DBWI: What if France hadn't preserved its national honor in the Franco-Prussian war?

While most Americans don't particularly care about 18th-century european conflicts, the Franco-Prussian war remains famous for its exceptionally fair peace deal. Yes, France indisputably lost the war, Napoleon III's declaration of war a clear miscalculation. Prussia's superior mobilization speed and military won them a clear-cut victory over the course of the next year. However, due to a few lucky coincidences in the first months of the war, France was able to keep fighting for longer and with far more vigour than Bismarck had anticipated. In particular, France's rapid adoption of the Mitrailleuse rifle caused by prewar leaks and the nearly-miraculous feats performed by its users made the Prussians afraid that France could hold out long enough to form an alliance with one of the other continental powers.

Thus, the Treaty of Versailles.

Prussia gained roughly half of Alsace-Lorraine/Elsaß-Lothringen, splitting the territory across carefully drawn ethnic lines, but agreed to pay France in compensation for the territory gained. Both powers neatly sidestepped the issue of culpability for the war by agreeing that it was "an unfortunate incident caused by diplomatic miscommunications", and Emperors William I and Napoleon III swapped apologies. France agreed to recognize the unification of the German peoples, and "never seek to tear them once again asunder," and as we found out after the Belgian Partition, Germany made a secret agreement to remain neutral if France attempted to reconquer Wallonia.

But what if this hadn't happened? Let's take a POD where the existence of the Mitrailleuse rifle never becomes public knowledge, and the French government in turn keeps it too much of a secret to properly train their soldiers in its use. That means no improbable victories or escapes, which in turn means a much shorter, much more humiliating war. Let's say, six months. What does the ATL treaty of versailles look like? How does it affect the scramble for africa, or the scramble for Asia, or the Great European War, or the War to End All Wars?
 
Last edited:
OOC: Did you mean the mitrailleuse? That proto-machine gun whose instruction manuals were only distributed after war was declared?

IC: I can't imagine that the war would go much worse. I mean, France was and still is the preeminent military power of Europe and there is no way that the descendants of Napoleon's eagles would allow themselves to stumble into a disastrous encirclement and lose the war in one battle.
 
Obviously the Great European War would look completely different. France and Germany together in alliance was unprecedented and could clearly force Britain alone to back down as shown in the Partition of Belgium. A more punishing peace would have prevented the Franco-German Entente that ultimately became the Federation of European Kingdoms; if such a thing would exist it would only exist ITTL with France or Germany he defeated puppet of the victor, instead of the equal partners the Hohenzollerns and Bonapartes remain today.
 
OOC: Did you mean the mitrailleuse? That proto-machine gun whose instruction manuals were only distributed after war was declared?

IC: I can't imagine that the war would go much worse. I mean, France was and still is the preeminent military power of Europe and there is no way that the descendants of Napoleon's eagles would allow themselves to stumble into a disastrous encirclement and lose the war in one battle.

Oh God, not this Bonapartism again...

The French military got caught in the middle of the major structural reforms that were coming along with the introduction of The Liberal Empire, both in terms of it's equipment and leadership. They were hardly the crack legions of Nappy I at Tilst, and were in an extremely disorganized state with supply efforts being basically improvisational. If the NGF and South German armies had been properly coordinated and their leadership not dithered in the initial attack so long, one solid kick could have knocked the ranshackled French army down during the early stages of mobalization in Austro-Prussian War part II.
 
OOC: Did you mean the mitrailleuse? That proto-machine gun whose instruction manuals were only distributed after war was declared?

IC: I can't imagine that the war would go much worse. I mean, France was and still is the preeminent military power of Europe and there is no way that the descendants of Napoleon's eagles would allow themselves to stumble into a disastrous encirclement and lose the war in one battle.
OOC: Yep, misread the wikipedia page, thanks.
 
If the defeat gets rid of the Bonapartes, big and unpredictable effects on French politics.

I don't see how it would. The French population was clearly in favor of the balance struck with The Liberal Empire reforms, Napoleon III had overseen a huge societal and economic expansion and integration of the broader nation into the political system and market, and had a pretty good international standing and support from virtually every region of France save Paris itself (ironically, given he had done so much to modernize the city.) Even if the radicals of the Paris Mobs tried to overthrow his government while the Army was tied down, those self-same urban renovations would make the tactics that worked during the various Revolutions (barracding, blocking traffic in and out of town, ect.) impossible

Besides, who would they replace if with? Henri-Charles? Fat chance. Madame Guillotine? Absolutely zero chance. France's fear of an unstable executive office is almost pathological, given it would mean tossing out their notion of a "Living Constitution" and throwing their fate into the lands of a mercurial, faceless and unaccountable legislature.
 
