How well would the Rhine river work as defensive line

Say:France survives the Napoleonic wars with roughly these borders and Germany is hostile

How well would the Rhine river work as a defensive line with world war 1 tech and world war 2 tech
800px-France_Departement_1801.svg.png
 
Last edited:
Well, in purely military terms it's a solid defensive barrier, particularly if France adopts a static defensive doctrine during the relevant era; something more likely in a timeline without revachist tendencies due to already having her "natural frontiers". During the pre mass mechanization and advanced aeronautics era especially, the Rhine slows any advance enough to rip a direct assault from the east to shreds provided the defenders are dug in and properly supplied. Geopolitically though, it puts France in a rougher spot if demographic trends continue historically. Too many ethnically Flemish and German communities in militarily sensitive areas and balancing too close to Germany as a power to nessicerily reach detente with the British, whose favor would be a huge plus in any potential war.
 
You can still go around it through the Netherlands, but I'd expect the northern border to be fortified as well and the Dutch to be a loyal puppet state who can put up some resistance on their own while being reinforced by the French. Even if the Dutch are pro-German for some reason, it's still a good border, especially before widespread aviation like in WWII.

Geopolitically I don't know how likely Germany would be to go to war without either Russia or Britain (or both, even) on their side.
 
You can still go around it through the Netherlands, but I'd expect the northern border to be fortified as well and the Dutch to be a loyal puppet state who can put up some resistance on their own while being reinforced by the French. Even if the Dutch are pro-German for some reason, it's still a good border, especially before widespread aviation like in WWII.

Geopolitically I don't know how likely Germany would be to go to war without either Russia or Britain (or both, even) on their side.

The Dutch don't need to be German puppets to be hostile; sufficient repression of Flemish communities, political tensions between the two nations during the 19th century, ect. Could easily lead to the Dutch gravitating towards being a German ally; without Belgium ever existing there isent the catalyst that sent the Dutch into armed neutrality policies as in our timeline and they could remain a viable secondary power: enough perhaps to have a seat during the Scramble for Africa for even more tensions. As for a war between Germany and France (Since the OP implies a still successful German unification)... any number of political powder kegs could set it off. If France is dominant enough, maybe even it's a war between France and G.B primarily with Germany being a British ally (both wanting to contain Russia and France)
 
The Dutch don't need to be German puppets to be hostile; sufficient repression of Flemish communities, political tensions between the two nations during the 19th century, ect. Could easily lead to the Dutch gravitating towards being a German ally; without Belgium ever existing there isent the catalyst that sent the Dutch into armed neutrality policies as in our timeline and they could remain a viable secondary power: enough perhaps to have a seat during the Scramble for Africa for even more tensions. As for a war between Germany and France (Since the OP implies a still successful German unification)... any number of political powder kegs could set it off. If France is dominant enough, maybe even it's a war between France and G.B primarily with Germany being a British ally (both wanting to contain Russia and France)

That Netherlands is definitely weaker than the OTL Netherlands and would presumably have many of the same problems as the OTL Netherlands did at holding onto secondary power status. An alliance of Britain + Germany + allies would still be very competitive against an alliance of France + Russia + allies. Nations like Italy, Austria-Hungary, Balkan states, the Ottoman Empire, other European states, and of course the United States could conceivably fight for either alliance and end up very important in the course of the war and its results.

Would be an interesting TL to explore the 19th century in that ATL and lead up to a Great War like I described.
 
Defiantly a strong defensive line and the Netherlands wouldn't even be last much of a opaning,wale there are no straight rivers protecting france they do have a lot of them and it did hamper the allies during ww2 so as a french alliy it would still continue as a natural barrier ,thoe if it is a hostile power then it dose provide a gap in said barrier if only a small one.

If France gets this borders soon enough then the ethnic minoritys in those areas (mainly Germans and flamish) should be much of a problem, gust taking it during the revolution should be good enough altho the sooner the better whith land grabs like this whith Germany nationalism soon to be on the rise.
 
Last edited:
If France gets this borders soon enough then the ethnic minoritys in those areas (mainly Germans and flamish) should be much of a problem, gust taking it during the revolution should be good enough altho the sooner the better whith land grabs like this whith Germany nationalism soon to be on the rise.

Back then "minorities" made up most of the French population. In the 1790s, only 3 million of the 25 million inhabitants spoke French "correctly" according to the Abbé Grégoire's survey. So I don't know if these new French citizens would be much different than most of their countrymen.
 
Back then "minorities" made up most of the French population. In the 1790s, only 3 million of the 25 million inhabitants spoke French "correctly" according to the Abbé Grégoire's survey. So I don't know if these new French citizens would be much different than most of their countrymen.
Exactly
 
Back then "minorities" made up most of the French population. In the 1790s, only 3 million of the 25 million inhabitants spoke French "correctly" according to the Abbé Grégoire's survey. So I don't know if these new French citizens would be much different than most of their countrymen.
There's a BIG difference between speaking a Latin-derived language that is simply a dialect (or closely related proto-language) that is related to "French", versus speaking German or Dutch. For example no one ever calls US Southern dialect speakers a minority for speaking an off-standard English (though they are often ridiculed in media as unintelligent for speaking in such a dialect).
 
