but he would have been satisfied with Netherlands as a client nation, ruling over all western of Rhine and hagemony in North Italy ), no decline in population growth, victory in the Fashoda Incident, no german unifiction and no WWI. Atleast not aginst imperial Germany. If everything of this comes true then it would more likely be France-Netherlands ( and maybe Denmark-Norway ) aginst Spain, Prussia, Austria, Italy ( or Italian states ), Russia and UK ( with other words, a modern Napoleonic wars ).

BTW minifidel, the land west of Rhine is a POSSIBLE french zone of occupation with annexion of Saar. Observe I said it's a possible french zone :)
 
As far as European nations go, France is very well off. Like Britain, it maintained decent relations with its former colonies, and as mentioned its military is one of the best.

It couldn't remain a superpower though. Empires only really stick together if they are geographically attached (like Russia's).

I learned in 20th Century History that Germany wanted a coalition of the Great Powers against the United States, but the British blocked the scheme. If it went ahead, France would be much better off.

I'd like to read about that. Have any sources?
 
I'd like to read about that. Have any sources?
There are a few occasions on which the Germans floated a vaguely anti-American pan-European coalition, but it was never really serious. The second Venezuela crisis (the Cipriano Castro one that mowque is using as a PoD elsewhere in this subforum...go read it, it ain't half bad) was one such occasion. The problem with Wilhelmine diplomacy was that it was frequently erratic - well, a problem anyway - so I doubt the Germans would have been able to pull such a coalition together even if the British weren't interested in blocking such a thing.

As for sources on late 19th century diplomacy, the one that I can remember off the top of my head is my trusty Seaman, From Vienna to Versailles; I don't know if that particular scheme was mentioned at length in the book though.
 
There are a few occasions on which the Germans floated a vaguely anti-American pan-European coalition, but it was never really serious. The second Venezuela crisis (the Cipriano Castro one that mowque is using as a PoD elsewhere in this subforum...go read it, it ain't half bad) was one such occasion. The problem with Wilhelmine diplomacy was that it was frequently erratic - well, a problem anyway - so I doubt the Germans would have been able to pull such a coalition together even if the British weren't interested in blocking such a thing.
I don't know the details, so this is probably true- I can check the sourcebook later, though.

It couldn't remain a superpower though. Empires only really stick together if they are geographically attached (like Russia's).

Not always true- France kept fragments of it's Empire, as did Britain. The U.S kept Alaska and Hawaii.

Additionally, the (admittedly major) losses they did have were due to a combination of the rise of nationalism (without which colonial revolt aimed at independence would be unlikely) and American pressure to withdraw at the end of World War II (a study of the colonial uprisings shows a pattern of victory in the field and withdrawal due to American pressure in Africa)
 
With a POD of 1900, what's the best case for France? What is the largest, strongest, and most influentional they could be?

Is this DBWI? AFAIK, French population now lives in unprecedented luxury compared to population of 1909. The level of education is far beyond anything dreamed in 1909 as is the living age. An average frenchman may, if he or she chooses, travel anywhere in the world (bar obvious conflict zones) and he or she will be received with open arms. Moreover, your average Pierre or Jeannette has the money to do so. If he or she has an unfortunate accident the medical care is the best in the world and far beyond anything dreamed in 1909. Compared to 1909 France 2009 France is an absolute paradise.

Compare this to other major powers in 1909 (such as UK, USA, Russia and Germany) and you'll notice that they have too progressed greatly but not as much compared to France.
 
An interesting factoid I forgot to include in my previous post: France is the only country in the world with schools in every single nation on earth (I should know, I've been in at least two of them and have friends who've been to several others).
 
Compare this to other major powers in 1909 (such as UK, USA, Russia and Germany) and you'll notice that they have too progressed greatly but not as much compared to France.

When it comes to my mind that sounds pretty true. In for example 1909 or 1920 France was weak and almost poor after the costly war. Today they have rised to become one of earths best developed societys.

They dragged themselves from bottom to the top, and people speaking of Frances end as a influesive nation is wrong.
 
They dragged themselves from bottom to the top, and people speaking of Frances end as a influesive nation is wrong.

Yup, it's not much of a case of decline of France but rather rise of new powers which did not practically exist in 1900, particularly Japan, India, China and tremendous rise of USA.

