What if France won the Franco-Prussian War?

[LordKalvan]

Given the POD, that the French Imperial Army of 1870 would do which you write would be in my opinion like saying that the Army of Northern Virginia of 1864 would be able to rout the Union armies at every battle and besiege New York.
That the French could establish a defensive line at Wissembourg, why not. But that they would score as much victories against Prussia in northern Germany, definitely not.

At first, the Prussian military was far more advanced and disciplined than the French Imperial Army. At the contrary of Niel, Roon, Moltke and Bismarck had successfully reformed the army. The Prussians had for them a superior artillery and a faster and more organized mobilization plan. Concerning this latter point, it's especially more obvious when you see how the French mobilized; Prince Napoleon, while accompanying the Emperor said that 'generals were looking for their divisions, colonels their regiments...'.
The main advantages the French had were the Chassepot, the Reffye, and a greater capacity to endure a long war.
However, because of the secrecy that was built around the mitrailleuses, when they left the warehouses, noone knew exactly how to use them and had to learn while fighting.
In 1870, the doctrine of the Imperial Army was focused on defense; when offensives were attempted, they ended in failures (Saar, Sedan).
What's more, the French had an inadapted doctrine of use of cavalry as means of scouting, which was in part responsible for Wissembourg and Sedan.
What's more, you mention that Austria intervenes, but not Russia. Yet, Bismarck had signed a secret treaty with the Tsar, stating that if Austria was to enter in the war against Prussia, Russia would declare war to Austria.


Unless you consider a POD earlier in the reign of Napoleon III, you couldn't get something like that.
In my opinion, a stalemate is the better thing that the French could reach. If they manage to get the Germans into a war of attrition, the French would win in the long run, as shown IOTL during the 20th century.

I was surprised that no one mentioned the secret Russian guarantee given to Bismarck. It's quite obvious that the secrecy is more theoretical than real (what's the advantage of secrecy, if the main beneficiary - Bismarck - does not want a general war?): Austria knows about it, and they are also more than reluctant to support France unless there is at least an Italian guarantee of neutrality (actually they asked for a triple alliance against Prussia). It is also quite obvious that such an alliance is impossible (the Austrians are the traditional enemy, and France has squandered all the good will of 1859 by her meddling in the 1866 war and even more so by the refusal to recognise that the papal state is well past due date.

The French defeat was not created by Louis Napoleon military blunders, but rather by his political ones. After the Mexican (mis)adventure, the demostration of impotence in the 1866 war, the fizzling of the Luxembourg purchase and the internal troubles at the end of the 1860s, he needed a victory to shore up a tottering regime and insure the succession. Bismarck could read him very well, and knew that the Spanish succession crisis was a very good opportunity to push Nappy even more in a corner and force him to declare war. On the military side, the letargic pace of French mobilization quickly killed any possible hope to follor the original plan (which was to cross the Rhine and fight in Germany). It was not a very good plan anyhow, since the Prussian supply line was more secure and faster than the French one, so maybe not crossing the Rhine was a blessing in disguise. Then there is the better grasp by Prussian general staff of the changes in the way of fighting a war (the 1860s were an age of change, fast) and the undisputable superiority of the Prussian artillery.

Given the political and military scenarios (not to mention the personalities of the main players) I'd say that any kind of French victory would be paid long odds, but a complete triumph is absolutely asbish.

 

[mrmandias]

The problem with simply switching the fortunes of France and Germany are three-fold. First, and most importantly, France already had gone through the demographic transition, while the German area had not and is unlikely to do so any time soon in your POD (OTL, it didn't until well into the 20th). This is a huge factor that correlates with economic growth, national aggressiveness, etc., and you can't simply wish it away.

Second, France had a larger middle class than Germany did. There's a pretty good correlation between weak middle classes and the states that went fascist. This is a factor that could be changed over time, but it would take some doing, you just can't assume it.

Third, France had more of a liberal tradition than Germany and had cleared away much of the accretions of the past. Again, this is something that can change over time, but it will take some doing, you just can't assume it.

 

[Gannt the chartist]

Kalvan has the right of it.

A French defensive victory is feasible, a conquest of western Germany is really not on the Prussian army is that good and the French that poor, at least when attacking and all their infantry firepower advantages get lost.

The best Nappy could hope for is limited gains and not having a German Empire formed.

 

[Milites]

One of the things I've been wondering about these few months is whether or not it's feasible to prevent Germany from uniting up until OTL Great War, with a point of divergence anchored in a French victory in 1871. Is that possible, if say, Nappy triumphs in Mexico and generally acts as if he knew what he was doing?

 

[Vingilótë]

To be frank, no German unification would probably butterfly OTL WWI.

 

[Milites]

I agree completely, but I meant it in a rather chronologically kind away, e.g. a major world war by around the early 1900s. For example, a revanchist Prussia going against France again on the side of a British Empire distraught at French success in Europe and Mexico. Maybe Fashoda turns hot?

