WI: French Intervention in Germany

Wary of the rise of the Nazi Party, France invades Germany to forestall the beginning of another continental-spanning war in Europe. What would the French replace the Nazis with if they succeeded? What would the consequence if France failed?
 

tenthring

Banned
How do Hindenburg and the army react?

While I have no doubt France can win this is going to be a terribly unpopular occupation and the replacement will have even less legitimacy then Weimar.

It's only with 20/20 hindsight that its all justified. France couldn't even occupy the Ruhr in the 20s without a lot of pushback.
 
It's only with 20/20 hindsight that its all justified. France couldn't even occupy the Ruhr in the 20s without a lot of pushback.
Could Czechoslovakia and Poland invading from the East help? France's alliances with Czechoslovakia and Poland were meant to deter German and Soviet ambitions.
 

Deleted member 1487

Wary of the rise of the Nazi Party, France invades Germany to forestall the beginning of another continental-spanning war in Europe. What would the French replace the Nazis with if they succeeded? What would the consequence if France failed?
When? They were too politically unstable in 1933-34 when they had a right wing coup attempt in Paris and the Depression had wrecked their economy and pushed them to the brink of revolution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6_February_1934_crisis

By 1936 the Germans were rearmed enough to require a full mobilization of the French military to resist them if they wanted to fight, but when they were even thinking about it investors pulled their money out of the French banking system, rendering it insolvent and leaving them unable to afford to mobilize; consequently the French left the gold standard and started liquidating their gold stocks to have funds to modernize their military and be able to afford to mobilize.

After that Germany was way to far ahead to think about attacking them.

Really the only chance for the French was early in 1933-34 but they were far too unstable themselves to even think about it, which is partly when Poland signed the 1934 non-aggression pact with Hitler.

I mean there was a reason they pulled all their troops out of German in 1930: they couldn't afford to keep the ToV going. And France had gotten terrible press in the 1920s for invading Germany and were leveraged out of it by the US and Britain using their loans held over France. In 1933-34 France had the same problem as the US and Britain were far too financially powerful to anger and they would not have tolerated France toppling Hitler and threatening to repeat the 1920s, but instead during the Depression, which would have collapsed the recovery that had started by early 1933.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_France#Interwar_years
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression_in_France#The_Depression_strikes

France was unable to topple the Nazis in 1933-34 also then because of international will to stop them. Plus they were already getting REALLY bad press as the world disarmament conference when they refused to disarm and gave Germany the cover to walk out of the conference and start rearming.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Disarmament_Conference
 
French thwarting Democracy

Keep in mind the Nazis at the time weren't viewed as the source of all evil in the world (yet). The French would be overthrowing a popular and democratically elected government which (not yet at least) wasn't an obvious threat to world peace. It would likely be remebered similar to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan or the US coup in Chile in 1973, an act of infamy and agression:rolleyes:

Just imagine historians of the future, "sure Hitler may have been a wierdo but he was the democratic choice of Germany and by overthrowing Hitler the French prevented a true democracy from coming into existence.:p;):D:rolleyes:
 

Could Czechoslovakia and Poland invading from the East help? France's alliances with Czechoslovakia and Poland were meant to deter German and Soviet ambitions.

the Czechs seem to be more concerned with keeping stable. Invading Germany might turn all their Germans against the government.
And most of their military agreements seem to be Defensive in nature, not offensive.

Poland seems to be unprepared for any military action.

More importantly, Poland and Czechoslovakia are not getting along at this point, and French attempts to get them to work together have been failing.
 

Tyr Anazasi

Banned
Poland did prepare for a war and indeed proposed such a war to the French, who did not join. If they joined and took the areas East of the Oder-Neiße line, which they desired, that would have been an uproar in the international society.
 
Poland did prepare for a war and indeed proposed such a war to the French, who did not join. If they joined and took the areas East of the Oder-Neiße line, which they desired, that would have been an uproar in the international society.

