CP win WWI and France surrenders in 1917/18 (USA stays neutral). How would the situation in Ftance have developed? A Revolution obviously had to happen. Maybe a civil war? Who would have won? WOuld it have been an unstable republic like the Weimar Republic? Would socialists have came to power or someone like Mussolini from the far-right?
Domestic and economic situation in France that lost WWI
- Thread starter Moctezuma1466
- Start date
I think there would only be a series of strikes and small-scale fighting between socialists and the police, the government would be forced to resign and a socialist will take power, not really a communist one because that would be something that wouldn't be accepted.
I can't see socialist France here. OTL French government was already leftist so many hardly think going even more leftist is option. And Germans wouldn't allow that anyway. They would have already deal with Red Russia.
France probably remain pretty instable while and certainly hostile with Germany but it is not able or even willingful to do anything. It has already lost two wars to Germans in 50 years. France might anyway fall to far-right-wing goverment.
France probably remain pretty instable while and certainly hostile with Germany but it is not able or even willingful to do anything. It has already lost two wars to Germans in 50 years. France might anyway fall to far-right-wing goverment.
The Germans won't really be in a position to send their armies to crush the Communists and France will never accept Germany's help.
I don't know if commies/syndicalists/some else such would are strong enough get full power in France anyway. And if Germans want come to France to pacify things French have not much saying.
Listen if there is one thing that can unite the French it's the Germans, everyone no matter the ideology will fight against the Germans. Germany isn't in a position to send their armies because the Germans don't want to go to war once they've won the Great War, if the government tries to do this it will face gigantic opposition.
... almost without any doubt.
... rather no.
If whatever french goverment restarts war it would be the french restarting the war truly nobody wants. ... therefore this time the french have to be reduced to almopst nonexistance.
It would be rather easy to rally even the war-tired german populace against someone being as perfidous and stupid to restart all the evil again.
The French certainly won't restart the war as they have internal issues to solve first and because no one wants to restart a conflict that they just lost with the help of Britain and Russia, so restarting the conflict by their side is impossible.
The Germans cannot restart the conflict with France because they also have some problems to solve internally, because they have internal opposition and because no one in France will accept German "help", even a Fascist would prefer living under the commies then beat the with help from "les Boches".
The Italians did that despite winning. Stab in the back myths are fairly common, the French did that already for 2 Napoleons before, why stop now?
It wasn't really a stab in the back "myth" for Italy, it was real. Italy was promised certain territorial gains in return for entering the conflict on the Allied side, and then the genius Woodrow Wilson came along and rescinded it.
I'm with you that the german empire even after a "won" Great War (with everybody exhausted on their knees) won't be fond of any military adventures within France esp. not "just" for involvement to the intricabilities of french domestic politics trying to install some somewhat more germanfriendly regime regardless who's screaming the loudest for 'revenge' (once again). They qould well know there IS no german-friendly faction to speak off at all.
BUT ...
... as soon as any article/chapter of the the Peace treaty ITTL might get violated, ignored by the french politiocians (like too few reparations transferred => remember the Ruhr-occupation vice versa) or even german soil and/or citizens violated (i.e. some rioting mass massacring some german civlians or soldiers on holiday or alike) the situation would change and changable for even the german goverment - of whatever kind and political flavour - and its propagandistics PRO-intervention.
... more on topic ...
Try "Place in the Sun" by @Kaiser Wilhelm the Tenth in its first iteration (the not yet so far reaching but even more recommendable REDUX can be found here). There are some ... interesting chapters regarding your questions to be found 😁 .
Versailles was a very particular treaty, the treaty was so harsh because the French wanted to humiliate the Germans more than they had been humiliated in the Great War, this was a revenge and a tentative to not get invaded for a third time by limiting the German army too 100k men.
The Germans don't really have a reason to humiliate the French as they have already done that by defeating them and occupying the Northern part of the country for the entire war. This would probably mean a lighter peace deal than Versailles, obviously it would be a humiliation for France but not some insane reparations like OTL, also the reparations OTL were so harsh on Germany because it was the only CP that had an economy that could pay back all of this money.
So violating this treaty is much harder than violating Versailles, the French really don't have a reason to violate the treaty as round three is certainly lost and the Germans want to recover from the Great War not start a new one.
