French win the Franco-Prussian war

What would happen had the French won the war.
Depends what kind of win we are talking about. With a POD close to the war, the best France could do is break the Prussians while they invade France and occupy a small part of Prussia. Certainly, the French would take measures to ensure that the Southern German states would never join a greater Germany. I expect that Berlin would be made to pay a rather large indemnity too, but beyond that there really isn't much that the French can force the NGC to do. I don't really see the French as being able to break it up, but perhaps someone more knowledgeable than me could correct me.
 
Galileo-034 would know better than I on this but it depends a lot on how and who wins the war.

1) Nappie won decisively the war.
That's probably going to be the hardest : french army was barely prepared, badly organised and badly lead. It wasn't doomed to fail, and a better planned war would have gone very differently, especially with the good equipment it had, but it's going to be hard.

You can write off any blunt annexation or dream about left bank of the Rhine. There's no way Britain would accept this.

That said, I could see the annexation of territories lost at the Treaty of Paris, as Landau, and it could prevent Prussia to fully take on southern German states, preserved as some form of buffer region. Indemnities should be in order.

2) Nappie doesn't loose the war.
The more likely outcome, if Napoleon manages to hold out Prussians, with a long war ongoing is a status-quo ante-bellum for France, and a still ongoing German unification.

Bismarck didn't want a long war, and his goal was more unification than annexation. Once his objective reached on this regard, wasting ressources wouldn't be sound for him.

Both of these would certainly prevent the fall of the IInd Empire under Nappie III, while it's less certain for the future. The problem with charismatic regime is that they depend a lot of circumstances, but for what matter the aftermath of the war, it would be safe.

3) French Republic doesn't loose the war.
It's as hard, but still doable. A bit like 2), the goal is to undergo a war of attrition but there, a long war isn't advised.
Most of elites were opposed to a republican re-establishment, and would take advantage of the situation to destabilize it as a regime of war (as they did IOTL).
If Gambetta offensive was to work properly, effectivly breaking Paris' siege, Bismarck could be tempted to undergo negociations with France still paying reparations.

French army should do really well to prevent territorial losses, but for all the challenge it was at this point, it was still doable playing on Bismarck's political priorities.
 
Option 2 may lead to option 1, because if the war lasts, it is very possible that Austria-Hungary joins in against Prussia.

Direct option 1 is not realistic unless you have an earlier point of departure where the french military reorganization begins earlier.

Option 3 is even less realistic than option 1. The republicans' continuing the war was a strategic and tactical nonsense. The republican leaders knew nothing about war. They made war in history books, thinking they could repeat what had happened during the french revolutionary wars, when the whole nation was mobilized.

The point they had missed (if they did not do it purposedly, in order to win support for incarnating diehard nationalism) was that, eighty years later, the world had changed, the industrial revolution had happened, waging war had become much more professional, and that an army of voluntary peasants or townsmen had no other perspective than being massacred by a well-organized and modern army.
 

jahenders

Banned
Win or lose, it primarily just lays the groundwork for the next war (WWI-like). However, if France wins, it'll weaken Germany and change their outlook. They'll definitely be looking for revenge around 1910 or so, but they may be more careful in their diplomacy since a 2 front war is probably beyond them. They'd be far less inclined to encourage war with Russia and less likely to support A-H if they did.

It's possible, then that, instead or WWI, you might have the Franco-German war (since the power dynamic in Germany would change).

Russia, Austria, and Serbia might still fight, but Germany might stay out of it and focus on France.

England, Turkey, and Italy might not have a dog in the fight at all, though Italy might take advantage of A-H weakness if they start losing.

Japan might still attack European holdings in the Far East, but might do so without any alliance. They could attack German, French, and/or Russian holdings, depending on how the wars in Europe progressed.
 
There was a timeline where the French do a lot worse in Mexico. This was France's Winter War. It showcased the weakness of the French army to both Napoleon the 3rd, but the world. N III is forced to take the situation seriously and starts some long needed reforms.

This also has the benefit of the French not having to use resources to hold up a failing regime.

This might make a scenario where the French manage to hold out and win a defensive battle more plausible.
 
Italy thought to send troops on aide to France, even after taken Rome...but in the end decided that this was none of her business (it will become a sore point between Italy and France for the following couple of decades).
Maybe after Rome it's conquered, the expected expedition corp (80.000 men) it's send to aid the republic
 
Italy thought to send troops on aide to France, even after taken Rome...but in the end decided that this was none of her business (it will become a sore point between Italy and France for the following couple of decades).
Maybe after Rome it's conquered, the expected expedition corp (80.000 men) it's send to aid the republic

If that happens the Austrians might sense an opportunity and Join the Italian-French Alliance.

If in a brief moment of common sense the Austrians and Italians can agree on revising "the border" - namely Trento, and an agreement about the once Venetian territories (not meaning to transfer them to Italy, rather a population transfer) the whole dynamic that led to OTLs Great war is changed.

If - as example Austria takes Silesia and creates Saxony and Bavaria (maybe even Baden and Würtemberg as satelites) You get an Austria again focussed on Germany instead of the Balkans. Germany is broken up (again) in smaller states (Hesse, Hannover - to please Britain. Schleswig-Holstein might end in Danish hands... - just dreaming ;)
 
If in a brief moment of common sense the Austrians and Italians can agree on revising "the border" - namely Trento, and an agreement about the once Venetian territories (not meaning to transfer them to Italy, rather a population transfer) the whole dynamic that led to OTLs Great war is changed.

While i agree that this will greatly improve Italian-Austrian relations and probably solve a great deal of problem (add some autonomy, at least nominal, at Trieste and some rights at the italian minority there...like an university and we can even have a civil relationships between Rome and Vienna). Frankly i see that happen only if both leaderships are hit by something of very very heavy in the head, so some neural pathways it's activated.
 
While i agree that this will greatly improve Italian-Austrian relations and probably solve a great deal of problem (add some autonomy, at least nominal, at Trieste and some rights at the italian minority there...like an university and we can even have a civil relationships between Rome and Vienna). Frankly i see that happen only if both leaderships are hit by something of very very heavy in the head, so some neural pathways it's activated.

Yes a series of hard hits is required ;)
 
Top