Assume the blitzkrieg fails in France, and Germany is defeated in about 3 or 4 years, and japan doesn't seize Indochina since they lack the clean opportunity to do so. The 3rd Republic survives, and France isn't entirely destroyed as a result and still holds the empire. So, how powerful would this france be? I don't think the fall of their empire was inevitable since Indochina isn't quite as huge compared to France as India is to britain.
How Powerful Would A Surviving French Colonial Empire Be?
- Thread starter AltoRegnant
- Start date
would this france be able to contest the Soviet hegemony in eastern and central Europe?
Although France could hold onto its empire longer if it was less damaged by WWII, and might be able to hold onto some parts of it that it lost IOTL all the way to the present day ITTL, I really don't think it would have the political will to pay the price in blood and treasure needed to hang on to French Indochina for another 65 years.
I mean, given that Soviet domination of central and eastern Europe was a direct result of the Soviets occupying the region after defeating the Germans in the East, and given that a stalled out invasion of France most likely means Germany is never able to launch Operation Barbarossa and so there's no Eastern Front in the first place, you're not really going to get any Soviet hegemony there for France to contest. Not that it would be France contesting it alone, anyway, unless you think the UK would just sit back and decide it was okay with Soviet domination of Europe for some reason.
Last edited:
Holding this much of the French Empire together this long would probably require Soviet-scale internal migration and population transfers to reduce the strength of local nationalism, and they would actually have to make French citizenship feasible for at least a tiny elite throughout the colonies autonomous overseas regions. Why would local elites who would otherwise be in charge of their own independent countries buy in to this project?
At some point the demographic growth of the peripheral areas will overwhelm the center's influence, and the metropole won't be able to keep the various provinces from going their separate ways. Based on a quick, back of the envelope calculation, the French metropole (not counting Algeria) was only 40% of the overall population Paris ruled over in 1930. That rise to 51% if you don't include Indochina. If you look at France + its former colonies today, France and its OTL 2020 territories is only 13% of the total population in question, 17% if you're not counting Indochina.
This could work for some time if the French Union avoids a one man, one vote system at the level of the all-union government, and each region sends the same number of
representatives regardless of population. France would likely add a ridiculous tilt in the Europeans' favor, with the metropole getting at least 6-7 regions' worth of votes, but French West Africa being treated as 1-2 regions. Paris might be able to bribe or co-opt a tiny elite to buy into this system, but in the long run I don't see how you would avoid popular support for independence in Algeria, Vietnam, etc.
At some point the demographic growth of the peripheral areas will overwhelm the center's influence, and the metropole won't be able to keep the various provinces from going their separate ways. Based on a quick, back of the envelope calculation, the French metropole (not counting Algeria) was only 40% of the overall population Paris ruled over in 1930. That rise to 51% if you don't include Indochina. If you look at France + its former colonies today, France and its OTL 2020 territories is only 13% of the total population in question, 17% if you're not counting Indochina.
This could work for some time if the French Union avoids a one man, one vote system at the level of the all-union government, and each region sends the same number of
representatives regardless of population. France would likely add a ridiculous tilt in the Europeans' favor, with the metropole getting at least 6-7 regions' worth of votes, but French West Africa being treated as 1-2 regions. Paris might be able to bribe or co-opt a tiny elite to buy into this system, but in the long run I don't see how you would avoid popular support for independence in Algeria, Vietnam, etc.
Attachments
Not as powerful as it would, because even in that scenario it would still be broke from conducting a war (even without the Nazi occupation). On top of the already unstable Third Republic politics, it's destined to fail and a new Fourth Republic would arise - probably with a better governing system. On top of that, outside of France most people would be wanting independence anyway.
Remember that the Communist Party was one of the most popular parties in France. It's just as likely France would join the Soviet orbit instead of challenging it, with all the consequences that would entail.
What was the PCF's stance on colonialism? Would they push for immediate decolonization or reform the French Union into a Soviet-style federation?
I think to actually determine how powerful a France like this would be, we'd have to look into how holding their colonies in Africa would differ from the Francafrique policy that ended up being implemented. Is holding a sphere of influence in French Africa less beneficial to the French than holding the colonies? On the one hand, you have more control over those colonies which may aid in an extractive sense, but on the other hand, the costs of colonial administration are not zero. Tough question to answer.
Last edited:
i had a thread on that, i won't bother linking given it only had one response, but that response boiled down to 'integration and at least on paper civil rights,'
Just asking but wouldn’t a France that keep fighting for 4 years be more destroyed than a France that quickly surrender ?
but a france where none of it was in their heartland but on their periphery and belgium
Wouldn’t Belgium still surrender quickly like OTL and the frontline be in Northern France wich is pretty much France heartland ? Also Paris would probably be bomber the hell out of it with million more French dying than OTL
The obvious problem here is that what happened to France IOTL wasn't that they surrendered and got off scot free, what happened was that they surrendered, their government collapsed, Germany occupied and looted them for four years, and then they still ended up becoming a war zone. What on Earth about that scenario strikes you as leaving France in a stronger position afterwards than if they'd held the Germans at bay for four years?
In other words, the fighting would be confined to a much smaller region than IOTL, where battles were fought across most of France.
The idea that an extended German bombing campaign could lead to millions more French dying than IOTL is wildly unrealistic--the Blitz only killed 40,000 civilians or so, and even the bombing campaign against Germany, the deadliest of the war in Europe, only killed 600,000.
If Stalin attack the Germans a few years in the war when it is clear that they are losing anyway we still could have Soviet domination of Eastern Europe, at quite a lower cost in material and blood at that.
Depends on the PoD, if the reason France does not fall is, say, King Leopold III not leaving the Entente leading to French soldiers guarding Belgium's eastern border against the Germans, even most of Belgium can avoid occupation. We could even butterfly away, say, the fall of fort Eben-Emael.
Which happened in World War 1 and was more devastating to France compared to World War 2.
Eh. The major colonies are going to leave sooner or later, even if they do all become client states, but it's not hard to imagine France hanging onto some of the minor possessions that they lost IOTL--no particular reason why they couldn't keep the Comoros given that they held onto Mayotte IOTL, for instance.
But the question here isn't just about raw casualties, it's also about the broader geo-political picture. Even if we assume France holding the line against the Germans means WWI or worse casualties, it still means that the French government and military aren't co-opted or forced into exile. It means the French economy isn't subject to the looting and mismanagement it experienced IOTL. It means things that weakened French control over their colonies like the Japanese occupation of French Indochina don't happen.
If the French hold the same strategy as IOTL they can hold Algeria indefinitely, as long as there aren’t enemy powers bordering French Indochina, it’s also definitely possible to hold that indefinitely id say.
Plus, given socialism's popularity in the 3rd republic, I could honestly see some extremely populist candidates trying to enfranchise the natives. Blum tried it and I think even the 'mission to civilize' types would have to acquiesce that either they have and the natives deserve rights or they can't and the natives deserve self rule