[citation needed]
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Probably the best possibility is that the French get good intel on the size of the reoccupation of the Rhineland. OTL they thought the size of the force was several divisions (that is, they counted the SA, SS and so on as well as the line battalions) and felt they had to mobilize - for which they did not have the money.

If they had hard intel on the true size, they'd intervene and slap the Germans down for an explicit and direct Versailles violation.
 
When? They were too politically unstable in 1933-34 when they had a right wing coup attempt in Paris and the Depression had wrecked their economy and pushed them to the brink of revolution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6_February_1934_crisis

By 1936 the Germans were rearmed enough to require a full mobilization of the French military to resist them if they wanted to fight, but when they were even thinking about it investors pulled their money out of the French banking system, rendering it insolvent and leaving them unable to afford to mobilize; consequently the French left the gold standard and started liquidating their gold stocks to have funds to modernize their military and be able to afford to mobilize.

After that Germany was way to far ahead to think about attacking them.

Really the only chance for the French was early in 1933-34 but they were far too unstable themselves to even think about it, which is partly when Poland signed the 1934 non-aggression pact with Hitler.

I mean there was a reason they pulled all their troops out of German in 1930: they couldn't afford to keep the ToV going. And France had gotten terrible press in the 1920s for invading Germany and were leveraged out of it by the US and Britain using their loans held over France. In 1933-34 France had the same problem as the US and Britain were far too financially powerful to anger and they would not have tolerated France toppling Hitler and threatening to repeat the 1920s, but instead during the Depression, which would have collapsed the recovery that had started by early 1933.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_France#Interwar_years
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression_in_France#The_Depression_strikes

France was unable to topple the Nazis in 1933-34 also then because of international will to stop them. Plus they were already getting REALLY bad press as the world disarmament conference when they refused to disarm and gave Germany the cover to walk out of the conference and start rearming.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Disarmament_Conference

This is just wrong. And the best proof this is wrong is Hitler himself saying that if the french had intervened, the german troops would have been forced to retreat tail between legs.

Now the point is : how would Britain have reacted if France had had the vision and the guts to act unilaterally in order to have the treaty of Versailles respected ?

The british government, at that time had a policy of apres inv nazi Germany and wanted to make many concessions to Germany. And the british government thought that France had to be ... contained and was the main threat and obstacle to its goal of engaging nazi Germany into european cooperation and a possible coalition against the USSR.
 

Deleted member 1487

Probably the best possibility is that the French get good intel on the size of the reoccupation of the Rhineland. OTL they thought the size of the force was several divisions (that is, they counted the SA, SS and so on as well as the line battalions) and felt they had to mobilize - for which they did not have the money.

If they had hard intel on the true size, they'd intervene and slap the Germans down for an explicit and direct Versailles violation.
That's the thing, the Germans had a lot of paramilitary forces that would have popped up, but it wasn't just that they couldn't put a few units in the way and call it a day, hey assumed the Brits and US would leverage them economically and they couldn't afford that given their financial situation when investors pulled out of France on fears of war. So it wasn't so much a military consideration than an international finance one.
 

Deleted member 1487

This is just wrong. And the best proof this is wrong is Hitler himself saying that if the french had intervened, the german troops would have been forced to retreat tail between legs.
The French didn't know that, they assumed the Germans would fight hard.

Now the point is : how would Britain have reacted if France had had the vision and the guts to act unilaterally in order to have the treaty of Versailles respected ?
They didn't have the money or international backing to do that; just like in the 1920s when they called off the Rheinland occupation they could be leveraged by international finance and on fears of the German reoccupation French investors pulled out of the French banking system and moved their money abroad, nearly driving the country back into recession, leaving them extremely vulnerable to foreign governments leveraging them once again, which would collapse the government and given how fragile the power structure was, no one in March 1936 France wanted to risk that.

