Partition of France

[JackLumber]

If you refer to the territorial provisions imposed on Germany, there are many reasons which made France had no choice and which made that Germany would not have been satisfied anyway.

The french then used to say, the problem with Germany is that there are 20 million germans in excess. Germany was much stronger than its neighbours in 1918 and, although defeated, had not been devastateThis by the war since the war was not fought on her territory.

This coupled with an enduring militarism in public mind made Germany a permanent deadly threat for its neighbours. In other words, the real deep source with german revanchism post 1919 was not the treaty of Versailles but the fact that Germany just did not tolerate It had been defeated because It considered defeat as counter-nature.

Other reason is that Prussia deliberately chose France as an hereditary enemy to found united Germany. The second Reich was built on the fake french threat (fake because France had been denied the possibility of being a threat since 1815 and that Britain had made it perfectly clear that It would not tolerate any crossing-over of the red-line) as a way of forcing reluctant german States into a united Reich.

The problem was that these powers were resisting an inevitable outcome, the Germans were too strong after uniting for their neighbours and with their central position they were going to dominate Europe it was never a matter of if only of when.
You want proof of this just look at the eu, Germany is its heart.
Prussia had no choice, France was the number 1 continental power a united Germany was going to challenge that position, conflict was inevitable.

 

[Matteo]

The problem was that these powers were resisting an inevitable outcome, the Germans were too strong after uniting for their neighbours and with their central position they were going to dominate Europe it was never a matter of if only of when.
You want proof of this just look at the eu, Germany is its heart.
Prussia had no choice, France was the number 1 continental power a united Germany was going to challenge that position, conflict was inevitable.

I disagree.

You had the proof by WW1 and WW2 that It was all but inevitable.

Germany is strong today in the EU because the other european countries made the mistake of accepting to play by rules that favoured Germany. The euro currency is an absurd system by which France, Italy, Spain, ... etc, literally subsidize the german industry so that ... the german industry can peel their own industries. Germany is strong today because It perfectly played an economic stowaway strategy that is a negative sum game for Europe as a whole.

The true power dominating Europe is the US, not Germany.

If we come back to our comparison in late 19th and early 20th century, the problem was not that Germany was too strong. Germany could be the stronger and still be peaceful. The problem is that It was not peaceful because it was ruled by people who saw the world in a darwinian way. The strategy of Germany was non cooperative because of hubris. So a reality that challenged this hubris was unacceptable and any challenger had to be curbed down before it could change reality. And that's what Germany did to Russia in 1914-1917. It detailed Russia's course to preeminence with astounding success. The commmunist USSR path was a dead-end which never could prevail in the king-run, while without the devastations of WW1 and communism, Russia would have become the economic and political superpower of Europe and Asia.

Now I agree that France was stupid in going alone to war against Prussia and almost-born Germany in 1870. But the trap was set by Prussia in order to provoke this war.

The north Germany confederacy already existed. Ties with the independant south german States were close and strengthening. The best short term and long term strategy for France Prost 1866 was France accepting the inevitable outcome or peacefully backing lasting independance for Baden, Wurtemberg and Bavaria.

 

[Cornelis]

If only France at the end of WWI had remembered this...

Germany was not divided in 1919, nor partition-lite as in 1945.

 

[Janprimus]

I disagree.

You had the proof by WW1 and WW2 that It was all but inevitable.

Germany is strong today in the EU because the other european countries made the mistake of accepting to play by rules that favoured Germany. The euro currency is an absurd system by which France, Italy, Spain, ... etc, literally subsidize the german industry so that ... the german industry can peel their own industries. Germany is strong today because It perfectly played an economic stowaway strategy that is a negative sum game for Europe as a whole.
(...)

You do remember, that originally it was France, which wanted the Euro, not Germany, as a German concession in exchange for France accepting the German unification. Germany did not want to let go of their precious DM, which was a strong/hard currency (like the Dutch Guilder, which had been linked to the DM since the late 1970's). As for rules, the original rules had been broken by Germany (Schröder) and France (Chirac) before. Whereas France with a history of strong state intervention, unlike Germany, had a much softer (volatile) currency. Anyway the main problem for the Euro and the reason rules are very much needed, is the fact, that the monetary union is not balanced by a better political union (which won't happen in the current European political climate any time soon).