OOC: I doubt there would be another AP war, austria already loss and they were focusing in the balkans already

Ooc: Um, that's not what that means at all. I was saying the results would have been similar to the Austro-Prussia war IE a "Part II"
 
Obviously the Great European War would look completely different. France and Germany together in alliance was unprecedented and could clearly force Britain alone to back down as shown in the Partition of Belgium. A more punishing peace would have prevented the Franco-German Entente that ultimately became the Federation of European Kingdoms; if such a thing would exist it would only exist ITTL with France or Germany he defeated puppet of the victor, instead of the equal partners the Hohenzollerns and Bonapartes remain today.
I agree with your assessment that the Franco-German alliance never would've come to be. Indeed, without this, we could very well see a major war break out across Europe much sooner.

This would also be interesting in regards to the rest of the world, considering the rivalry that would eventually develop between the U.S. and F.E.K. during the 20th century. With Europe divided, it's likely that the U.S. would've dominated much more absolutely, with nobody to really challenge them. They're obviously a great power OTL, especially since the Détente between the U.S. and F.E.K., but without European competition they very easily could've become the only major power on the world stage.
 
Last edited:
I agree with your assessment that the Franco-German alliance never would've come to be. Indeed, without this, we could very well see a major war break out across Europe much sooner.

This would also be interesting in regards to the rest of the world, considering the rivalry that would eventually develop between the U.S. and F.E.K. during the 20th century despite not really being that far apart ideologically. With Europe divided, it's likely that the U.S. would've dominated much more absolutely, with nobody to really challenge them. They're obviously a great power OTL, especially since the Détente between the U.S. and F.E.K., but without European competition they very easily could've become the only major power on the world stage.
Well, that's assuming that the US still wins all the wars it does. The Great Eastern War basically established the US as a superpower OTL, but the war with Japan was a really near thing, especially because Russia only joined after the IJN had been decisively defeated. With Europe so different the GEW might be completely different (possibly being part of a sort of Second Great War) or not happen at all, given that it basically was caused by a clash of the American and Japanese spheres of influence in the power vacuum left by the fall of the British Empire.
 
Well, that's assuming that the US still wins all the wars it does. The Great Eastern War basically established the US as a superpower OTL, but the war with Japan was a really near thing, especially because Russia only joined after the IJN had been decisively defeated. With Europe so different the GEW might be completely different (possibly being part of a sort of Second Great War) or not happen at all, given that it basically was caused by a clash of the American and Japanese spheres of influence in the power vacuum left by the fall of the British Empire.
Ugh, this narrative really irritates me. "RUSSIA WON THE WAR! BACK TO BACK TO BACK GREAT WAR CHAMPS!" Yes, their shipments of grain really were a godsend to dust-bowl era america, but militarily they were a virtual nonentity during the Great Eastern War. They'd yet to industrialize and they were still using poorly trained, poorly equipped peasant levies. Yes, the threat of hordes of slavic bodies swarming the Japanese isles got them to surrender sooner, but the US blockade and bombing campaigns would have inevitably wore down the Japanese will to fight anyways. They knew there was no point getting bombed for colonies they couldn't even sail to anyways. They were just fishing for a better negotiating position in a negotiated peace. Remember, the hypermilitarist "bushido" thing didn't really get into full swing until the War To End All Wars.

Russia was only peripherally relevant during the Great European war, more consumed with its internal struggles, and while it came into its own as a modern military power because of the Great Eastern War, it didn't actually do a whole lot of the fighting. It was only during the Greatest War where it became the monstrously powerful nation we think about when we hear "Russia" today.
 
Last edited:
Ugh, this narrative really irritates me. "RUSSIA WON THE WAR! BACK TO BACK TO BACK GREAT WAR CHAMPS!" Yes, their shipments of grain really were a godsend to dust-bowl era america, but militarily they were a virtual nonentity during the Great Eastern War. They'd yet to industrialize and they were still using poorly trained, poorly equipped peasant levies. Yes, the threat of hordes of slavic bodies swarming the Japanese isles got them to surrender sooner, but the US blockade and bombing campaigns would have inevitably wore down the Japanese will to fight anyways. They knew there was no point getting bombed for colonies they couldn't even sail to anyways. They were just fishing for a better negotiating position in a negotiated peace. Remember, the hypermilitarist "bushido" thing didn't really get into full swing until the War To End All Wars.

