PC: No A-L annexation 1870 = earlier Franco-German axis of cooperation

[kreepysam]

Many histories of the late 19th and early 20th centuries regarding the origins of WWI seem to indicate that snatching Alsace Lorraine from France elicited a visceral and permanent revanchist antipathy from the French towards Germany. We've all heard the various stories, e.g. schoolchildren France being shown the areas blacked out on maps, the French trying to trade first tier colonies to keep the frontier intact, etc.

After 1870, France and Germany went in separate directions and by the 1890s the French had sown up a defensive alliance directed against Germany. But what if the Germans let the French up easy in 1870? Even though they obviously just took a severe drubbing that would smart for several decades, without the violation of its borders and the ill-will it created, surely that memory would fade? By 1914, Germany was economically and militarily unquestionably stronger than France, so France would have had no reason to want to upset a peaceful status quo. Could a warming of relations leading to eventually to something like the ECSC and bodies of integration coming to pass?

I guess in other words, I'm asking to what extent German-French rivalry after 1870 would be a permanent fixture of European relations, regardless of the A-L component. It seems to me that France chose a sub optimal strategy (confrontation) because the had an axe to grind. Without this, the clearly superior strategy was ever-increasing integrated relations with Germany ('better to be the Devil's right hand', so to speak).

 

[avernite]

To me French-German hostility always felt kinda tacked on; France was much weaker than Germany so it was never going to amount to anything alone.

What broke the back of French-German relations was the breakdown of German-Russian relations. With Russia and Germany on opposite sides, France would always be offered the chance to strike back to avenge the horrible defeat of 1870 (doesn't matter how big the final peace, it's still pretty bad). If France and Germany somehow become real friends rather than not-as-big-enemies it might work out, because France might reject that offer. But I think the Elzas isn't worth THAT much.

After all, before the German-Russian cooling of relations, France spent its time mostly bickering with Britain rather than trying to compete with Germany.

 

[GlobalHumanism]

The problem, as it did in 1871, and again in 1914 in some respects, lay with the Prussian officer class and the Junkers. It was they would cajoled the Kaiser to stress Bismark into grabbing some of the French homeland as spoils of war.
IIRC, without A-L, Bismark mightve had a full political rebellion on his hands in the Reichstag.

 

[Faeelin]

To me French-German hostility always felt kinda tacked on; France was much weaker than Germany so it was never going to amount to anything alone.

Off base what if: A revolutionary French General occupies Berlin.

 

[funnyhat]

The problem, as it did in 1871, and again in 1914 in some respects, lay with the Prussian officer class and the Junkers. It was they would cajoled the Kaiser to stress Bismark into grabbing some of the French homeland as spoils of war.
IIRC, without A-L, Bismark mightve had a full political rebellion on his hands in the Reichstag.

Apparently France proposed to turn over Indochina instead of Alsace-Lorraine. If Germany goes for that instead, there could be a lot of butterflies.

Off base what if: A revolutionary French General occupies Berlin.

Isn't that OTL?

 

[Faeelin]

That's my point. The idea of outclassing Germany for France? Well, there's Alsace-Lorraine today, and no Elsass-Lothringen. And I don't see Prussia on a map.

 

[Roland Traveler]

That's my point. The idea of outclassing Germany for France? Well, there's Alsace-Lorraine today, and no Elsass-Lothringen. And I don't see Prussia on a map.

In all three wars between a united Germany and France, France lost. The only reason they "won" both World Wars was because someone else did it for them.

 

[Faeelin]

In all three wars between a united Germany and France, France lost. The only reason they "won" both World Wars was because someone else did it for them.

I guess the French cheated by using the effeminate idea of diplomacy and tact, yes.

 

[Roland Traveler]

I guess the French cheated by using the effeminate idea of diplomacy and tact, yes.

You were responding to a post about Germany being stronger than France. 1 on 1, that's true. It's not cheating to use diplomacy, but for which nation is stronger, it's irrelevant.
For instance, if you compare two soccer players, you don't include their team in the comparison, you compare the two solo.

 

[Faeelin]

You were responding to a post about Germany being stronger than France. 1 on 1, that's true. It's not cheating to use diplomacy, but for which nation is stronger, it's irrelevant.
For instance, if you compare two soccer players, you don't include their team in the comparison, you compare the two solo.

But we don't really have a one on one example. Unless we're counting the times the French monarchs and Napoleons used the Holy Roman Empire for field maneuvers.

 

[funnyhat]

In all three wars between a united Germany and France, France lost. The only reason they "won" both World Wars was because someone else did it for them.

How did France "lose" the First World War?

 

[Roland Traveler]

How did France "lose" the First World War?

Without British help, the Germans would have broken the line. Without American help, the Germans would have ground down the French. The French lost the war in that they couldn't win it on its own.
The Allies won, on the other hand. France as a part of the Allies won, but it lost on its own.

 

[Roland Traveler]

But we don't really have a one on one example. Unless we're counting the times the French monarchs and Napoleons used the Holy Roman Empire for field maneuvers.

? What was the Franco-Prussian War?

 

[Faeelin]

Without British help, the Germans would have broken the line. Without American help, the Germans would have ground down the French. The French lost the war in that they couldn't win it on its own.
The Allies won, on the other hand. France as a part of the Allies won, but it lost on its own.

This goes back to my "the French cheated by not being as dumb as the Kaiser!" argument.

 

[funnyhat]

Without British help, the Germans would have broken the line. Without American help, the Germans would have ground down the French. The French lost the war in that they couldn't win it on its own.
The Allies won, on the other hand. France as a part of the Allies won, but it lost on its own.

