How much does France loose in a CP victory?

Those are France's prized possessions and on the periphery of German interests, so the only way you'll get them pryed out from under France is if Italy is involved,since North Africa is her dream colonies.

Either that, or France is so unstable that it simply can't hold onto its colonies. However, instability is hard to control, so that might not be entirely in Germany's favour.
 
Either that, or France is so unstable that it simply can't hold onto its colonies. However, instability is hard to control, so that might not be entirely in Germany's favour.

Possible, but that likely requires an even earlier POD to somehow get France's basic domestic situation that set to fall apart under any reasonably expectable degree of pressure. France's underlying democratic framework and civil economy were functioning smoothly (if overloaded at times) through the whole conflict,which kept the radicals small in number and defanged.
 
Yah... likely not happening without some solid Pre-War PODs that have Italy in a better position economically/militarily and hostile enough to France to go along with the CP (which likely involves France not signing off for an attack on Libya and thus likely no Balkan Wars,which has a cascading hoard of butterflies). Those are France's prized possessions and on the periphery of German interests, so the only way you'll get them pryed out from under France is if Italy is involved,since North Africa is her dream colonies.
What about the Ottomans?
 
What about the Ottomans?

... Look, I'm a major Ottomanophile and all but in 1914 they're in no position to be making large territorial gains and projecting any kind of meaningful defense/governance/authority over them. The nation was reeling from coups, two Balkan Wars, the lose of Triopolitania, half century of crushing debts/lack of fiscal autonomy, and woulld be needing to reconstruct strong authority in the Near East and more likely/closer/valuable gains.
 
Possible, but that likely requires an even earlier POD to somehow get France's basic domestic situation that set to fall apart under any reasonably expectable degree of pressure. France's underlying democratic framework and civil economy were functioning smoothly (if overloaded at times) through the whole conflict,which kept the radicals small in number and defanged.
is it inherently more difficult to throw democratic countries into anarchy/"warlordism"?
 
is it inherently more difficult to throw democratic countries into anarchy/"warlordism"?

I'd argue "yes", though that's another debate entirely. The relevant question is how difficult it would be for a democracy like France with the situation domestically it had in 1914 to devolve into anarchy, to which I say "basically zero chance". Elections function, the population sees the state as legit and exercising its powers responsibly and effectively, the various systems of state are linked together tightly, ect. It's not like Russia and Austria where compliance was mostly cohereced and local power brokers were less dependent on the state than the state became on them.
 
So, even in an absolutely crushing cp victory, its not likely that Algeria will stop being French?
Not even slightly. By 1918 France has been in Algeria for close to a century, the Germans are just hoping the UK will accept Belgium as a trade to get its own colonies back, and the Ottomans are more interested in taking oil-rich Azerbaijan than trying to reestablish suzerainty over a North African boondoggle that stopped returning their calls about 200 years prior.
 
Tempering the "victory" to one more rather than less likely, I get similarly drawn out and costly war, ending as 1916 closes for practical purposes but extending into 1917 for all the wrong reasons. My "best" POD is Wilson becoming incapacitated after suspending US credit and before solidifying his goal of displacing Germany as the number two power. Without additional easy credit and certainly no unsecured loans beginning in 1916 the Entente are on far less certain footing.Tip a few scales towards Germany and the "victory" is an obviously stalemated but "winnable" war that is wound down for being too costly once Russia yields. I do not doubt that France can defend herself but I think her ability to mount any offensive is gone, the Germans may be slow but the tide is against France, a cold peace is going to be the best option. Britain will not let Germany have free reign but will give her enough to end the war as favorable to British aims as possible. Here it is likely a Provisional Government negotiating a peace with Germany, a peace that may be onerous but likely does not rise to a B-L fate nor preclude further revolution, it gives Poland and the Baltics to Germany/A-H, Finland goes independent and the Ukraine devolves into some anarchy but not certainty it is secured either way. So what does this Germany, grasping victory to the East, having stumbling allies, beginning to feel the blockade, its economy straining, the West a costly stalemate, do?

