I think you misunderstand, I am not trying to make the French out to be weak or cowards, but after defeat after defeat change of some sort is going to have to come. France could turn into a militarized state with a single-minded goal of defeating Germany.
France After World War I Loss
- Thread starter Tank Cdr
- Start date
I think you misunderstand, I am not trying to make the French out to be weak or cowards, but after defeat after defeat change of some sort is going to have to come. France could turn into a militarized state with a single-minded goal of defeating Germany.
Giysqun Wilde
Banned
I wasn't clear. The Germans had occupied around a third of France after the Franco-Prussian War until the French came with up five billion francs to pay them for their war costs.
wolf_brother
Banned
'Occupied' in the sense that they stood around doing nothing. The French were rather busy having a slightly civil war then between communists and everyone else. ITTL the Germans are going be dealing with constant guerrilla warfare and insurgents. They just don't have the manpower to hold down even apart of France and fight the Russians in the east and the Brits on the high seas.
Absolutely.
The best case scenario for Germany is minor gains in the west (the iron of Briey, some French colonies) and a free hand in the east. this will already be sufficient to ensure Britain as an enemy, which means that France always has an ally.
Nevertheless, I think that ITTL the French might accept the loss of alsace-Lorraine and maybe Briey. As stated before, it's the third time the Germans defeated the French. And this time France had half the world on its side. Even if they could be successful next time - will it be worth the effort?
Is France going to accept the role of being subserviant to Germany? Will France accept that Germany is the dominant power on the continent? Will they do that, or will they militarize on a large scale and swear revenge against Germany?
I may be verbally assaulted for this, but here goes. It is my impression that France and the French people have a need to be relevant and a need to be recognized as a great power. The French do seem to believe in French exceptionalism. What would such a loss in WWI do to this fundamental belief system? Is the French psyche be damaged to such an extent that radical violent change is inevitable, and what is the finished product going to look like?
I intend no insult to the French, so please do not take my comments as such!
You are right to say that there is such a thing as French exceptionalism in a way. The same way there is such a thing as American, British and German exceptionalism. Whenever a great power fell to the ground, the adjustment was very painful and very hard to do for the nation in question. Spain and the Spanish psyche were damaged by the loss of the Spanish Empire for example. You can also make the argument that Britain still has not completely adjusted to the loss of its Empire in some ways.
As I have argued before on a lot of other threads, the potential for a French "nazism" is close to non existent. Nazism was very much a German ideology, with roots dating back from the German philosophers of the 19th century and the German yearning to prove itself as a newly united nation to the rest of the world. If an authoritarian regime arise in France, it will likely be very reactionary, mildly antisemitic, catholic and agrarian in its outlook (nearly 60% population was living in the countryside at that time). Salazar Portugal and Franco Spain during the thirties, forties and fifties are a good approximation of what this authoritarian regime would look like.
Assuming a quick German victory over France in 1914, France losses would likely amount to the following:
-Longwy-Briey Iron Ore field in Lorraine. Possibly including the town of Nancy, essentially the entire Meurthe et Moselle département.
-The Fortress of Belfort (not a given but a strong possibility due to its strategic location)
-French Equatorial Africa
Other possible losses include Madagascar and parts of West Africa like Dahomey. France losing the entirety of Lorraine is unlikely since the region has little economic value a forced demilitarisation would negate the strategic advantage of the Vosges Line. A loss of the Nord Pas de Calais seems unlikely unless Germany is able to achieve an overwhelming victory after several years of wars (time for the hawks to push for more annexations).
Indochina might be taken by the Germans as well, but I think that Germany pushing for more concessions and advantages in China is more likely.
Morocco is another possible loss as well.
The really important thing is whether or not Germany would try to push France into joining a custorm and economic union favouring German products and German exports. If this is the case, France will de facto become a German puppet state and its economy will become hugely dependent on the German one.
I would say that isolationism is very likely whether or not the post war regime is democratic or authoritarian. The loss of the Lorraine iron ore mines and ironworks will have a severe negative impact on the French economy. France only major industrial region following the war will be the very likely damaged and looted Nord Pas de Calais; alongside Paris and the Seine valley. This alone will drastically lower the industrial potential necessary for a revenge and instill a deeply defensive and inwards looking mentality. As far back the early 1900s, French politicians were increasingly aware that France strategic position was becoming weaker, in a large part because of Germany dynamic economy and booming population (a huge source of worry).
If post war France is cut from her British and Russian allies and does not become part of the German economic sphere. Then isolationism will be the only option available. If Russia Tsarist regime is still in place, moves waimed at rebuilding the Franco-Russian alliance will be made but said alliance might focus more on economy and trade rather than on "let's attack Germany from two sides". The Franco-British Entente will be here to stay, particularly is Britain is pushed out of the continent entirely and loses some colonies in Africa. It would be in the best interest of both parties for said Entente to gain an economic dimension, France would be Britain only export market on the contient and vice versa.