As for the original question, I can't see France being partitioned, however I can see France ceding territories, even more than OTL Alsace-Lorraine. Spain, Italy/Savoy, Southern Netherlands/Belgium/United Netherlands, German/Imperial States or the German Empire, maybe a British foothold. Though France could and probably will manage to regain those at a later date. For France to be smaller, the history of East Francia and later the Holy Roman Empire would have to have been different too (to make eastern expansion harder).

@Cornelis: I wouldn't call the eventual East West divide of Germany partition lite.

 

[Gloss]

A actual partition of Germany would have something more like this:

One could argue OTL was a partition with West Germany, Austria and East Germany(and the eventual Polish landgrab) but to me is a bit of a stretch. A more partition like divisiion would be something like this, but with more landgrabs.

 

[wtw]

this is for Europe present day

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/59/Active_separatist_movements_in_Europe.svg

for France proper
France
Secessionist movements
French Basque Country

Main articles: Basque nationalism and Basque independence

• People: Basque
  • Proposed state: Unification with the
    
    Basque Country and
    
    Navarre— Euskal Herria [13][14][15]
    • Political parties: Abertzaleen Batasuna (AB), Batasuna, Eusko Alkartasuna (EFA member), Euzko Alderdi Jeltzalea (Basque Nationalist Party).
    • Trade unions: Euskal Langileen Alkartasuna, Langile Abertzaleen Batzordeak
    • Youth advocacy groups: Egi, Gazte Abertzaleak, Iritzarri, Segi
    • Militant organisations: ETA, Irrintzi

Brittany and parts of

Pays de la Loire

Main article: Breton nationalism

• People: Bretons
  • Proposed state: Brittany
    • Advocacy groups: Celtic League[16]
    • Political parties: Adsav, Strollad Breizh, Emgann, Breiz Atao
    • Militant organisation: Talbenn Dieubiñ Breizh (Breton Revolutionary Army) (ARB)

Northern Catalonia / Roussillon (predominantly Pyrénées-Orientales)

Main articles: Catalan nationalism and Catalan independence

• People: Catalans
  • Proposed state: Unification with Catalonia — Catalan Countries
    • Political parties: Esquerra Republicana de Catalunya (EFA member), Unitat Catalana (EFA member), Candidatura d'Unitat Popular[17]

Corsica

Main article: Corsican nationalism

• People: Corsicans
  • Proposed state: Corsica
    • Political party: Corsica Libera

Savoy

Main article: Savoyan nationalism

• People: Savoyans
  • Proposed state: Savoy
    • Political party: Liga de la Savouè (Savoyan League)

Occitania

Main article: Occitan nationalism

• People: Occitans
  • Proposed state: Occitania
    • Political party: Partit de la Nacion Occitana

Provence

Main article: Provençal nationalism

• People: Provençals (Occitans)
  • Proposed state: Provence
    • Militant group: Front Nacionala Liberacion de Provença

Autonomist movements

Alsace

• People: Alsatians (Allemanics)
  • Proposed autonomous area: Alsace
    • Political parties: Elsass Zuerst, Nationalforum Elsass-Lothringen, Unser Land

Brittany

• People: Bretons
  • Proposed autonomous area: Brittany
    • Political party: Unvaniezh Demokratel Breizh (EFA member)

Corsica

• People: Corsicans
  • Proposed autonomous area: Corsica
    • Political party: Partitu di a Nazione Corsa (EFA member)

Alpes-Maritimes

• People: Niçard
  • Proposed autonomous area: County of Nice
    • Political party: Partit Nissart (Parti niçois (fr))[18]

Normandy

• People: Normands
  • Proposed autonomous area: Normandy
    • Political party: Mouvement normand (Normand Movement)

