WI: France got the Saarland after WW1?

[AltoRegnant]

France, in my opinion, embodied "won the war, lost the peace" after ww1. Four years of destruction and death across their northeast in the deadliest (and most expensive) war to that point. Yet they only came away with a few minor colonies and a regained but also devastated Alsace-Lorraine (though in fairness this was a major goal of all French politicians.) Repirations were demanded but ultimately unenforceable. And for all this they gained a pissed off germany that wanted revenge and wasn't weakened in a meaningful capacity (see 1941 and the fact that it was even worse than 1871.)

There are two main reasons for this, incidentally both anglophone

1. British fear france would dominate Europe without a strong Germany. Not an unreasonable fear, but an erroneous estimation of the relative strength between them
2. Wilson's ideological goals of peace holding self determination for non-Irish white people over political realities.

Now, one of the biggest prizes paris wanted was the coal rich saarland, which they couldn't annex directly at Versailles. Now they tried to cheese it by making a league of nations mandate and integrating it deeply into the economy, like syria in the middle east. This however failed because the german population voted for reunification vs annexation later on.

So. What if Lloyd George understood that france cant beat germany 1 on 1 and the territory wouldn't undermine Balance of Power, or wilson sent someone else to do the negotiating, or whatever, and france was allowed the saarland and some other broader territorial concessions?

Now, I don't think that thi would be popular in the region, but unless france conducts itself as badly as germany did in alsace it should be viable. I'm also not sure it would fix the economic problems france had. But I do think it would help the political situation since france has an actual gain on germany and more coal to support itself.

But my big question is how does this effect the balance of power between them?

 

[Alanith]

France, in my opinion, embodied "won the war, lost the peace" after ww1. Four years of destruction and death across their northeast in the deadliest (and most expensive) war to that point. Yet they only came away with a few minor colonies and a regained but also devastated Alsace-Lorraine (though in fairness this was a major goal of all French politicians.) Repirations were demanded but ultimately unenforceable. And for all this they gained a pissed off germany that wanted revenge and wasn't weakened in a meaningful capacity (see 1941 and the fact that it was even worse than 1871.)

There are two main reasons for this, incidentally both anglophone

1. British fear france would dominate Europe without a strong Germany. Not an unreasonable fear, but an erroneous estimation of the relative strength between them
2. Wilson's ideological goals of peace holding self determination for non-Irish white people over political realities.

Now, one of the biggest prizes paris wanted was the coal rich saarland, which they couldn't annex directly at Versailles. Now they tried to cheese it by making a league of nations mandate and integrating it deeply into the economy, like syria in the middle east. This however failed because the german population voted for reunification vs annexation later on.

So. What if Lloyd George understood that france cant beat germany 1 on 1 and the territory wouldn't undermine Balance of Power, or wilson sent someone else to do the negotiating, or whatever, and france was allowed the saarland and some other broader territorial concessions?

Now, I don't think that thi would be popular in the region, but unless france conducts itself as badly as germany did in alsace it should be viable. I'm also not sure it would fix the economic problems france had. But I do think it would help the political situation since france has an actual gain on germany and more coal to support itself.

But my big question is how does this effect the balance of power between them?

How do you solve the massive issue of "The German population doesn't particularly want to be French".

 

[Analytical Engine]

How do you solve the massive issue of "The German population doesn't particularly want to be French".

Unfortunately, I suspect the French government's solution will be some combination of "well...we can always just move people around" or "send in the troops".

 

[AltoRegnant]

Unfortunately, I suspect the French government's solution will be some combination of "well...we can always just move people around" or "send in the troops".

Honestly, probably. Tbh I dunno how close the referendum on Germany/independence/france that was held was for reference

 

[Post]

Honestly, probably. Tbh I dunno how close the referendum on Germany/independence/france that was held was for reference

Not close at all.

 

[Analytical Engine]

Honestly, probably. Tbh I dunno how close the referendum on Germany/independence/france that was held was for reference

This is from wikipedia:

Total	527,987	100
Option	Votes	%
Unification with Germany	477,089	90.73
Status quo	46,613	8.87
Unification with France	2,124	0.40
Invalid/blank votes	2,161	–
Registered voters/turnout	539,542	97.99
Source: Direct Democracy

1935 Saar status referendum - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Yeah, that's nearly half a million people who really, really, really don't want to be part of France.

 

[TheMolePeople]

I mean, you can certainly construct a scenario where France gains the Saarland in the peace directly, so to speak, but I'm not sure that achieves what it is supposed to. If, as AnalyticalEngine points out, the population of the Saarland is, by a very large margin, opposed to French annexation in the 1935 referendum, I think its fair to say that the public's attitude wouldn't be much more favorable to France after the war. I don't think that forced displacement or martial law are the solution here either, precisely because the Saarland is supposed to be an asset; while its resources would be denied to Germany here, I suspect it might be a net drain on political capital, manpower etc. (and presumably it would be the French alone who have to enforce whatever concessions we are talking about)

The key question might be how we imagine the populations reaction to annexation - is there ambivalence, hostile resignation, widespread unrest, strikes, civil disobedience, armed resistance? Incentivizing the German population, showing them how they might gain from being made part of France (carrot rather than stick), could be an instrument; then again, that might not go over exceptionally well in the rest of France, you're dealing with the enemy (until very recently) after all.

Another question would of course be what the other "broader territorial concessions" are that you mentioned, since they probably change the overall picture very much. Are you thinking Versailles, just tweaked a bit, or a larger deviation?

 

[CB13]

Not politically correct today, but could the French have targeted only a portion of the Saarland and pushed for the German population to be resettled in other parts of Germany at Germany's cost, allowing French Citizens who had lost everything to move in, to take the jobs, and start to rebuild their lives?

 

[Hugh Third of Five]

Not politically correct today, but could the French have targeted only a portion of the Saarland and pushed for the German population to be resettled in other parts of Germany at Germany's cost, allowing French Citizens who had lost everything to move in, to take the jobs, and start to rebuild their lives?

I think the French would be more likely to try to turn them into French speakers than deport them.

 

[acasewithfourstonesinit]

After germany had seized alsace lorraine and it's coal field's from france in 1871 should have crippled france beyond recovery for several generation's,

But with in three year's after the end of the franco prussian war france had found the briey longwy coal field's and was not even crippled for a half decade,

If france had goten the saar coal field's in 1919 germany would have looked far and wide just like france had done in (1871-1874) with it's briey longwy coal field's,

Germany still has the silesia coal field's and most of the bigest coal field's ever found there was by poland in (1949-1956),

And there is the ronneburg thuringia coal field in east germany the bigest coal field in all of east germany (1950-1990),

There is the big coal field's found in bavaria in the late 1950's and the (1940's garzweiler surface mine),

Many of the bigest coal field's ever found were found after 1945 when there was a critical geo strategic need by (poland) (east germany) (west germany) for national survival and a fast economic recovery,

So france getting the saar coal field's in 1919 would mean that germany would likey find the big coal field's of the (1940's-1950's) in the 1920's.

 

[AltoRegnant]

So france getting the saar coal field's in 1919 would mean that germany would likey find the big coal field's of the (1940's-1950's) in the 1920's.

so you think that in the end this woud've made germany stronger? that itself then begs the question of how other powers would act