 

[historyfool]

I agree with galileo that it is next to impossible for France to win outright without a POD well before the war. As I said when he proposed a simliar timeline: The only things where the french had advantages were infantry weapons and number of active soldiers. The Germans had better leadership, doctrine, artillery, support structures, pre war planning and far more trained reserves.

Just to give some ideas about the shortcomings France has to overcome:
The mobilisation issue: France has the larger standing army, but that army was actually slower to get into position than German reserves called up. With their reserve activation the German states fielded 1 400 000 fully trained men. France managed in the whole war to raise 900 000, half of them belonging to the Garde mobile. The only thing worse than the garde´s equipment (the best rifle they had was probably the Tabatière, accompanied by everything available or quickly imported) was probably their training: Beyond the initial two weeks they had - in theory, not in praxis - 14 day training each year, but never two following each other.

The strategic level: France did not even manage to get their designated offensive forces fully equipped in advance much less supplied. A prime example of their faulty logistics is the battle of Mars-la-tour or rather what happened before and after. The attempt to improve its supply situation was one of the things delaying their march and allowing the Germans to catch them there. Despite these attempts at supply and a not particular offensive stance of their commander they ran through almost their entire ammunition on that single day, making the draw achieved a moot point.
Even more ridiculous, the French had obviously no contingency planning what to do in the strategical situation on the outbreak of the war. The various parts of that force in the initial stages simply blundered around without any coordination.

On the tactical level the situation was more even, at least while the French where on the defensive: The French regulars had the Chassepot rifle, clearly superior to German rifles and the mitrailleuse had real potential as well. Though it was never used in a sensible way a charge against those would have been really a bad idea. On the other hand Auftragstaktik gave the German armies much better reaction time and they had the far superior artillery. Though not as dominant as 40 years later the tendency was already there.

Really, the best France can hope for is repulsing the German offensive and a ceasefire after which Prussia is less dominant in a unified Germany.

 

[Titus_Pullo]

I hope you continue this.

Bavaria would probably be the first to defect to the French side in the event Prussia begins to lose and that France doesn't necessarily have to penetrate so deep into Germany to get it to surrender.

 

[Janprimus]

I hope you continue this.

Bavaria would probably be the first to defect to the French side in the event Prussia begins to lose and that France doesn't necessarily have to penetrate so deep into Germany to get it to surrender.

IMHO that's indeed very likely. The further France would penetrate into Germany, the larger the likelihood of involvement of third parties, like Austria or even the UK will be.

 

[Corder]

I hope you continue this.

Bavaria would probably be the first to defect to the French side in the event Prussia begins to lose and that France doesn't necessarily have to penetrate so deep into Germany to get it to surrender.

Was Bavaria still fairly Francophile at this point? Wasn't mad Ludwig desperate for cash?

 

[Titus_Pullo]

Was Bavaria still fairly Francophile at this point? Wasn't mad Ludwig desperate for cash?

Given that Bavaria has traditionally been friendly with France and that it didn't want to join a unified German state to begin with, defecting to the winning side would be a very convenient move to preserve its independence.

 

[Titus_Pullo]

IMHO that's indeed very likely. The further France would penetrate into Germany, the larger the likelihood of involvement of third parties, like Austria or even the UK will be.

An all out French invasion of Germany as presented here would make the British very nervous, not to mention a new alliance between France, Austria and Denmark would be enough for the UK to get involved.

 

[TickTock The Witch's Dead]

From what I had read so far, I thought I put my opinion.

First of all, yes. There needs to be a POD prior to the war. I suggest that when France threatens Prussia for war, Austria, Denmark, and I guess some south German states would follow suit. That way, France has a huge load of backup.

Second of all, I would believe this may or may not evolve into a world war depending on the situation. If the alliance manages to smash Prussia fast enough, I think the war would end early. But it will cause Britain and Russia to form an alliance to gang up on them. But if the war is somewhat longer, than when Britain and Russia join, it's a world war.

Third of all, the terms. For a world war, dunno. But for a short war, I guess the North German Confederation would be disbanded. Denmark would regain its two lost territories. Austria would get Silesia. And France would take Rhineland.

I do not expect what I have to be accurate, but opinions guys!

 

[Anderman]

As long France wants parts of Palatinate and Hesse for their Rhine border this state will not form with France.

 

[Janprimus]

From what I had read so far, I thought I put my opinion.

First of all, yes. There needs to be a POD prior to the war. I suggest that when France threatens Prussia for war, Austria, Denmark, and I guess some south German states would follow suit. That way, France has a huge load of backup.

Second of all, I would believe this may or may not evolve into a world war depending on the situation. If the alliance manages to smash Prussia fast enough, I think the war would end early. But it will cause Britain and Russia to form an alliance to gang up on them. But if the war is somewhat longer, than when Britain and Russia join, it's a world war.