I would argue that Germany carves off a few choice morsels, some coal mines or iron ore, tens of square kilometers, it finds Britain unyielding in regards to Liege but amenable to a vague status quo. Britain holds the best cards and has the most to lose further, France will not give up territory without Germany occupying it, so I do think colonial Africa is the pressure relief valve. Wilhelm has too little influence to really be in control, the civilian authority is still likely at least equal to the Army's emergency hold, so the real terms should be rather benign at the end of the day. Germany really needs the war over and trade to resume, it needs an end to the arms races and the isolation promised if it does not bend to get a better peace. So it likely surrenders its positions in France to regain its colonies in Africa, how much more France must give is rather uncertain but a few bits like French Congo might not be a good bargain for reparations that cannot really be forced. Britain can give back SWA and the Pacific territories, to get Germany out of Belgium and more, the German position is China is likely gone, Japan can only be pushed so far. But the pins on a map are fluid and less important long term. What has France lost?

France has lost Italy as anything like an ally, it is at best a co-conspirator against Germany/A-H, but it is a dangerous playmate. France has lost its influence over Greece and much if not all its influence in the Balkans. France has lost Russia as any real ally, at best the threat from Germany gives them some warm spots but if Russia further devolves into chaos even that is uncertain. France has lost much of its foreign investment, its place in Ottoman affairs gone, its position in the far east far more tenuous. France here is as ungratefully dependent upon the British as ever, likely forced to be the only continental counter to German hegemony. France will have Belgium as a reluctant friend but the gravity of the German dominated European economy will revert her to neutrality and never true alliance. Britain can pursue detente and next rapprochement, appeasing Germany will be good for Britain, France will never be certain of how far she can depend on the British once more going to war for her salvation.

This depends upon savvy British diplomacy and sober German moves, rare commodities just after such a gruesome war, but France can retain her basic place, she has most of her Empire, she is still a real thorn in Germany's side if pressed, she has the ability to recover, her first priority is to get back as close to 1914 as possible, borders, economy, debt and investment, to get there she can offer up more than pieces of France, she has a few far away pawns to surrender, Germany can be sated on that with what she hauls in from the East, besides her hands will be full, her allies need a lot of rebuilding, her conquests need a lot of investment, the British still control the seas and the USA is the best option to reopen the trade flows that create the wealth that made Germany number two.

So my best guess is that France loses a lot but not as much as is obvious on the map, Germany can be bribed to withdraw, and worst of all France might just hunker down and turn its back on Germany, that might be its worst move, to try and build itself off the Empire and too tied to Britain, this France may lose out on the longer term recovery and boom an integrated Europe can offer. An ersatz cold war looks familiar and feels as hollow. Better if the passage of time allows France to engage Germany and become a major trade partner, she has much to offer and more to profit. But I think we take at least a generation or two before we see such a stable or prosperous Europe built on economic integration, France needs to lose some of its pride, if it can be a mid-sized fish in a bigger pond then perhaps what it lost isn't for nothing. An alternative is France building better bridges to the USA, as always the Americans are a wildcard, a better trade alliance there might create a strange realignment like all butterflies can.
 
The economic and geopolitical realities of trying to force complience via constant cohersian rather than cooperation over such a wide swath of areas? Germany can't keep the war economy running as hot as she has been for any reasonable period of time without the home front cracking under it's weight, and if you have a hostile Russia,hostile France, are trying to subdue half of Africa from zero on the ground adminstrative reform and are staging a occupation in France and Eastern Europe that's fighting gurellia operations all while the civilians are screaming to have the boys come home and their normal lives back something, somewhere will crack and you risk the structure falling apart.

Better more modest gains that you can certainly hold then megolomanic dreams you can't

this is rather strange. The thread assumes that France is beaten into the ground. In that case, Russia soon follows and then Britain.

There is no "huge cost" to keeping France down. France is paying tribute to Germany and understands that she will never be able to rival Germany again. After all, if she can't win with Russia and Britain, how is she going to win without them?

