France Signs a Separate Peace in 1917

One of the proposals which German diplomats proposed to France was for a separate peace in the West. Hoping to cut a deal with a left-wing government (something that could have happened given a slightly worse spate of mutinies among the poilus and corresponding lack of interest in the war), Germany proposed to annex Briey-Longwy, Luxembourg, and bits and pieces of Lorraine, as well as eastern Belgium. In return, France was offered the rest of Belgium.

What I'm really curious about is what the short-term and the long-term effects of such a deal being made are.

Where does the British army in Flanders go if France is no longer fighting Germany? What do the Belgians and their king do, if France is going to annex western Belgium, including the tiny strip they occupy?

In the long-term, what happens in French and German-occupied Belgium? What is the effect of the Great War on French national morale?
 

MrP

Banned
I think it'd be a bit suicidal for the French government to accept it. Not only are they sacrificing for good a sizable chunk of their natural resources and some important territory (the Briey Basin), but they're also shafting the Belgiums, on whose behalf the British very publicly based their intervention. So they'd piss off their own populace and make their main ally's situation politically untenable, even before military considerations come up.

Of course, if the situation is that bad at the front, and they have no choice, then they'll have to accept most of it. However, I can't see Belgium being turned over. The British government will have to stick to that point.

What date are you thinking in '17? Post-Nivelle Offensive, of course, but . . .
 
They could accept it and make their slice of Belgium independent. It's not as if the French were in a good position to demand better at this point.
 
I think it'd be a bit suicidal for the French government to accept it. Not only are they sacrificing for good a sizable chunk of their natural resources and some important territory (the Briey Basin), but they're also shafting the Belgiums, on whose behalf the British very publicly based their intervention. So they'd piss off their own populace and make their main ally's situation politically untenable, even before military considerations come up.

Indeed. I'm trying to figure out what sort of mess would happen if such a thing were to occur.

Of course, if the situation is that bad at the front, and they have no choice, then they'll have to accept most of it. However, I can't see Belgium being turned over. The British government will have to stick to that point.

What date are you thinking in '17? Post-Nivelle Offensive, of course, but . . .

I was thinking of a post-Nivelle collapse worse than in OTL. Troops marching home, a bit of a communist uprising, critical morale failures among higher-ups within leadership and a socialist government.

You probably need something else really bad to happen, too, so throw in a random German "probing" offensive that runs into deserted lines and takes a strategic point that further depresses morale: Verdun is probably the best in terms of "shock value", but very difficult at this point, so a conceivable "Nivelle Counteroffensive" which exploits the exceedingly poor morale of troops engaged in that offensive could lead to a capture of Soissons to the west and Rheims to the east.

We can finish up the crisis mode in which this deal takes place with Poincare, who did an admirable job of stabilizing things, getting shot, preferably by a disgruntled soldier. Get someone who isn't Clemenceau in office in his place. All it takes then is allowing Caillaux to be Prime Minister (or even, if possible, for him to be elected President in the first place) before such a treaty can be contemplated.

Tricky maneuvering, yes. :)

EDIT: Would be lovely* if you could have the British get into trouble by either doing scandalous things (lower levels of command) or saying things which are really insulting to the French (higher-ups) in a time of national crisis.

*From a "this is what I am trying to achieve with this timeline" persepective, of course.
 
Rotten French surrender-monkeys!
On a more serious note, I think you would have to massively ramp-up French casualty rates for this to work, AND keep the US out of the war.
 
I think you would have to massively ramp-up French casualty rates for this to work

Perfectly doable in a German Counter-Nivelle.

AND keep the US out of the war.

That's very interesting. What will Wilson and George do when they find themselves engaged in a war which has already been concluded by the predominant land power in their alliance?
 
That's very interesting. What will Wilson and George do when they find themselves engaged in a war which has already been concluded by the predominant land power in their alliance?
It depends on how much Wilson has invested in the war by now. If he's still at a distance, it can be called off. If he's already gone whole-hog, things are going to get messy.
 
Well if the French military was to collapse thing might be quite worse. 1917 saw the outbreaks of muntinies in the French army and if the high command had not been able to control them then France would have had to sue for peace Before the entire army collapsed and the Germans were able to gain much more.
 