Savoy

• People: Savoyans
  • Proposed autonomous area: Savoy
    • Political party: Movement Règion Savouè

Occitania

• People: Occitans
  • Proposed autonomous area: Occitania
    • Political parties: Partit Occitan (EFA member), Iniciativa per Occitània, Anaram au Patac, Hartèra

 

[Matteo]

You do remember, that originally it was France, which wanted the Euro, not Germany, as a German concession in exchange for France accepting the German unification. Germany did not want to let go of their precious DM, which was a strong/hard currency (like the Dutch Guilder, which had been linked to the DM since the late 1970's). As for rules, the original rules had been broken by Germany (Schröder) and France (Chirac) before. Whereas France with a history of strong state intervention, unlike Germany, had a much softer (volatile) currency. Anyway the main problem for the Euro and the reason rules are very much needed, is the fact, that the monetary union is not balanced by a better political union (which won't happen in the current European political climate any time soon).

As for the original question, I can't see France being partitioned, however I can see France ceding territories, even more than OTL Alsace-Lorraine. Spain, Italy/Savoy, Southern Netherlands/Belgium/United Netherlands, German/Imperial States or the German Empire, maybe a British foothold. Though France could and probably will manage to regain those at a later date. For France to be smaller, the history of East Francia and later the Holy Roman Empire would have to have been different too (to make eastern expansion harder).

@Cornelis: I wouldn't call the eventual East West divide of Germany partition lite.

I do remember. France was then ruled by people who did not know much to economics or who thought that creating a wobbly monetary union would force member States to agree to a full fiscal union with massive budget transfers.

Which of course did ... not happen because in real life, when the matter is about hard money, one wants to pay for his countrymen, not for foreigner S, be the y neighbours or not.

So in the 2000's, Italy, France, Spain, ... etc, lost an important part of their industrial activity to Germany and to eastern european countries that are not inside the eurozone, that are not plagued by an obervalued euro-mark and that are subcontractors to german industries.

The point is that there is no new industry in Europe. The german industry is still about cars and machine-tools.

Not astonishingly, european countries not in the eurozone fare better than those inside the eurozone.

 

[Gloss]

For France I would throw off Occitania as a whole and Normandy, Britanny depends on what the UKs want, it would be quite hard to pull off. While Occitania as whole is unlikely, Provence only is maybe easier.

 

[longsword14]

For France I would throw off Occitania as a whole and Normandy, Britanny depends on what the UKs want, it would be quite hard to pull off. While Occitania as whole is unlikely, Provence only is maybe easier.

Dividing France in the post war settlement will have consequences that will have to be seen to.
Prussia, Austria and Russia are hardly in complete harmony when the issue in question is post war policy. Austria has no interest in dividing France, Metternich favoured a roll-back to the earlier status quo allowing the Hapsburgs to reassert themselves.
Prussia could have wanted to do such a thing but they could not possibly maintain such a situation. Any division would have to be enforced, and everybody knows that each piece wants to become a part of the whole. Every faction in France would unite over it, so it is hard to see any authority being imposed from outside that could keep themselves in power for even half a decade.
What does Britain even gain from division?
Assuming Britain wants to do so it does not have means to do so in such a scenario, note that unlike the previous decade or so Britain's ability to influence things is badly diminished.

 

[JackLumber]

The french were the architects of WW1 they went to great lengths to secure the Allies they had and subsided them with the sole purpose of strengthening their ability to fight the German empire.
It would not have mattered what kind of people ruled Germany or how they thought because Germany had unseated France and the french were eager to "right" this and ww2 was a continuation of this conflict.
A rising power will conflict with preexisting powers, just look at China even without actual war it's very clear that it is conflicting with America.

 

[Xgentis]

The french were the architects of WW1 they went to great lengths to secure the Allies they had and subsided them with the sole purpose of strengthening their ability to fight the German empire.
It would not have mattered what kind of people ruled Germany or how they thought because Germany had unseated France and the french were eager to "right" this and ww2 was a continuation of this conflict.
A rising power will conflict with preexisting powers, just look at China even without actual war it's very clear that it is conflicting with America.

