Germans Annex half of France after 1871

RalofTyr

Banned
So, after the Franco-Prussian war of 1871, the Germans decide to do what they did in 1941 and occupy half of France.


Your thoughts and opinions please.



Oh, and I tried to search the forums for this very topic, just in case some one else beat me to it, but, every time I search, I just get a blank page so forgive me.
 
Bismarck's not that stupid. Seriously, 19th century wars don't work that way, and he wasvery much a 19th centzury power politician. Hew even opposed the annexation of Alsace-Lorrasine initially, and these were areas with significant German-speaking populations. Even the most extreme nationalists would hardly want to rule over a lot of French people. The idea behind German unification was to unify the Germans, after all.

The Prussians did keep a force in France for a few years to ensure that their lot was paid, but I can't imagine any remotely sane politician advocating a restoration of the greatest Germanic Reich by taking over the old Frankish kingdom. And that is aside from practical considerations.
 
What Carlton said. The Germans don't want this. Nobody else wants this. And anyway even the Nazi occupation was never confirmed by an annexation (they did annex Alsace-Lorraine). It was a war measure.
 
A German desaster

Hello!

Maybe Bismarck was no genius when it comes to dealing with France, but he was not a megalomaniac idiot like the little Austrian.

Actually, Germany occupied half of France during the war and remained in a number of fortresses as occupiers until the war idemnity had been paid (something France did at an unforseen quick pace). As long as France refuses to make peace, you have the occupation going on. Also, on friendlier terms, if France is unwilling to pay, you can also prolong the Germans' stay.

A simple occupation of France "because the Germans want it" would have been desastrous for several reasons:
a) guerilla warfare
The Germans already had mounting problems with the so-called Franctireurs. Things wouldn't go better.
b) international prestige
Remember, Bismarck had managed to present the Franco-Prussian war as a defensive war. Napoleon III had been trapped, sure, but he lost his nerve and declared war.
If Germany occupied/annexed parts of France on a Napoleonic (I) scale, it would have seen as an inappropriate grab for hegemony in Europe.
c) continuation of the war
France would not make peace. Germany would have to occupy it all and that would at that time mean a complete overstretching of its ressources. Prussia had an impressive military machine, but as in the 1940s, they were happier with Blitzkrieg. Remember, Germany in 1870 still lacked a lot of the industrial and demographic power it had at its hands in 1914 or 1939.
d) intervention
The longer the war already went and the unexpected results it had (crushing defeat of Napoleon III, coronation in Versailles, annexation of Alsace-Lorraine), the more antagonised Britain got. Under the circumstances you propose, it might as well have rallied allies to fight for the balance of power. Prussia already had some potential enemies, notably Austria-Hungary and Denmark. However, it would need the British a lot of money and diplomacy to convince them of another go. I cannot see Russia attacking Prussia in the 1870s, though. Maybe, though, a well-prepared British intervention would have been problematic enough.
 
They did occupy half of France...

Not permanently, but until the Commune had been put down, and a proper treaty could be signed and agreements made

They were there for a good few months. In 1940 Nazi Germany only occupied France pending a general peace - if Britain had surrendered then there would have been a more permanent solution. Don't forget that Vichy had domestic authority over the occupied North

The likelihood in 1940+ would have been for France to have acceded to the Axis, Germany to have negotiated use of some bases, and taken back Alsace-Lorraine, some losses to Italy, and the rest ruled by French fascists

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 

Eurofed

Banned
What Grey Wolf said. Even the Nazis did not mean to annex the occupied zone, it was essentially set up that way to provide Germany full strategic access to northern and atlantic France as long as war with Britain continued. Any plausible peace treaty between the Axis and Vichy France would have seen the annexation of Alsace-Lorraine and Luxemburg by Germany, Nice and Savoy by Italy, the rest would be left to France. Now, depending on how much Germany wants to mollify France and the pecking order between fascist Italy and fascist France in the Axis totem pole, Germany may or may not annex the rest of Lorraine, Italy may or may not annex Corsica, and France may or may not partition Belgium with a fascist Netherlands.

Hearkening back to the 1871 case, the very most you could see happen is that Germany annexes the rest of Lorraine as well, and the Franco-German border is placed on the Maas/Meuse. While the German claim would be rather weaker since the rest of Lorraine was culturally French, there were potential historical and strategic justifications to claim it.
 

Susano

Banned
What Carlton said. The Germans don't want this. Nobody else wants this. And anyway even the Nazi occupation was never confirmed by an annexation (they did annex Alsace-Lorraine). It was a war measure.

The funny thing is that, IIRC, the Nazis never had Alsace-Lorraine formally re-annexed by treaty or declration, just de facto by extending regular German administration to it...

Anyways, the important things have already been said in this thread: It wont happen. Hell, Bismarck himself, personally, was even opposed to the annexion of Alsace-Lorraine!

And yes, as Grey Wolf said the Nazis did not take half of France in WW2. The Vichy government retained full control over France (minus Alsace-Lorraien and minus Nord-Pas de Clais which came to the Belgian occupation authority), it was just that in Northern France and along the Atlantic coast German troops were stationed...
 
Top