If we compare historic GDP (counting of which is always tricky)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_regions_by_past_GDP_(PPP)

we can notice that in 1913 France had 5,3% of world GDP, compared to German 8,8, Russian 8,6 and British Empire's 21,1.

In 2008 taking the CIA World Factbook ranking

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)

we'll see that France has economy roughly sized that of Russia and UK and 75% that of German. Compared to fall of influence by Russia and UK it's not bad going at all.

If we include military rankings one must remember that in 2009 French military power in Europe is only equalled by UK with France being either on same level or superior in all arms. Ca. 1900 (particularly after German naval buildup) French land army was not equal to German while her navy was markedly inferior to both British and German navies.
 
So, suppose that the world wars don't happen. How far ahead does France get if it decides to accept the loss of AL to Germany in exchange for cutting its military budget and promoting economic growth?

Some kind of WW1 is probably going to happen, but suppose that France's role in it is selling weapons to third parties instead of losing 20% of its young men.

Is it possible that a more dovish France over a full century, complete with no world wars, lead to France doubling its GDP? France might go from competitive to "world leader" in terms of GDP/Capita in such a circumstance, or, if the rest of the world is further ahead as well, France would still surely be an economic leader.

Also, it might be possible for France to hold Algeria and turn it into part of Metropolitan France if it is genuinely willing to develop the region. This will be expensive, but over a century Algeria could well be the richest portion of Africa.

I do enjoy military tactics and strategy, but in all seriousness fighting a war never seems like a great way to increase the well being of a country. France's immediate neighbors--Germany and Italy--would be very hard to defeat for the economic spoils they would provide, or the difficulty their grumpy populations would entail, to say little of the absolute losses involved.

Perhaps France can annex Wallonia from Belgium, Euskadi and Catalonia from Spain, and do something in Africa. Getting AL back from Germany by a political arrangement would be great, but KOing Germany in a war is going to be a really rugged affair and probably not worth the trouble--even if France annexed the Saar, Rhenanie and Bade, this is going to be a hell of a matchup, and grabbing even these rich industrial regions will result in Nationalist hell for France. A similar case presents itself in Lombardy--the region is rich, but the Nationalist tendencies are explosive.

I say to France--Prosper in Peace. Boring, yes. But in the hard calculation of life, not having to fight a war and lose millions of lives, billions of dollars only to replace Nazi Germany with the Soviet Union as a political enemy has to be considered a first rate failure.
 
With a POD of 1900, what's the best case for France? What is the largest, strongest, and most influentional they could be?
I think we can all agree that France's primary problem in becoming the strongest power in Europe after 1900 was Germany, both because of the loss of Alsace-Lorraine which pitted France constantly against any form of alliance or friendship with Germany(and the advantages that a German alliance could have given to France) and because of Germany's unrivalable (from France anyway) power.

It would take a major war in which Germany was soundly defeated for France to have a chance to become the leading power in Europe after 1900 (much like Poland needed both Germany and Russia to be defeated to have any chance to arise again as an independent nation).

And this major war did happen in 1914-1918, with its aftermath giving rise to new nation-states like Poland, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia which France promptly allied with with along with Belgium which abandoned her neutrality in favor of an alliance with France and a greatly enlarged Rumania. These were not inconsiderable advantages. Certainly postwar Germany could not begin to match this alliance structure.

In "the best case", France would have needed a strong, consistent government which would have zealously stood guard over any violation whatsoever of the Treaty of Versailles and which would not have surrendered France's freedom of action to a fickle and unattainable British approval of any French action. A "French Churchill", in the sense of being totally aware of a revived Germany as France's main danger and with the will to act, in charge of France during the 1920s and 1930s could have seen France remain the leading power of Europe.

Such a France could have done many "Brenners" a la (the much weaker by comparison) Mussolini in 1934 to check Hitler, most notably opposing the 1935 remilitarization of the Rhineland, which we now know would have probably led to Hitler's downfall.

By practicing Realpolitik, such a France could have aggressively countered German/Italian intervention in the Spanish civil war with effective aid of her own, in her own interests. Such a France also could have contested with Germany for Italy's friendship and alliance and she could have juggled the 1935 Franco-Soviet Pact into something more substantial than it was in OTL.

France's main problem in being a strong and influential power between the wars was a lack of will.
 
Top