WI. France wins the Franco-Prussian War

As above.

It does matter how France wins, it's that they just do. Questions about what happens later, more than anything else.

Does Napoleon III remain Emperor and the Empire carry on through his son?

Does German unification still happen, or I if does how long does it take?

Do the Danish, and or the Austrians, take a chance and have a go at Prussia?

Who does Britain side with in the future? France because they are the powerful ones, or Prussia as it could be needed as a balance against France?

What of Russia, do they now need France as a balance against Prussia/Germany now?

Over to you lot, type about this for a bit.:)
 
As above.

It does matter how France wins, it's that they just do. Questions about what happens later, more than anything else.

Does Napoleon III remain Emperor and the Empire carry on through his son?

Does German unification still happen, or I if does how long does it take?

Do the Danish, and or the Austrians, take a chance and have a go at Prussia?

Who does Britain side with in the future? France because they are the powerful ones, or Prussia as it could be needed as a balance against France?

What of Russia, do they now need France as a balance against Prussia/Germany now?

Over to you lot, type about this for a bit.:)

What I can be sure of is:

- Napoleon III remains. He is even a hero in France.

- Britain has more attention to France as a potential rival

- no Russo-Turkish war of 1877-1878 or delayed at least. France being a power to protect the treaty of Paris. Britain also has more back up in comparison of OTL.

- Possible French annextion of Luxemburg and maybe even Wallonia.

- German unification delayed. Bismarck is possibly fired. Austria-Hungary might use this chance to get the South Germans loyal to Vienna. If integrated they might even use it counter the Hungarians.
 
What I can be sure of is:

- Napoleon III remains. He is even a hero in France.

- Britain has more attention to France as a potential rival

- no Russo-Turkish war of 1877-1878 or delayed at least. France being a power to protect the treaty of Paris. Britain also has more back up in comparison of OTL.

- Possible French annextion of Luxemburg and maybe even Wallonia.

- German unification delayed. Bismarck is possibly fired. Austria-Hungary might use this chance to get the South Germans loyal to Vienna. If integrated they might even use it counter the Hungarians.

I think German unification has a larger chance of succeeding now. Bismark could rally the disunited Germans that unification will help them finally beat the French.
 
I think German unification has a larger chance of succeeding now. Bismark could rally the disunited Germans that unification will help them finally beat the French.

... but they just militarily united against French aggression and lost. That argument had literally just been discredited, and the myth of the invincible Prussian General Staff given a severe knocking. If anything, a weakened Prussia is going to have to make concessions to the larger states within the NGF towards a slightly less centeralized/unified model.
 
What I can be sure of is:

- Napoleon III remains. He is even a hero in France.

- Britain has more attention to France as a potential rival

- no Russo-Turkish war of 1877-1878 or delayed at least. France being a power to protect the treaty of Paris. Britain also has more back up in comparison of OTL.

- Possible French annextion of Luxemburg and maybe even Wallonia.

- German unification delayed. Bismarck is possibly fired. Austria-Hungary might use this chance to get the South Germans loyal to Vienna. If integrated they might even use it counter the Hungarians.

Wallonia is part of Belgium and Belgium has the guarantee of Britain. So there is no way France is going to annex part of Belgium without either Britain’s agreement or winning a war against Britain.

I agree with your other points.

My guess is that France would try to give a more political dimension to the monetary Latin union it had already established.
 
If France wins, might she try to regain her influence in Italy and try to spike Italian unification with Rome?
 
Wallonia is part of Belgium and Belgium has the guarantee of Britain. So there is no way France is going to annex part of Belgium without either Britain’s agreement or winning a war against Britain.

I agree with your other points.

My guess is that France would try to give a more political dimension to the monetary Latin union it had already established.

I forgot about the neutrality of Belgium...

There is no point in making more enemies after the Prussian war. War and invasion is out of question. But sowing discontent among the Flemish is a thing. Make them hate the Walloons so much they leave Belgium. And if there is no Belgium or the part you want is no longer Belgian territory you can take it over.
 
Wallonia is part of Belgium and Belgium has the guarantee of Britain. So there is no way France is going to annex part of Belgium without either Britain’s agreement or winning a war against Britain.
Roughly the same is true for Luxemburg. Luxemburg's neutrality was garantued, not only by Britain, but also by the Netherlands, France and Prussia. To gain Luxemburg, Fance has to buy it from the Netherlands, which would most likely not allow it (the Luxemburg crisis basicly caused a major political change in the Netherlands, after all that, I find it highly unlikely Dutch parliament would allow a sale).

Basicly, since both Belgium as well as Luxemburg had nothing to do with the Franco-Prussian war, neither would be annexed as a direct result of France winning that war.
I forgot about the neutrality of Belgium...

There is no point in making more enemies after the Prussian war. War and invasion is out of question. But sowing discontent among the Flemish is a thing. Make them hate the Walloons so much they leave Belgium. And if there is no Belgium or the part you want is no longer Belgian territory you can take it over.
That would not happen, at all. The Francophone Belgians would simply not allow the Flemish to leave. The Francophone population (which also included the Flemish upper class and part of the Flemish middle class) controled basicly everything in Belgium, politicaly, economicaly, financialy. The Flemish population could not simply leave, because they were fed up with the Walloons. they would have to fight the Walloons (and other non-seperatists), which they would lose, since the Flemish would not have enough resources to fight them.