The only place in Europe where France will be able to regain some influence and some allies (this also applies to Britain) will be in Spain and Portugal. Italy will quickly side with Germany if the latter is victorious, who knows if they honour their alliance at the last minute they might even gain some crumbs (Nice, parts of Savoy).
The only asset a defeated France will still have at her disposal will be her large colonial Empire. If Indochina is lost and taken by Germany, then the remaining Empire in Africa and the confettis elswhere is essentially worthless. Studies made by French historians (Jacques Marseilles) have proven that Indochina was France only profitable colony. Indeed it was exporting rubber, coal, minerals and other rare goods in large quantities by 1914 and even more by 1939. North Africa was only exporting agricultural produce, the Sahel and West Africa were underdevelopped in all respects. Places like Guiana, Martinique and such are still poor and dependent on money transfers from mainland France. New Caledonia was profitable but that's about it.
What is likely to happen is that refugees from the Lorraine will be encouraged to resettle in Algeria and throughout the colonial Empire (it happened in 1871 with Alsatian refugees). Depending on how foresighted post war governments are, a strong "push" to develop the overseas colonies might very well happen. Predicting likely results is a tricky exercise, it could go either way simply put but West Africa can't become as profitable as India was to the British or as the Congo would become to the Germans.
In a nutshell, isolationism is pretty much the only way forward. The only way France would be able to improve and strengthen its position, would be by investing in her economy and in her colonies. Essentially trying to achieve what Japan achieved after its defeat in 1945. Nevertheless there are no obvious markets to exports, no obvious investors and no obvious raw materials easy to tap into (nuclear power on Sahelian Uranium is a long way away).
Who said that? I didn't. France may accept being not strong enough to defeat Germany or not willing to go through the sacrifices required to do so.
If they loose WWI, they'll have to. Question is whether they'll challenge it. In WWI, they did so with Britain and Russia on their side. Who else can they get as an ally?
As I said, they have both options.
Yet given that they lost every time in the last century, Germany just got a lot stronger, and the last war was extremely costly, the fundamental question is: is it worth the effort? Is France willing to sacrifice another generation of young men for yet another try?
These are the questions that might be asked as well. And these questions might be stronger than revenge.
I am not saying that you said these things, I am just soliciting your opinion.
What is Germany going to allow the French to do? Is Germany going to try to end the conflict with France once and for all? Would Germany try to turn France into an emasculated client state? What would Great Britain do if that were to happen? What would Russia do, assuming they are not being destroyed by internal conflict? My overall question is, how powerful can Germany get and how weak can France get, realistically? World War I was really the beginning of the end for France as a world power and they were on the winning side, if they lost would it simply be the end?!?
Is France threatened with obliteration or is they will refuse to accept a treaty too harsh?
The September program is the closest thing we have to what the Germans would be looking for and if Paris is in German hands France is going to have a hard to refusing the sections that apply to them.
So expect huge reparations, border adjustments, French fort system destroyed and border demilitarized and occupation till reparations are paid.
As to colonies, French Equatorial Africa is the most likely target with some other locations. French Belgium to finish the creation a central African Empire.
I don't see the Germans getting much out of the UK in terms of colonies and an agreement on HSF along with Channel Ports would be key for UK.
It would be the Hegemon of continental Europe though.
Again if Paris is in German hands then it is game over, too much of French Banking, Industry and Population is occupied for effective resistance in the long term.
France and other powers would have little choice but to deal with the new order as Germany as the key power of Europe. See France during various points of the Napoleonic Wars. In effect only Russia and UK are going to have any real freedom of action if we assume an end date of Spring 1915. France as long as its under occupation is going to be very limited in terms of its actions. Other powers would have to be very careful in terms of there actions to avoid upsetting Berlin and actions would no doubt be framed from that view point; how would it be viewed in Berlin?
Michael
Why?
The Germans were able to FIGHT France and Russia for 4 years very effectively.
France in German hands makes the British naval problem much much worse. Not impossibly so but it gives the Germans a great many more options in terms of raiders, etc.
The Occupation of France isn't going to take as many troops as the Western Front did or units of the same quality. It would be used as the Germans did in WW2 a place to put shot up units to recover and a place for newly formed units to train up.
As to resistance, what resistance and why? Was there a active militant resistance movement in Poland in WW1? In Belgium? In Occupied France? The French Resistance of WW2 is often talked about but the factor of the mater was is that for much of the occupation period it did next to nothing. It took YEARS for the French Resistance in WW2 to actually form and longer for it to start to mater.