MrP

Banned
Well if the French military was to collapse thing might be quite worse. 1917 saw the outbreaks of muntinies in the French army and if the high command had not been able to control them then France would have had to sue for peace Before the entire army collapsed and the Germans were able to gain much more.

No, no. Doug's positing worse for the French than IOTL. IOTL the army mutinied in protest at the failed offensives, most chaps were still happy to garrison trenches against the Germans. ITTL it'd be some sort of "Hundred Days" suffered by the French rather than the CP.
 
The argument is often made that the French mutinies would've been a good time to attack the French Army. To which there comes the counterargument that the mutineers were willing to defend just not attack. However this should then lead to a counter counterargument to concentrate German forces on the Western Front against the British. A two stage German attack that takes Bethune (France's only large remaining coal field) and further to the north Mt. Kimmel (the most important high ground in the area) would likely demoralize the French government esp. if the British counterattacks fail. Note that neither of these objectives would require huge German advances.
 
I have often considered the possibility of a seperate French peace. In 1917 Germany at best could only aquire a draw. The speculation should really be about the British. How would the people view a French pull out. Would it be a precursor to a general peace or would the British continue the war. I beleive the latter. Even with France out of the war there was the Italian theater to strike at Germany or Austro-Hungary.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
What does a separate French peace really give the Germans, assuming the British and the Americans decide that the Kaiser can still go screw?

They are still cut off from the world. The RN, even if the U.S. simply sits on its hands, has continental Europe sewed up tight. Nothing moves in or out. German industry still crashes due to lack of raw materials (since Germany has been stupid enough to set Lenin loose in Russia it will not be a useful source of raw materials for long). They are unable to produce enough food, since they can't get nitrates, they have no source for rubber, chromium, tungstun, and a host of other vital minerals, minimal sources of oil, and no markets to sell anything even if they somehow manage to produce something of value.

Germany winds up ruler of a ruined landscape. Then the Red flag flies and the Kaiser likely winds up on the end of a rope.
 
I'm tempted to say the Germans would let the French off lightly compared to what the Allies did to Germany OTL. First expect much of Belgium gone, puppeted, or turned into one of those weak powers with no real option but to stay friendly to everyone. Throw in France having a population willing to defend the nation but not go on the offensive for it and the Germans have a somewhat foolish place to declare all the land they want, and peace terms like the allies. Instead picture more of war payments, maybe a slice of land in the colonies, and of course more of the western provinces Germany already owns.
 
Guys

I think as said the key point would be the reaction of Britain and the US. Coupled with how willing the French would be to turn on their former allies. Because, in the unlikely event of such a deal, I think the British would be unwilling to evacuate the region under their control. Not to mention that it would be difficult seeing all the French agreeing to what is effectively a surrender and there would be at least some willing to fight on.

Without French military production the allies will struggle for a while. However I think Britain could pick up the slack and the US will get its act together in time. It would be tough but I think Britain could hold a position for the year or so until the US starts arriving in strength. If the Germans try attacking without Hurtier tactics they are likely to suffer very badly. It would be a meat grinder but the Germans would have difficulty attacking from the west.

As several posters have said, while it was still looking fairly strong militarily Germany was reeling under the pressure. The military control aggravated this by concentrating excessive attention on military production, which coupled with the allied blockage, tightened when the US joined the conflict, meant that the society was crumbling under the pressure.

The reason I think such a deal is unlikely is twofold. At that time, with the US just in the war and grossly underestimated by Germany, if France looked like it was defeated I would expect the military government in Germany would seek pretty harsh terms. Their war aims were consistently more extreme than the allies and with Russia also stricken by rebellion I don't see any reason why they would seek to moderate them.

Also I can’t see the French actually giving up short of far more disastrous defeats. In 1870 the French continued to fight mobilising new armies, even when their professional forces were defeated and their capital besieged. This time around they still have very power allies in play and still have considerable forces. Russia is weakened but still in the war and the US has just entered.

Steve
 
One of the proposals which German diplomats proposed to France was for a separate peace in the West. Hoping to cut a deal with a left-wing government (something that could have happened given a slightly worse spate of mutinies among the poilus and corresponding lack of interest in the war), Germany proposed to annex Briey-Longwy, Luxembourg, and bits and pieces of Lorraine, as well as eastern Belgium. In return, France was offered the rest of Belgium.