The "occupation" of Eastern Europe and France doesn't have to cost much- after all the British could rule India with less than a 100,000 men. All you do is occupy the key points (railroad junctions, fortresses, ports and utilities) and let the locals run the rest. Its the way Europe had been doing occupations for years. The Soviets managed to do it quite well for example.

And since you don't have to maintain a large standing army to face the defeated French and Russians, your costs are much lower

As for administrating the colonies, the French, Belgians, British an
September program wasn't an official war goal or anything, it's significance is often overstated.

Correct, they weren't the official war aims and they are overstated. The actual terms are likely to be far worse when the Kaiser and the German Princes draft the real demands


Why would Germany want France's colonies as they're money sinks, are restive with French citizens sprinkled through them at best or borderline rebellious at worst? I could see them taking the French Congo/possibly parts of Equatorial Africa to lump in with Kameroon but why bother with the predominant desert of French West Africa or the issues Indochina? Most Germans are not going to settle in these new properties and the war may also reveal how defenseless colonies are so why spread yourself thin defensively? European property is far more worthwhile and tying all of Europe to you economically removes the need to waste capital on territory where the population is unlikely to accept your presence in perpetuity. Likewise, taking all French territory only serves to piss off the UK encouraging them to counter you at every turn while engendering fear in your Allies and potential Allies as a powerful threat to their independence.

Well, profitability isn't high on a 19th Century Princes priority list. France and Britain conquered a lot of territory that made no economic sense. Hard to see what realistic profits Italy saw in Libya either

But, yes, its possible the Germans choose to let the French administer some territory.


I assume you were sarcastic with the 'moderate' there? :)

No, I was being serious- the terms Germany would oppose on a vanquished France would likely be far worse than the musings of civilians in the September program. The September Program does give an indication though of the harshness of terms contemplated very early


Now, to come to the point: Did the September program have aspirations of taking over the entire French colonial empire? It after all represents the most ambitious and imperialistic document we have on the war aims of Germany. It is a document written when a quick, decisive victory over France looked possible.
The answer is of course that it did not. The September Program war aims for Africa focused on the Mittelafrika idea, which would have left West Africa and North Africa in French hands.

It follows that the demands a victorious Germany would have sought to enforce in a hypothetical peace treaty wouldn't have included it either.

Not at all. The September program is put together in 1914 when it appears that France is going down to defeat. The British and Russians would remain in the war for a while. A colonial settlement would make no sense as long as Britain remained in the war. After all, the French can give you the deed to Indochina but until your ready to occupy it, it does you no good.

If France falls, Britain will fall. If the French fleet sails to Britain, the British might hold out for two or three years. If the Germans get hold of it- either the French surrender it or the new government in France allies with Germany, then Britain will fall in a few months. Then will be the time for settling colonial issues
 
France looses his idea or at least will to seek revanche and a return of A-L. It pays a big load of money and maybe looses some small territory in Europe. Maybe some of its colonies but they would loose them anyway later so thats not much of a loss.
 
France looses his idea or at least will to seek revanche and a return of A-L.
I always have problems seeing it this way, Germany lost its appetite after 2 lost wars, being cut in two, a third given to Poland and being occupied for 40 years. France getting off with a comparable slap on the wrist wont have the same result, political and public agitation might continue on a lower level and not as vocal, but it would return again in style after France recovers.

It pays a big load of money and maybe looses some small territory in Europe. Maybe some of its colonies but they would loose them anyway later so thats not much of a loss.
France never expected or wanted to lose the colonies, they fought for them for decades after it was already obvious that decolonization was a thing, and the colonies that didnt mange to expell them were put under the pseudo-colonial France-afrique regime and still remain under it.
 
I always have problems seeing it this way, Germany lost its appetite after 2 lost wars, being cut in two, a third given to Poland and being occupied for 40 years. France getting off with a comparable slap on the wrist wont have the same result, political and public agitation might continue on a lower level and not as vocal, but it would return again in style after France recovers.