Russia was only peripherally relevant during the Great European war, more consumed with its internal struggles, and while it came into its own as a modern military power because of the Great Eastern War, it didn't actually do a whole lot of the fighting. It was only during the Greatest War where it became the monstrously powerful nation we think about when we hear "Russia" today.
No, I wasn't saying that Russia won the war at all; Russia's entry made Japan's defeat inevitable, but it only entered the war after Japan's defeat was extremely likely to the point of basically being certain.
(OOC: We've established that Russia was on the losing side of the Great War)
 
Eh. I don’t think that really had to do with Germany’s alliance with France as much as it did Kaiser Friedrich III’s reforms, which probably would’ve happened regardless of if Germany and France allied.

Well, that depends; if France is hostile can Fredrick feel secure enough in forgein policy to take a hard line with his Wonderboy Bismark and get him to sign into the franchise change? Freddy was a great domestic leader, but an idealist on the international scene who was really save from the consquence that ought to have come from his policies by German's unassailable position in the safe heart of allied buffers.
 
No, I wasn't saying that Russia won the war at all; Russia's entry made Japan's defeat inevitable, but it only entered the war after Japan's defeat was extremely likely to the point of basically being certain.
(OOC: We've established that Russia was on the losing side of the Great War)
OOC: I'm not seeing any mention of Russia previously in the thread.
 
Do you think that the absence of a Franco-German rapprochement would have enabled the British Empire to hang on a little longer? Obviously we have the modern British Commonwealth, today's 'third bloc' behind the U.S.A and F.E.K, but could the imperial structure have endured longer without the strain of the competition it experienced IOTL?

And what implications would a longer-term British Empire have for the world? How would India have fared if under British control for longer? Would Imperial Federation have occurred later, if at all? Would the British Isles, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa be one entity today, or would these regions have gone their separate ways if the Empire lasted longer?

So many questions! I really don't know where to begin.
 
Do you think that the absence of a Franco-German rapprochement would have enabled the British Empire to hang on a little longer? Obviously we have the modern British Commonwealth, today's 'third bloc' behind the U.S.A and F.E.K, but could the imperial structure have endured longer without the strain of the competition it experienced IOTL?

And what implications would a longer-term British Empire have for the world? How would India have fared if under British control for longer? Would Imperial Federation have occurred later, if at all? Would the British Isles, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa be one entity today, or would these regions have gone their separate ways if the Empire lasted longer?

So many questions! I really don't know where to begin.
Do the British really consider themselves a third bloc historically? Even soon after the Anglo-Entente War, they were fairly cordial with the other European monarchies which were F.E.K. members, mainly due to having a greater threat in the U.S., which wanted to spread technocratic rule to Canada and Britain's other New World colonies, and even after the détente the I.F. has remained on good terms with the rest of Europe. They may not be a formal member of the F.E.K., but they're clearly aligned towards their fellow monarchies on the mainland.

As for the I.F., like with the liberalization of Germany, I don't really see the lack of the Franco-German Entente affecting things. The idea of the Imperial Federation stretches long before the Franco-Prussian War, so I don't see the outcome of that war changing affecting it. I also don't really see Canada, Australia, New Zealand, or Cape leaving, considering they don't really have a national identity that isn't tied to the British. Maybe you could get an independent "South Africa", in the same vein as the Republic of Transvaal or the Zulu Kingdom, but I really don't see the English population of Cape really wanting to secede. Even most of the native Bantu and Khoisan people, as well as most Afrikaners not in Transvaal, in Cape are fairly loyal to the Crown. I honestly think an independent Scotland or Ireland would be more likely than an independent Australia or Canada, if only due to culture.

As for some of their old imperial territories, I really don't see Britain holding on to them. India was always a lost cause once decolonization began in earnest; maybe you could get a more unified country instead of the mess we have in the subcontinent today, but even then that's unlikely due to the sheer diversity of the lands of the former British Raj. The British weren't very popular in most of Africa (save, of course, for Cape), so decolonization there was also pretty inevitable.
 
Top