That is besides the fact that 19th century France would probably not care that only half of Belgium spoke French (or a French dialect). France had several non Francophone areas, including French Flanders and Alsace-Lorraine. France would want all of Belgium, not just the Walloon areas.
 
Roughly the same is true for Luxemburg. Luxemburg's neutrality was garantued, not only by Britain, but also by the Netherlands, France and Prussia. To gain Luxemburg, Fance has to buy it from the Netherlands, which would most likely not allow it (the Luxemburg crisis basicly caused a major political change in the Netherlands, after all that, I find it highly unlikely Dutch parliament would allow a sale).

Basicly, since both Belgium as well as Luxemburg had nothing to do with the Franco-Prussian war, neither would be annexed as a direct result of France winning that war.

That would not happen, at all. The Francophone Belgians would simply not allow the Flemish to leave. The Francophone population (which also included the Flemish upper class and part of the Flemish middle class) controled basicly everything in Belgium, politicaly, economicaly, financialy. The Flemish population could not simply leave, because they were fed up with the Walloons. they would have to fight the Walloons (and other non-seperatists), which they would lose, since the Flemish would not have enough resources to fight them.

That is besides the fact that 19th century France would probably not care that only half of Belgium spoke French (or a French dialect). France had several non Francophone areas, including French Flanders and Alsace-Lorraine. France would want all of Belgium, not just the Walloon areas.

Cutting a deal with the Dutch to get Luxemburg which has no border with the Dutch. In exchange they can annex Flanders if there is no Belgium. If there is no Belgium the treaty of London is not valid. The treaty guarantees the neutrality of the state of Belgium. Ofcourse there is no telling how Britain would react to it.

Wanting something would not mean it always goes as it wants. Russia wanted a Bulgarian puppet in the Balkans. They would never allow it to fall under influence of the Germans after all the sacrifices they made. But it happened. The Francophone Belgians not allowing Flanders to seperate does not mean that it would automatically happen. All it matters is how much effort yoy put and as always, being lucky. And there are more scenario's as such.

You can't compare French Flanders and Alsace with a recently conquered Flanders of Belgium post-1870. The first two were French territory since the 17th century. The area is also smaller than the Dutch speaking part of Belgium.
 
italy didn't take Rome until after Napoleon III was defeated in 1870. also Napoleon was the protector of Rome and probably would still be independent as long as the french empire was protecting it.

Ah okay... my mistake.

But still... what is France gonna do? Attack a larger Italy and attract the attention of Britain being viewed as an agressive power? They can. But no guarantee for that to succeed.
 
Who is participating in this war? Would the French be trying to court any German states? Perhaps they take the land between Luxembourg and Palantine for themselves from Prussia and try setting up some favorable king over the Rhineland. Or they snag Bavarian Palantine for themselves as well, though they would need some big victories. They might prefer just taking Luxembourg, a chunk of the southern Prussian Rhine, and then try and get independence restores for Nassau and Hesse. Well, the one annexed by Germany. Maybe they try for a trade of the Bavarians getting the northern portion of the Rhineland in exchange for Palantine? Though I have doubts about it being accepted. They may be happy to offer someone from their royal family, married to a Bonaparte cousin, to be Grand Duke of Julich-Cleves-Berg.
 
Cutting a deal with the Dutch to get Luxemburg which has no border with the Dutch. In exchange they can annex Flanders if there is no Belgium. If there is no Belgium the treaty of London is not valid. The treaty guarantees the neutrality of the state of Belgium. Ofcourse there is no telling how Britain would react to it.

Wanting something would not mean it always goes as it wants. Russia wanted a Bulgarian puppet in the Balkans. They would never allow it to fall under influence of the Germans after all the sacrifices they made. But it happened. The Francophone Belgians not allowing Flanders to seperate does not mean that it would automatically happen. All it matters is how much effort yoy put and as always, being lucky. And there are more scenario's as such.

You can't compare French Flanders and Alsace with a recently conquered Flanders of Belgium post-1870. The first two were French territory since the 17th century. The area is also smaller than the Dutch speaking part of Belgium.

Sorry, but there are several problems with this scenario. For one the Dutch were not interested anymore in Flanders. Too many catholics and that was a major deal in the 19th and early 20th century. That is besides the fact that probably most Flemish don't want to be part of the protestant Netherlands anymore. Certainly not the upper class or the very influential catholic church.