You do realise that the triple alliance predate the Entente. In fact Germany prety much kicked Russia into the french arms and started a naval race with Britain. They openly demanded a place in the sun even if it mean risking war. The Triple Alliance forced France and Russia to seek allies.

 

[JackLumber]

You do realise that the triple alliance predate the Entente. In fact Germany prety much kicked Russia into the french arms and started a naval race with Britain. They openly demanded a place in the sun even if it mean risking war. The Triple Alliance forced France and Russia to seek allies.

The triple alliance was a defensive alliance that only came Into effect if a member was attacked the entente was designed specifically with the aim of combating Germany, big difference and all Germany did was pick one of her allies when the two of them began to squabble over the balkans, it's not like Germany forcibly ejected Russia from the league of three emperors if she could have kept Russia and the Austrians as allies she would have loved to but she ended up having to choose between one or the other.
Britain forced the German empire's hand when it casually threatened to blockade and bombard german ports

 

[fhaessig]

Alsatian nationalism/separatism/autonomism is a joke, even especially, actually, in Alsace.

We remember the times we were not part of France, like 40 to 45. We don't want to see the like again

 

[Gloss]

What about the French War of Religion? Couldn´t that end up badly for France? It was already quite the conflict there.

 

[DracoLazarus]

What about the French War of Religion? Couldn´t that end up badly for France? It was already quite the conflict there.

I don't think it could result in a partition of France. The principle of royal power is IMO already too entrenched. Even the Guises, with the support of the Parisian populace and the most powerful sovereign in Christendom (Felipe II) wound up losing against Henri III and Henri de Navarre.

 

[Gloss]

I don't think it could result in a partition of France. The principle of royal power is IMO already too entrenched. Even the Guises, with the support of the Parisian populace and the most powerful sovereign in Christendom (Felipe II) wound up losing against Henri III and Henri de Navarre.

Well then you would need to change the POD a bit earlier, I seriously don´t see how one can go about being deterministic about France at this point. Spain is at its golden Age and the French religious division leaves room open to political division.

 

[DracoLazarus]

Well then you would need to change the POD a bit earlier, I seriously don´t see how one can go about being deterministic about France at this point. Spain is at its golden Age and the French religious division leaves room open to political division.

... I just got a weird idea. the De Guises as Kings of Northern France and the Bourbons as Kings of Southern France, with both attempting to claim the other but stalemating due to allies. However, I see it as unlikely Guisard France would subside, it just lacks the legitimacy. It would take one Catholic Bourbon with a good military skill to crush Guisard France, and Henri de Navarre had military skill in spades.

 

[funnyhat]

A problem with the Wars of Religion is that the Huguenot leader, Henri de Navarre, also had a strong claim on the throne of France, all the more so since none of the Valois brothers had legitimate sons. This encouraged him to keep fighting for all of France, instead of just part of it.

If the House of Valois doesn't die out, maybe at some point Henri would shift focus to being king of a Protestant state in the south.

 

[Bosemacher]

Henry V wins the Investiture controversy. The ability of the Emperor to control ecclesiastical appointments results a more centralized HRE with the Emperor having greater authority. Because of this the HRE border with France remains along Meuse and Rhone. In addition the Occtian speaking lands of southern France and Catalonia combine to form a Kingdom of Occtiania. England inherits the Duchy of Brittany and retains Normandy.

 

[Tanc49]

... I just got a weird idea. the De Guises as Kings of Northern France and the Bourbons as Kings of Southern France, with both attempting to claim the other but stalemating due to allies. However, I see it as unlikely Guisard France would subside, it just lacks the legitimacy. It would take one Catholic Bourbon with a good military skill to crush Guisard France, and Henri de Navarre had military skill in spades.

That could work. That's what happened in Vietnam, another very centralized country with a strong sense of self identity.
Two pretenders claiming ultimate legitimacy over one unified throne