What I'm really curious about is what the short-term and the long-term effects of such a deal being made are.

Where does the British army in Flanders go if France is no longer fighting Germany? What do the Belgians and their king do, if France is going to annex western Belgium, including the tiny strip they occupy?

In the long-term, what happens in French and German-occupied Belgium? What is the effect of the Great War on French national morale?

I think France would have collapsed shorty afterwards. Either the Communists or Fascists would took power.
 
The French forces didn't "mutiny" in '17, they basically went on strike. No units ever left the trenches, and even after the unrest in the lines was put down, few units were withdrawn from front line service. I don't know if this book have since been translated into English (it came out in French in 2000), but Pierre Miquel's "Les Poilus" is a great resource, and a fantastic read, on the story of the French Army in the '14-'18 War.

Besides this, they didn't call Clemenceau "the Tiger" for nothing. You'd need to have him ousted from power before France would seek a seperate peace.
 
Whilst it is true that the French Army kept the Line after Nivelle's disasterous offensive, it is also true that they were never really good for offensive warfare for quite a while, until Petain had restored them. It took a good six or seven months of rest and good treatment.

1917 would have been an excellent time for the Entente to end the war. By that time all sides had forgotten what they were fighting about....the original war aims long drowned in blood.

And let's face it...the Central Powers were winning. Russia was finished, France almost finished and the Brits good for maybe one more offensive. The US were a year away from having any sort of presence militarily in France.

The Germans were advancing to autarchy in South Russia and after that the RN blockade would lose much of its force.

It is true though, and ironic in the circumstances, that France under Clemenceau, was the very last country to consider peace at that time.
 
I think as said the key point would be the reaction of Britain and the US. Coupled with how willing the French would be to turn on their former allies. Because, in the unlikely event of such a deal, I think the British would be unwilling to evacuate the region under their control. Not to mention that it would be difficult seeing all the French agreeing to what is effectively a surrender and there would be at least some willing to fight on.

World War I is not the same as World War II, and France's situation is 1917 is radically different from 1940.

I would imagine that any negotiated peace with Germany would include provisions on what to do about British soldiers currently on French soil, most likely France would demand their immediate withdrawal. If Britain refuses they face a rather unpleasant situation as the entire German Western Front Army can concentrate on them and with France out of the war there is a massive gap in the trench lines. Unless Britain pulls back to the coast and establishes a shorter and more defensible frontline Germany would easily be able to surround and annihilate the British.

Even if Britain manages to find a solid foothold in France along the coast that manages to resist the entire German West Front army the Allies are still in a difficult situation. If the Caporetto offensive goes more or less as it did in OTL the Italians might well seeks terms at that point given the much grimmer outlook of the war and the fact that no French aid will be forthcoming. Russia's situation is also untenable; the Provisional Government can either continue the war and be overthrown as per OTL or make peace with Germany and try to restore order.

So ... by 1918 Britain and the US are the last of the Allies left, and only hold a small enclave along the English Channel in continental Europe. Germany should be able to afford a limited demobilization to help their weakened economy, not to mention that maintaining the blockade will be difficult with France and Italy as neutral powers who are probably required by terms of the cease-fire to trade with Germany. The British public is none too eager to carry on a war they already consider lost, especially if victory means more murderous casualties in trench warfare with no end in sight. With Britain's manpower reserves drained and their public restive there will be the US will have to take up an offensive role and soak up the heavy casualties, something which could lead to revival of isolationist sentiments in the US.

Now, if the Germans are diplomatically canny they'll very publicly offer the British and US fairly reasonable terms; probably nothing more than a recognition of German gains from their victories over France, Italy, and Russia. The war-weary British public might well force the government to accept, though I imagine the British would do so with a firm intention of fighting a new war against Germany once they and their allies have had time to recover from their losses and the Germans are wearied from holding down their gains. I'd expect the British would also fund and support any anti-German resistance movements and/or radical political parties on the continent. The US, seeing no other options, also makes peace and likely becomes even more staunchly isolationist.
 
Top