Clemenceau assassinated

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Clemenceau#Post-WWI

Clemenceau was shot by an anarchist ‘assassin’ on 19 February 1919. Seven shots were fired through the back panel of his car – one striking him in the chest. It was discovered that if the bullet had entered a millimeter to the left or right, it would have been fatal.

WI it took that important milimiter? Who would take his place as prime minister and how would it affect the Paris Peace Conference?
 

Hnau

Banned
Interesting. I didn't know it had come so close. What do you think the probability of him being assassinated is? What does the Constitution of France say on the idea of the Prime Minister being assassinated? Is there someone to take his place immediately or are new elections called?

Hmm... if it is as I think it is and the President (Poincare) merely appoints a new Prime Minister, I believe a good choice would be Ferdinand Foch. Poincare was an anti-German hawk in his bones, man, he thought Clemenceau was doing a bad job, the most unforgiving of the Conference Big Four. Foch was more unforgiving that Clemenceau. Maybe he would make a good Prime Minister for ten or so months until the next presidential/legislative election.
 
Last edited:

MrP

Banned
Édouard Hérriot took over the Radicals post-Clemenceau IOTL, but I don't know what his standing was at the time. Ministers at the war's end (N.B. I can't claim these are accurate at the time of the assassination!) include the following, who must have been of some prominence, and thus may be worth investigating.

Foreign Affairs: Pichon
Interior: Pams
Finance: Klotz
Justice: Nail
Colonies: Simon
Commerce: Clémentel
Navy: Leygues - briefly PM after Briand in '20, so possibly a strong candidate.
Munitions: Loucheur
Food & Maritime Transport: Clavielle (says WWI Databook) or Claveille (says Wiki)
Blockade: Lebrun

Clemenceau ran the War Ministry himself.

EDIT: Foch? I don't know. I suspect the Republic would have been somewhat uncomfortable appointing the C-in-C of Allied military forces to a position of civilian power.
 
Last edited:

Hnau

Banned
I was thinking maybe Foch could resign, but it was just a stab in the dark really. I'll look through the links you so kindly put up. Hmmm... Poincare would definitely appoint someone who would deal exclusively with the Conference as bull-headedly as possible. The man wants someone who will deal as much damage to Germany while keeping Wilson at bay. Foch seems that kind of guy to me, plus he has a fantastic national and international reputation, it would do wonders for morale in France (not that that's too important by this point).

Another alternative: Pichon was at the Conference anyway. By February he wouldn't have been sidelined as much. If the whole fiasco draws out longer than is feasible for the times (German blockade ongoing) then Wilson and George might just decide to call back the Council of Ten and have Pichon represent the French. The guy (Pichon) was overshadowed by Clemenceau, though. That counts for a lot. He's definitely not going to be appointed Prime Minister if he's less forceful than Clemenceau, unless Wilson and George demand it due to the French taking too long of a vacation to find the right man. I could see Wilson pushing for an immediate return to the Conference with or without the French... it would give him a stronger position, after all.

Klotz is an interesting individual, but was France ready for a Jew by this point? I mean, I don't know anything about French racial relations at the time, but there was a lot of anti-Semitism about. He was responsible for dealing with reparations, and with his "The Boche will pay!" catch-phrase, he could be made into a caricature of a ruthless Jewish financier fighting for French interests. However, the guy looks like he doesn't have any financial skills... he lost all of his money and property later in life and Clemenceau didn't have anything good to say about him. It is very likely if he became Prime Minister (or took over negotiations at the Conference) he would likely make a lot of mistakes and/or be easily pushed around by others.

Louis Loucheur was at the Conference and might have the know-how, but I can't see him being a more powerful personality than Clemenceau. I can't see Lebrun coming in either, he wasn't strong enough.
 