Third of all, the terms. For a world war, dunno. But for a short war, I guess the North German Confederation would be disbanded. Denmark would regain its two lost territories. Austria would get Silesia. And France would take Rhineland.

I do not expect what I have to be accurate, but opinions guys!

Firstly it all depends on the POD.

Austria and Denmark did have reasons to join, but the Danish interests actually oppose Austria's interests. Austria and Prussia fought together as part of the German Confederation for the German cause in the Schleswig (German-Danish) wars over Schleswig-Holstein.
Austria would want to regain their position in Germany and giving Schleswig and Holstein (with Lauenburg) (back) to Denmark would be a betrayal of the German cause and would hurt the position of Austria in Germany and domestically it won't go well down with German speaking Austrians either. Maybe Denmark could get Schleswig back, but Holstein and Lauenburg would simply be unacceptable.

Like I wrote earlier, Prussia could be forced to restore the German states it seized after the Austro-Prussian war, like the kingdom of Hanover, the duchy of Nassau, grand duchy of Hesse (-Darmstadt), electorate of Hesse (-Kassel) and the free city of Frankfurt (am Main). Maybe the situation in Hesse-Nassau will be a bit more consolidated.

The German Confederation could be restored too, but I'm not sure whether France would gain the entire Rhineland or Austria Silesia.
However I could see France annexing Luxembourg, but that would require a compensation for the neutral grand duke of Luxembourg, king William III of the Netherlands. Napoleon III did have some ambitions to annex Belgium, but that wouldn't be acceptable for any of the other Great Powers.
Giving Silesia (back) to Austria could be an idea, but this might make Austria to dominant in Germany from the French perspective.

 

[Mikestone8]

Also, the Austro-Hungarian army had just adopted conscription (1968) and the resulting organisational problems made it even more of a shambles than in 1866.

So if AH comes in, Prussia's best option is to stand on the ddefensive along the Rhine, and rush as many troops as posible eastwards, to invade AH along the Elbe and Danube. This is also adviseable because it brings large Prussian forces into Saxony and Bavaria, just in case they get any ideas.

With AH smashed the Prussians (perhaps with Russian support), can turn west again for a counter-offensive against France.

 

[LordKalvan]

Also, the Austro-Hungarian army had just adopted conscription (1968) and the resulting organisational problems made it even more of a shambles than in 1866.

So if AH comes in, Prussia's best option is to stand on the ddefensive along the Rhine, and rush as many troops as posible eastwards, to invade AH along the Elbe and Danube. This is also adviseable because it brings large Prussian forces into Saxony and Bavaria, just in case they get any ideas.

With AH smashed the Prussians (perhaps with Russian support), can turn west again for a counter-offensive against France.

This was the General Staff plan, using the advantage of internal line of communication and railways.
I'll add also that the Hungarian prime minister was dead against any intervention in the Franco-Prussian war, and if the Austrians had forced his hand it might well derail the Ausgleich that had been so difficult to put together

 

[Anderman]

The German Confederation could be restored too, but I'm not sure whether France would gain the entire Rhineland or Austria Silesia.
However I could see France annexing Luxembourg, but that would require a compensation for the neutral grand duke of Luxembourg, king William III of the Netherlands. Napoleon III did have some ambitions to annex Belgium, but that wouldn't be acceptable for any of the other Great Powers.
Giving Silesia (back) to Austria could be an idea, but this might make Austria to dominant in Germany from the French perspective.

If the GC is restored France would gain nothing because the purpose of the GC was to guarantee the invulnerability of its members. So at the moment the German Confederation comes back into existence it had to declare war on France to regain the Rhineland and other lost areas.

 

[Janprimus]

If the GC is restored France would gain nothing because the purpose of the GC was to guarantee the invulnerability of its members. So at the moment the German Confederation comes back into existence it had to declare war on France to regain the Rhineland and other lost areas.

That would depend on whether France would actually gain the Rhineland to begin with. If so, then you're right; otherwise that isn't a large issue. Anyway an ATL French version of Alsace-Lorraine, will increase revanchist feelings and certainly won't end the desire of the German people to get their own nation state. This will also influence possible actions of Austria in such a conflict, humbling Prussia and restore states like Hanover, Hesse and Nassau is one thing, but helping France in gaining too much German soil will probably hurt their position in Germany (which they would like to regain) and won't be received well by their population.

 

[Richter von Manthofen]

This was the General Staff plan, using the advantage of internal line of communication and railways.
I'll add also that the Hungarian prime minister was dead against any intervention in the Franco-Prussian war, and if the Austrians had forced his hand it might well derail the Ausgleich that had been so difficult to put together

Derailing the Ausgleich would be an idea FJ would have liked. Especially if a short victorius war strengthens the central gvmt. Going back to pre 1866 would not be possible, but reversing it a bit - yes.