This would be the 2nd war France lost. And seeing that they couldnt beat Germany when they have given everything they got together with Russia and Great Brittain... It would seem pretty hopeless. I also expect there to be stipulation in the peace treaty about France not being allowed to fortify the border and Paris. Its also hard to imagine France allying with the soviets but who knows.

France never expected or wanted to lose the colonies, they fought for them for decades after it was already obvious that decolonization was a thing, and the colonies that didnt mange to expell them were put under the pseudo-colonial France-afrique regime and still remain under it.

This was obviously partly hindsight and partly personal opinion - loosing some colonies I would not consider a great loss. I also think that the french would be more riled by the loss of the small parts of France (maybe Longwy to Germany and Nice and Savoy to Italy - this even if Italy went antant just to saw some dissent) than by the loss of any of the colonies with the possible exception of Algeria.
 
This would be the 2nd war France lost. And seeing that they couldnt beat Germany when they have given everything they got together with Russia and Great Brittain... It would seem pretty hopeless. I also expect there to be stipulation in the peace treaty about France not being allowed to fortify the border and Paris. Its also hard to imagine France allying with the soviets but who knows.
I'd expect treaty limitations on France to last about as long as they did in Germany, and to be as "faithfully" implemented, and we did have the mortal enemies, Nazis and Soviets, "allying" for a time, as you say, who knows.

This was obviously partly hindsight and partly personal opinion - loosing some colonies I would not consider a great loss. I also think that the french would be more riled by the loss of the small parts of France (maybe Longwy to Germany and Nice and Savoy to Italy - this even if Italy went antant just to saw some dissent) than by the loss of any of the colonies with the possible exception of Algeria.
The French would consider it a great loss, colonial holdings are equivalent to national prestige, the government that hands them out will have problems with its legitimacy, the right wing is going to take to the streets and and demobilized soldiers might get their own ideas about how France should be lead in times of crisis. We've seen this in Germany right after the war where left and right took to the street, Bavaria nearly seceeded and the Freikorps became the most powerful military in the land without obeying the civil government.
 
I'd expect treaty limitations on France to last about as long as they did in Germany, and to be as "faithfully" implemented, and we did have the mortal enemies, Nazis and Soviets, "allying" for a time, as you say, who knows.

The French would consider it a great loss, colonial holdings are equivalent to national prestige, the government that hands them out will have problems with its legitimacy, the right wing is going to take to the streets and and demobilized soldiers might get their own ideas about how France should be lead in times of crisis. We've seen this in Germany right after the war where left and right took to the street, Bavaria nearly seceeded and the Freikorps became the most powerful military in the land without obeying the civil government.[/QUOTE]

The great problem is that the situation is vastly different than OTL interwar period. Mainly France alone was not a match to Germany if the latter ever got a chance to recover. ATL Germany could dominate France on its own - and it still has A-H and an array of eastern "allies". Also its much harder to have a "stab in the back" myth or a "we would have won if only.." when your army was clearly defeated and your capital captured. The odds have become just worst since than.

And OTL France didnt manage to come to terms with the soviets when their life depended on it (pre WWII). There would also be the issue of the russian debt to settle to poison the relations at the onset. So I would say its not impossible but not likely either.

And finally as I said the loss of some colonies will be at most a side note in the list of french grievances.
 
The great problem is that the situation is vastly different than OTL interwar period. Mainly France alone was not a match to Germany if the latter ever got a chance to recover. ATL Germany could dominate France on its own - and it still has A-H and an array of eastern "allies". Also its much harder to have a "stab in the back" myth or a "we would have won if only.." when your army was clearly defeated and your capital captured. The odds have become just worst since than.

And OTL France didnt manage to come to terms with the soviets when their life depended on it (pre WWII). There would also be the issue of the russian debt to settle to poison the relations at the onset. So I would say its not impossible but not likely either.