Last edited:

MrP

Banned
Sorry, I was unclear before. The reason I'm a bit iffy on Foch is because he's such a clearly military chap, and the pre-war French government was very wary about the army, believing its loyalties lay with the Bonapartes rather than the Republic. I don't mean to say it's impossible. First, I'd need to know more about Foch than I do - although he seems a career military man to me, and unlikely to change to politics at this late date. Second, I don't know enough about the late-war/post-war French government's attitude to its military high-ups. So while I'm not ruling the man out, I do think that he seems an unlikely choice given my (less than perfect) understanding of him and French politics. I've been reading A.J.P. Taylor on British politics during the war, but I don't have a comparable source on French politics, so I have little idea which (if any) of the cabinet's a good choice.
 

Hnau

Banned
I guess I don't know too much about the French attitudes at that time either. I'm reading a 1921 book on the Peace Conference though, and there are a lot of quotes by Foch condemning Clemenceau for being "too soft". The book makes it look like Foch was involved with the Peace Conference, but it is just one book.

Ferdinand Foch is A) every bit as famous as Clemenceau, B) the one guy that I'm sure was more staunchly determined than the former PM, C) reputedly very intelligent, and D) on record for being deeply invested in the Paris Peace Conference. I'm not saying that he's the best choice, but compared to all of these other guys, I don't know who else could take the position.
 

MrP

Banned
I guess I don't know too much about the French attitudes at that time either. I'm reading a 1921 book on the Peace Conference though, and there are a lot of quotes by Foch condemning Clemenceau for being "too soft". The book makes it look like Foch was involved with the Peace Conference, but it is just one book.

Ferdinand Foch is A) every bit as famous as Clemenceau, B) the one guy that I'm sure was more staunchly determined than the former PM, C) reputedly very intelligent, and D) on record for being deeply invested in the Paris Peace Conference. I'm not saying that he's the best choice, but compared to all of these other guys, I don't know who else could take the position.

Oh, I agree with the above except for the whole military thing. As another example, the British Henry Wilson was a clever, cunning fellow, but career military, and wouldn't have ever been considered if anything had happened to the British PM.
 

Hnau

Banned
Yeah, understood, it might be quite un-conventional... I mean, Foch was the Marshal by this point, it would be strange for the master military-man of the entire Allied Powers to take up the Peace Conference.

So I was looking through the Radical Party. I'm still not sure what the procedure was in the French Third Republic after a Prime Minister dies in office. Edouard Herriot could take it, but also Chautemps or Monzie. None could fill the shoes of the "Tiger", still.
 

Hnau

Banned
So I am thinking that Poincare takes emergency powers and rules as Prime Minister until the legislative elections in November. He will likely be slightly more ambitious and stubborn in taking more from Germany, especially opposing a fixed sum for reparations. His inclusion is likely to stall the passage of the Treaty of Versailles for anywhere from two weeks to a month or so. Could he win more from Germany?

The other major butterfly is that in OTL Clemenceau, sensing that the general strike being readied for May 1, 1919 could lead to a communist/anarchist attacks or even a putsch, gave all French workers the eight-hour day in return for them calling it off. This move largely did stop the general strike. ITTL, I doubt Poincare would make the same move.

The French general strike starts up on May 1, 1919, and I predict it to run much like the railway workers' strike of January-May 1920 in France, but worse. The government will decide to oppose the strikers, of course, but will they be able to break the strike? I believe things will get ugly: another anarchist attack, perhaps, like the bombings in the USA. And with the public scared of anarchists... The French might use very heavy-handed tactics to break the general strike, and its going to radicalize the workers a bit more than OTL. We could definitely see a more unified, stronger transformation of the Socialists into the Communists in France, which is pretty scary. As for elections in November, I could see the socialists being the most affected by the strike: I could see them losing more, due to negative opinion against the violent strikers earlier in the year, or winning more, with more people inspired that a change needs to happen. I believe they'll likely do worse, which won't mean a thing other than there will be more of an initiative to radicalize and transform the SFIO into the French Communist Party.

Clemenceau's assassination could very well lay the seeds for a Communist revolution in France...
 
Top