And also given the context that the 1871 peace treaty Germany forced on France was significantly harsher than Versailles, something many seem to forget when calling Versailles "the most unfair harshest treaty in the history of ever™️"
It was harsh but Germans occupied half of Continental France while Germany in WW1 had still a semi-functioning military, one of the reasons of the stabbed in the back myth.
It would be harsh and an humiliation to France but I doubt it would be as harsh as Versailles since the Germans won't demand ridiculous amounts of money IMO. And the Germans won't have a reason to make demilitarised zones and impose restrictions on the military.
And unlike the Germans France has been defeated so a stab in the back myth is harder to imagine.
The French army wasn't restricted to 100,000 men in 1871.
IMHO Germany had as much motivation to make the peace treaty after a victory as 'humiliating' as the french IOTL. During the last somewhat over 100 years french rulers had 3 times attacked german lands
Napoleon I (Rheinbund 1806 and its further encroachments/occupations until 1813)
Napolen III and ofc the
III. Republique (as the german understood it being 'forced' by encirclement and 'forced' to take arms against France once again)
Three times french arms 'failed' to defeat german soldiers in the end and obviously the french nation needed to be contained in a much more thorough way it was the last times. Not to forget, the german populace esp. at home- as it 'feeled' it - had suffered more than the french populace esp. at home and as a whole with its access to food and other goodies from abroad.Nevertheless ...
The german civilian politicians of the goverments of Bethmann-Hollweg as well as Georg Michaelis as well as Georg von Hertling as well as Max von Baden were much more concilliatorily minded than the nationalist bawlers of tirpitzian or ludendorffian kind. These politicians were open to almost everthing to reestablish relations with France even a 'white-peace' outcome esp. regarding territorial changes on the continent. During the war heir demands were constantly winded down though changed somewhat in parallel to changes on the battlefield admittingly.
And NO:
the so called 'September program' never was a 'program'. As said the goverment politicians in charge were VERY flexible regarding demands on France.
And also NO:the 'dynamic duo' of H-L (or otherwise called the mythical 'silent dictatorship') had not much of a say in diplomatics if any (regardless their numerous attempts to best the politicians there).
They were able to change the heads of goverment but - unfortunatly for them - these did NOT simply followed their orders. ... quite the opposite as the numerous and quick changes after Bethmann-Hollweg IMHO strongly indicate.
Regarding reparations ...
Worth of war bonds with the last of september 1917 ('peace' per OP 1917/1918) : ~ 144 billion marks probably be the base of demands. I would assume the germans - to make it also more 'digestible' - 'open' to account other ... 'benefits 'n services' against like ...
estimated worth of certain colonies,
estimated worth of economical rights within the Longwy-Briey basin ... or even additional mining operations,
some 'special' concessions in the remaind french colonies for i.e. mining and or railways, etc., etc.
therewith reducing the actual sum to be paid in kind which probably - similar to 1871 and the german delivery of goods postwar IOTL - would/could be paid in delivery of other goods as well.Even if the to be paid sum could be reduced to ... dunno 100 ? ... 75 ? ... 50 billions with an according payment plan it would be an unheard of sum (though still far from what the Entente demanded).
Militarily ...
French fortresses - as the german ones IOTL - would VEERY likely have to be grinded. ... right to build new ones far more westernly ... I'm not sure what the politicians would vote for tbh ...
Troop reducement also VEERY likely though I have no idea down to what number, for its 'roudness' about 100.000 ? ... 200.000 men in metropolitan France? Additional colonial troops would very likely be allowed too though with some further restriction esp. regarding northern africa. This part would be a very hard thing to negotiate. IIRC even the militaries were somewhat malleable and more realistic reagrding postwar military 'needs' even of a defeated France.
So, yes: I would agree that after a german victory the demands of the treaty could/would be less severe than the ToV to be at least somewhat better 'digestible' for the french politicians - in the minds of the german politician (who due to their 'legalistic' proveniance and claim for acceptability would insist on 'real' negotiations contrary to what happened IOTL in Versailles)... though still conveived as by the french populace and french national propaganda esp. as utterly humiliating.
... about the 'reasonability' of such nationalistic circles regarding some revanche again ... despite the last failed attempts ...
But I would agree that every french postwar goverment ITTL would do its very best to avoid - at least for the next 5 to 10 years ... I would assume ... how long is the half-worth time of a french goverment of the III.republic again?