And finally as I said the loss of some colonies will be at most a side note in the list of french grievances.
"Beaten but not broken" was the problem that kept German belligerence going post WW1, this would happen here with France as well, so they would realize that they can not go at it alone, but they'd look out for opportunities and try to create new ones, be a thorn in the German ass so to speak.
Though i'd expect them to keep looking out and waiting for opportunities for a long time...
-If/when Russia/Soviets stabilizes they're a lot weaker than OTL what with lacking Ukraine, and Eastern Europe will not be eager be re absorbed into Russia.
-Across the pond the USA will not care too much about Germany - they pay their bills and keep mostly to themselves.
-The UK could be an opportunity, but likely not enough to have them try something. London will be buisy with the navy, now that Germany doesnt have to keep as big an army as before they'll reason that Germany will re focus on the navy which in turn means the UK has to spend more on ships, for France that means less British boots to support them against Germany, ships wont get them back A-L.
-Austria-Hungary, Ottomans, Italy. Sure they're in the German camp (or pretty much for the turncoat Italy) but that doesnt mean there arent any problems with Germany for them, for example the Ottomans will have to rely on German money for development, the French could offer better terms.

In any case France must come to some agreement with Mitteleuropa, being left out with a 300 million people strong trade area right at your border where your products only get access to after 20%+ tariffs is one hell of a problem.
 
Last edited:
"Beaten but not broken" was the problem that kept German belligerence going post WW1, this would happen here with France as well, so they would realize that they can not go at it alone, but they'd look out for opportunities and try to create new ones, be a thorn in the German ass so to speak.
Though i'd expect them to keep looking out and waiting for opportunities for a long time...
-If/when Russia/Soviets stabilizes they're a lot weaker than OTL what with lacking Ukraine, and Eastern Europe will not be eager be re absorbed into Russia.
-Across the pond the USA will not care too much about Germany - they pay their bills and keep mostly to themselves.
-The UK could be an opportunity, but likely not enough to have them try something. London will be buisy with the navy, now that Germany doesnt have to keep as big an army as before they'll reason that Germany will re focus on the navy which in turn means the UK has to spend more on ships, for France that means less British boots to support them against Germany, ships wont get them back A-L.
-Austria-Hungary, Ottomans, Italy. Sure they're in the German camp (or pretty much for the turncoat Italy) but that doesnt mean there arent any problems with Germany for them, for example the Ottomans will have to rely on German money for development, the French could offer better terms.

In any case France must come to some agreement with Mitteleuropa, being left out with a 300 million people strong trade area right at your border where your products only get access to after 20%+ tariffs is one hell of a problem.

I think the main difference of our points boil down to how France moral survives their second defeat. I think too many would see it as hopeless and would not seek a third round when they have been already been beaten twice - especially if the peace threaty wasnt too harsh.

And just to be sure: they realized they cant go at it alone before WWI - they got Russia and Great Brittain in a very remarkable feet of diplomacy to back them - and still lost.
I dont say they wouldt take an ooportunity if it presented itself but they would be very subdued for a good time and even after that, whom could they ally?
- Italy : possibly but was never too much of a military power
- Soviets : possibly but weaker than last time and red
- Great Brittain : a lot of good they did last time
- USA : best prospect of winning but nigh impossible to get them on board
- Japan : not much use

So even if they are more activly seeking the possibility of a third round than I pressume their prospect look pretty bad.
 
So even if they are more activly seeking the possibility of a third round than I pressume their prospect look pretty bad.
Indeed, and the window of ... possible opportunity... is also getting smaller and smaller the longer France takes to recover from WW1, late 30s, early 40s is where i'd put the German atom bomb at.
 
Indeed, and the window of ... possible opportunity... is also getting smaller and smaller the longer France takes to recover from WW1, late 30s, early 40s is where i'd put the German atom bomb at.

Agree. And France would be very eager to get her own bomb as soon as possible. It can be the only thing to finally guarantee her safety against Germany.
 
Huh.

1. So, what WOULD it take for Algeria to break off after ww1?

2. If they absolutely can't, would the Ottomans accept Algerian refugees escaping French colonization?
 
Top