There's a BIG difference between speaking a Latin-derived language that is simply a dialect (or closely related proto-language) that is related to "French", versus speaking German or Dutch. For example no one ever calls US Southern dialect speakers a minority for speaking an off-standard English (though they are often ridiculed in media as unintelligent for speaking in such a dialect).
French Flemish, Occitan, Breton and Alsacien have largely been gutted. I don't think it's too unlikely for the Flemish and Rhenish regions to be majority Francophone by 1930.
Furthermore, IOTL the Rhinelanders were rather Francophile during the Napoleonic Wars, with only conscription slowly souring the relationship. If France retains the Rhineland, it might not be that rebellious. And considering adopting the French language came as a consequence of French nationalism instead of the other way around (the French nationalism being a civic nationalism)...
 
Back then "minorities" made up most of the French population. In the 1790s, only 3 million of the 25 million inhabitants spoke French "correctly" according to the Abbé Grégoire's survey. So I don't know if these new French citizens would be much different than most of their countrymen.

Grégoire's figures were highly underrated, both by the difficulty of languages surveys at the time and in order to further his project of national education. Northern France, speaking french languages, was the most populous region, with 950,000 in the Paris area alone.
 
Grégoire's figures were highly underrated, both by the difficulty of languages surveys at the time and in order to further his project of national education. Northern France, speaking french languages, was the most populous region, with 950,000 in the Paris area alone.

He apparently did not count the other langues d'oïl as "correct" French. (Which I can see - when I've heard ch'ti, wallon etc, I don't fully understand them.) But even if we count them as French dialects, still about half of the population did not speak it.
 
He apparently did not count the other langues d'oïl as "correct" French. (Which I can see - when I've heard ch'ti, wallon etc, I don't fully understand them.) But even if we count them as French dialects, still about half of the population did not speak it.

Well, Ch'ti can be a little difficult, but without it, how could french popular cinema survive ? [sorry for non-Frenchmen : most of the major success of French movies of the 21st c. are about an "average frenchman" having to move into a Ch'ti or Picard speaking region or a Ch'ti having to live among "haughty Parisians" with many "culture confrontation" jokes].

Even if the population did not speak perfect French, elites were very french-speaking to the point we can speak of "minorities". I am currently spending a large amount of time in the 18th c. judicial archives of a large southern french city and French is the only language to appear, even in the depositions of witnesses and without any occitanisms. I actually expected the rural language to be more prominent, but it seems it was already a second-language for the denizens by 1740.
 
Would France have the resources and the ability to match or exceed Britain's navy with these borders

It would face similar issues as for instance a German Empire, as a great continental power they will also need a substantially more impressive standing army than their British counterpart. This probably mean a somewhat smaller navy, however if they keep up with the naval race enough, the UK might have the bigger Navy, but France and allies/satellites should be able to match them (though not surpass them).
 
It would face similar issues as for instance a German Empire, as a great continental power they will also need a substantially more impressive standing army than their British counterpart. This probably mean a somewhat smaller navy, however if they keep up with the naval race enough, the UK might have the bigger Navy, but France and allies/satellites should be able to match them (though not surpass them).

That depends largely on what allies France can manage to muster in this diplomatic situation. I mean, Spain is economically and militarily a joke at this point, the German states are likely to politically factured or at least more loosely organized than OTL's Prussian-dominated model, and Britain is going to be doing everything possible to keep St.Petersburg and Paris from teaming up. Italy is the only other European nation who is likely to have much of a naval tilt, and even she is going to have to be Med. focused. Given geography, though, France dosen't have to ever risk an engagement with the entire Home Fleet to avoid an effective blockade due to her greater coastal reach, though, so she dosen't nessicerily need naval parity.
 
Grégoire's figures were highly underrated, both by the difficulty of languages surveys at the time and in order to further his project of national education. Northern France, speaking french languages, was the most populous region, with 950,000 in the Paris area alone.

Even then, it dose show that France had a very good ability to assimilate minority languages (including the southern flems)

Would France have the resources and the ability to match or exceed Britain's navy with these borders

I doubt it, even with the extra resources britain will still have the advantage in ship building and will probably build even more ships with a much more powerful France (especially whith anturp under french control "pestal pointed at the heart of England" and all that).

Won't there be major consequences to strangling Rhine river trade by making it a national border?
Not really, the Rhine has been used as a border for a long time whith little description to trade so I doubt having gust two nations as having borders there will effect trade much.

Then again trade on the river Rhine over time isn't a subject I'm particularly familiar whith.
 
Top