Another thing is that the Dutch king Willem III tried to sell Luxemburg in 1867. Dutch parliament was extremely unhappy about it, because it almost caused the Netherlands to get involved in a major conflict between Prussia and France. Dutch parliament forced the responsible minister to step down. I realy doubt that after an actual war between Prussia and France Dutch parliament would agree to a sale. Especialy after the congress of London in which the neutrality of Luxemburg was decided, which was agreed upon by Austria, Belgium, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Prussia, Russia and the UK. Basicly everyone. Luxemburg is neutral and will remain neutral. The Netherlands selling Luxemburg to France would be a violation of that treaty and cause problems with Austria, Belgium, Italy, Russia and the UK and probably with Prussia and the other German states as wel (certainly with the German nationalists). So the Netherlands is not going to sell Luxemburg. I am not even sure the Netherlands (or the Dutch king) could still sell Luxemburg at that point.

You still overestimate the likelyhood of a Belgian breakup. Countries do not simply breakup. Especialy not the poor, undeveloped, uneducated part that the Flemish were. As I said the Flemish upper and a significant part of the middle class spoke French. It would be the Flemish peasants and lower classes that spoke Flemish. Those were poor and uneducated and often very religious. They would not be able to win a revolt against the Walloons. Especialy not if the upper and middle class would not support them. They probably need outside help. The Netherlands would not help them. They don't care enough. France, that makes no sense. The best you could get would be Germany, which currently has bigger issues to worry about, especialy since it does not exist.

Ok, I won't compare Flanders with French Flanders and Alsace-Lorraine, or Brittany, or Corsica or several other parts of France that did not actualy spoke french. Let me compare them to Algeria. Algeria certainly did not speak French. Yet France conquered and annexed them. And I don't mean they were made into a colony, like Indo-China. No, Algeria was considered to be actualy part of France. If France was willing to do that with Algeria, why wouldn't it want to it with Flanders, wich was cultury a lot closer to France and even had a Francophone upper class.


Sorry your idea won't work.
 
A stronger France post-1870 means a France that can still prop up the 1856 Paris Treaty regarding the Black Sea, which means that the Ottoman Empire has a higher chance of defeating Russia in the 1877-78 war.
 
Cutting a deal with the Dutch to get Luxemburg which has no border with the Dutch. In exchange they can annex Flanders if there is no Belgium. If there is no Belgium the treaty of London is not valid. The treaty guarantees the neutrality of the state of Belgium. Ofcourse there is no telling how Britain would react to it.

Wanting something would not mean it always goes as it wants. Russia wanted a Bulgarian puppet in the Balkans. They would never allow it to fall under influence of the Germans after all the sacrifices they made. But it happened. The Francophone Belgians not allowing Flanders to seperate does not mean that it would automatically happen. All it matters is how much effort yoy put and as always, being lucky. And there are more scenario's as such.

You can't compare French Flanders and Alsace with a recently conquered Flanders of Belgium post-1870. The first two were French territory since the 17th century. The area is also smaller than the Dutch speaking part of Belgium.
A part of the thing with the French language was that to was pretty much limited to Paris before the Revolution. Afterwards autonomy was torn away from various places (mostly which still have massive linguistic minority populations to this day) and the country became more connected. Partially as so many people joined the army to avoid being killed as enemies of the Revolution. And then there were roads built everywhere, universities, mass publications... Walloons isn't exactly French, with their king and government being a bit snooty about it. I can see them trying to push for more French on the population, Walloon or Flemish, but it wouldn't get to that point as the Brtish, Russians, etc aren't going to risk another Napoleon building up power. Hell, Oldenburg has an exclave just north of Bavarian Palantine. The Russians were related to their ruling family (and were miffed during the Napoleonic Wars when the Duke was dispossessed) and could use that as a reason to send over trainloads of soldiers.

Anyways, I imagine that the Dutch could be bought off simply by telling them 'alright, Limburger no longer needs to be in the German Confederation' or whatever they had at that point, considering the Germans demanded it when they gave up the Walloon portion of Luxembourg. The Dutch royals can probably be brought inside by getting one of their relatives on the throne in Nassau. Might lead to some interesting stuff actually, as I think the inheritance laws of the Germans and Dutch were different, which was why the Dutch and Luxembourg thrones split up. Potentially we could thus have Nassau and Luxembourg in union with each other, or for something to have all three United. Or, for even more fun, we keep Limberg in the German Confederation, thus ending up with Nassau, Luxembourg, and Limburger (minus Maastricht) as one country.
 
Anyways, I imagine that the Dutch could be bought off simply by telling them 'alright, Limburger no longer needs to be in the German Confederation' or whatever they had at that point, considering the Germans demanded it when they gave up the Walloon portion of Luxembourg. The Dutch royals can probably be brought inside by getting one of their relatives on the throne in Nassau. Might lead to some interesting stuff actually, as I think the inheritance laws of the Germans and Dutch were different, which was why the Dutch and Luxembourg thrones split up. Potentially we could thus have Nassau and Luxembourg in union with each other, or for something to have all three United. Or, for even more fun, we keep Limberg in the German Confederation, thus ending up with Nassau, Luxembourg, and Limburger (minus Maastricht) as one country.
Limburg hadn't been part of the German confederation since 1866.
 
I now get the impression from the responses, that the only thing France gains with a victory, is that it doesn't lose anything. Surely such a peace outcome would be unacceptable for the people.
 
Top