If you want to say that in an alternate timeline, France fighting without allies would have lost, or that the French/British could not have broken the stalemate without the United States, that is one thing. But to say France actually lost the war IOTL makes no sense. Germany's 1914 invasion clearly failed to achieve its objective. You could perhaps call it a draw.

Also, "France won because someone else did it for them" is kind of a jerk thing to say considering that France suffered almost six million (!) casualties in the war.

 

[Roland Traveler]

If you want to say that in an alternate timeline, France fighting without allies would have lost, or that the French/British could not have broken the stalemate without the United States, that is one thing. But to say France actually lost the war IOTL makes no sense. Germany's 1914 invasion clearly failed to achieve its objective. You could perhaps call it a draw.

Also, "France won because someone else did it for them" is kind of a jerk thing to say considering that France suffered almost six million (!) casualties in the war.

France won the war in concrete terms. However, in terms of national strength, they lost that contest and had to rely on others to defeat Germany. It's not a jerk thing to acknowledge that.

This goes back to my "the French cheated by not being as dumb as the Kaiser!" argument.

They didn't cheat, they were simply outclassed by Germany in a one on one fight.

 

[Dominic]

The Franco-German rivalry is often greatly overstated here and elsewhere, and was absolutely not inevitable. OTL even by the 1880's there was warming between the two nations during the Ferry government, and by 1914 A-L had more or less completely faded as an issue for the average French, though not so for the elite. This is not even mentioning the economic relationship. A great book on this is 'Dance of the Furies' by Michael Neiberg, which argues that for the average European in 1914 there was absolutely no desire for war, and in fact numerous transnational links had grown up throughout Western Europe. While the possibility of close cooperation between the two is probably limited in the short term without some major upset to the balance of power, but the links that have grown up between them OTL could probably have emerged half a century earlier without the First World War.

 

[CH33K1 N4ND0Z]

So, if I'm correct, this Franco-German alliance thread has turned into an argument over whether France would've lost WW1 without allies or if it would become a draw.

 

[kreepysam]

Wow, okay interesting responses, thanks all

It seems like there is general agreement that France alone was at a significant disadvantage against Germany and that this militates against the formation of an irrevocable mutual hostility. But it is more ambiguous in terms of how exactly to produce a closer, warmer relationship between the two.

To me French-German hostility always felt kinda tacked on; France was much weaker than Germany so it was never going to amount to anything alone.

What broke the back of French-German relations was the breakdown of German-Russian relations. With Russia and Germany on opposite sides, France would always be offered the chance to strike back to avenge the horrible defeat of 1870 (doesn't matter how big the final peace, it's still pretty bad). If France and Germany somehow become real friends rather than not-as-big-enemies it might work out, because France might reject that offer. But I think the Elzas isn't worth THAT much.

After all, before the German-Russian cooling of relations, France spent its time mostly bickering with Britain rather than trying to compete with Germany.

So, Russo-German breakdown equates to a French-Russian rapprochement and encirclement, but the reverse does not hold? As in, it doesn't necessarily mean France would kiss up to Germany if the Germans have Europe's Gendarmes as their allies - since then the Germans would have no need for the French advances, and it would also imply a France - Germany - Russia axis which historically has never really happened.

In order for the French and Germans to become friends or even allies, the equations of power configurations you outline implies that Russia must in some way become hostile to Russia, and be closed off as an alliance option for France, for France and Germany to draw closer? Can anyone think of how that array might come about?

The problem, as it did in 1871, and again in 1914 in some respects, lay with the Prussian officer class and the Junkers. It was they would cajoled the Kaiser to stress Bismark into grabbing some of the French homeland as spoils of war.
IIRC, without A-L, Bismark mightve had a full political rebellion on his hands in the Reichstag.

Quite a problem, even for the slippery Bismarck! It sounds like even his go-to for well-placed bribes might not help him this time, although I'd suggest that one critical factor in the Reichstag's actions would be the degree that elites perceive the masses in Germany will be angry if they dont nab A-L. If there is serious chance of a severe uprising, even Bismarck might not want to roll those dice. If Bismarck feels he can ride it out safely in terms of public opinion, maybe he tells the Reichstag where to shove it?

Of course, if 1866 goes differently and they nibble a bit more from Austria, which Bismarck opposed, maybe a quid pro quo argument could help him put his foot down on A-L as a step too far?

The Franco-German rivalry is often greatly overstated here and elsewhere, and was absolutely not inevitable. OTL even by the 1880's there was warming between the two nations during the Ferry government, and by 1914 A-L had more or less completely faded as an issue for the average French, though not so for the elite. This is not even mentioning the economic relationship. A great book on this is 'Dance of the Furies' by Michael Neiberg, which argues that for the average European in 1914 there was absolutely no desire for war, and in fact numerous transnational links had grown up throughout Western Europe. While the possibility of close cooperation between the two is probably limited in the short term without some major upset to the balance of power, but the links that have grown up between them OTL could probably have emerged half a century earlier without the First World War.

Thanks for the recommendation, and its an interesting insight. If they could just have avoided WW1, maybe a proto-EU of some kind could arise earlier, since what it took OTL was Franco-German unity and cooperation to get the ball rolling to become the 'engine' of the EU?

 

[rfmcdonald]

France won the war in concrete terms. However, in terms of national strength, they lost that contest and had to rely on others to defeat Germany. It's not a jerk thing to acknowledge that.

It is, however, a very inaccurate thing to say that France was defeated in the First World War. It was a war that cost France heavily, and that France could only win as part of a coalition, but France still emerged on the winning side. France won the First World War.

The same sort of thing can be said about France in the Second World War, only with more qualifications on account of the German occupation of metropolitan France.