Michael
wolf_brother
Banned
1) I wouldn't call the clusterfuck that the Germans experinced in WWI 'effective' by any means,
2) Fighting a traditional war across battlefields, even in industrial/trench warfare, is very different from occupation duties,
3) You're assuming the French just roll over ('cheese-eating surrender monkeys' meme) and allows the Germans to use her ports, naval facilities, and ships,
4) An occupation takes up more troops than it did to originally conquer the territory,
5) WWII Nazi Germany had the Vichy government to co-opt and work with in occupying France, and even then the Free French Forces were still a real danger in many parts of the country. ITTL though there aren't enough collaborators to constituent an effective government; the entire countryside will be against the 'Hun.'
6) Yes, yes, and yes. Hell the Belgian resistance to German invasion was what brought Britain into WWI to begin with!
Since the Germans kept the French, British and Russians generally out of German territory for most of the war. IE fought the war on foreign territory, knocked Russia out of the war and did a great deal of Damage to France, etc. You will understand that one might have a different view point.
Is your contention that there was no occupation of Belgium, Poland, Etc? If you hold this belief I suggest that you do some reading as your view points is horribly flawed.
Normally what happens is when the field armies are driven out of an area and the area in question is under foreign occupation the civilians attempt to avoid trouble. This has nothing to do with cheese eating surrender monkey nonsense.
No it doesn't. How many troops were involved in the occupation of France in 1940-42? How many were involved in occupying Belgium 1915-18? Poland same time period? Etc. How about the occupation of the South during reconstruction?
Again you are not just in error here but badly so.
Really... Dates and locations please where the entire country side is against the 'the hun' as you put it. Then when you have said dates look back at what I said above that you replied to.
UGH... You do understand the difference between armies fighting and a popular resistance? Other than a small strip in NW Belgium the Belgian army was driven out and the rest of the country was under German Occupation. You have heard of terms like military governor, Military government, Government General, etc? In territory under German occupation in WW1 there was NO, I repeat NO popular armed uprising. There was resistance, yes but it was passive.
Michael
Snake Featherston
Banned
Sigh.....Germany cannot decisively win WWI, not against France. Even without Britain or Russia there are simply too many Frenchmen and the Schlieffen Plan is too blind to logistical reality for this to happen. The French army developed qualitatively superior forces to its German counterpart and every scheme devised by the Germans to undermine the French state failed abysmally.
Giysqun Wilde
Banned
You'd be surprised how many people would run away from enchroaching armies, especially if they have the reputation for throwing babies air in the and skewring them on bayonets. From what I can see, the Germans just need to hold their lines and wreck up the industrial lands they don't plan to keep while Indochina leaves French control. I would say that if the the Germans just get what they need in Europe, they can try writing off the mostly unprofitable colonies overseas, while the French will only have the unprofitable lands of the Carribbean and Africa left to drain their resources.
Snake Featherston
Banned
Again, the Germans simply do not have what it takes to win a short war against France, not with a plan that guarantees a general war in Europe, which their plan does. They faced two simultaneous invasions, shot their bolt, and failed. The victory on the Marne was the result of the Schlieffen Plan's willful disregard for the reality that banking all on a successful six-weeks advance, without considering logistics or how any army can be guaranteed an uninterrupted six weeks of victories or even intact railroads is not a brilliant idea, particularly when your very concept of war means that you will be at war against Russia and the UK at the same time.
So you are saying no France, no Russia and Germany can't win? I just want to be clear.
The S plan was a very flawed plan but despite it flaws it had a chance of working. I agree it was a bad plan all things considered but it wasn't hopeless, it was a risk and a throw of the dice, VERY PRUSSIAN in other words.
As to the French army being better than the German army I would love to see a source for that. I have read several on the pre-war arms races and during the war itself and NONE of them contend that the French army was a better force.
The ranking in terms of quality such as it was went down like this from what I have read.
1) British Army
2) German Army
3) French Army
Start to see a big drop off in terms of quality / capability
4) Russian Army
5) Hapsburg Army
6) Italian Army
Germany had a much better chance to win it all in WW1 than in WW2. The harder logistical task was taking out Russia and that was done in 1917. German diplomacy and strategic short horizons being what it was managed to add enemy, after enemy during the war.
Germany can't win against most of the rest of the Industrialized world. It is really hard to take down and it can take out 2 or even 3 other great powers. A war fought vs. Russia and France is very winnable, not easy but certainly winnable.
Michael
To win a short war with France? I agree the odds are against it, its not however a total impossibility. The Germans were not idiots by any stretch of the imagination, they made the choices they did for reasons that AT THE TIME looked reasonable to them.
The S plan the result of a specific set of circumstances that came to be following the Russo-Japanese war. By 1910 things had changed and by 1914 a great more so.
A good case can be made that the time for the S plan had passed by and a number of Germans at the time did make this claim. There was a big debate as to what strategy to follow.
IF the Germans can some how pull it off and take Paris odds are France asks for an armistice. German diplomacy being what it was odds are they would find some way to put their for in their mouth, they had a real talent for it after Bismarck was gone.
Michael
Michael