The british government, at that time had a policy of apres inv nazi Germany and wanted to make many concessions to Germany. And the british government thought that France had to be ... contained and was the main threat and obstacle to its goal of engaging nazi Germany into european cooperation and a possible coalition against the USSR.
Right, which is why given France's desperate financial situation due to the Depression the British could leverage them if they tried to fight and the French government was not ready to risk that.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
That's the thing, the Germans had a lot of paramilitary forces that would have popped up, but it wasn't just that they couldn't put a few units in the way and call it a day, hey assumed the Brits and US would leverage them economically and they couldn't afford that given their financial situation when investors pulled out of France on fears of war. So it wasn't so much a military consideration than an international finance one.
Well, yeah, that's kind of what I'm saying. They could have flattened the German military units, but they didn't know they could and so thought they'd need to mobilize - and it is on record that they'd do it if they were subsidized in their mobilization.
 

Deleted member 1487

Well, yeah, that's kind of what I'm saying. They could have flattened the German military units, but they didn't know they could and so thought they'd need to mobilize - and it is on record that they'd do it if they were subsidized in their mobilization.
I don't know if they could have though, the french military had suffered badly from budget cuts and was not particularly of high morale at the time. They didn't know the Germans had orders to bail if they met any resistance, but if they had the will to fight I think they could have put up a staunch fight until the rest of the world intervened.
 
This is not something that was done to other white, non communist countries so French would face opposition at hoe and internationally.

As was said upthread, Nazis weren't seen as particularly menacing. More like party that will get Gemrany in order again.

And up to May 1940 France was (pretty) sure that if Germany attacks France will win
 

TinyTartar

Banned
The problem of course is that while France could likely take the Rhineland, and Hitler himself knew it was futile to fight them over it, the Rhine is a powerful enough deterrent that Germany, likely backed by Italy in this scenario I would think, could hold France at the Rhine.

Remember that while Nazi rearmament had not yet occurred, it hadn't for anyone else either. The Germans could call upon the SS and SA to arm themselves and act as paramilitary guerrillas if need be, or simply form more divisions out of them. You might even see some remnants of the old Freikorps forming. France would quickly find themselves with manpower issues. Hitler was not going to back down if an invasion of Germany was happening, as he simply could not maintain power after taking that kind of defeat.

I will say this, however. Stalin would likely be licking his chops right about now, having just finished industrial modernization and securely in power.
 

Deleted member 1487

I will say this, however. Stalin would likely be licking his chops right about now, having just finished industrial modernization and securely in power.

:confused:
Stalin wasn't particularly ready for war either and would have to fight through Poland to get to the rest of Europe; plus he would be probably justifying German rearmament and force Europe to unite against him; contrary to popular conception the USSR was also effected by the Great Depression, as they lost their customers and were trying to rebuild their gold stocks, so lacked currency to just buy things outright, they needed trade with markets that had gone away; their best customer was Germany and for ideological reasons Stalin had cut off trade when Hitler rose to power. By 1936 though he was starting to pivot and open up more to Germany by removing Jews in positions and power and try and renegotiate trade resumption.

Also the Brits were trying to work with Hitler because they feared Stalin and were NOT happy that the French had signed a defense treaty with the Soviets:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-Soviet_Treaty_of_Mutual_Assistance
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany–Soviet_Union_relations_before_1941#Relations_in_the_mid-1930s
 

LordKalvert

Banned
Occupying Germany would be rather simple- wait for some excuse (arbogating Versailles is more than enough) and just march your troops in. The Germans really had nothing to stop the French and taking the Rhineland is more than enough to bring about Germany's collapse

The Czechs and the Poles help themselves to whatever they want in the East.

Germany wasn't a power at all in 1932-33

Please remember that occupation doesn't mean annexation. The establishment of local autonomy is very likely

As for the rest of Germany, with the loss of the Rhineland, the economy really tanks and it collapses into complete anarchy as the discredited Nazis are driven from power
 
Poland did prepare for a war and indeed proposed such a war to the French, who did not join. If they joined and took the areas East of the Oder-Neiße line, which they desired, that would have been an uproar in the international society.

Besides, the fact that this would bring many German speaking areas into the country, I'm pretty sure Poland didn't have any intention of annexing that territory at that time. They might take Danzig and upper Silesia at the most, but doing much more would not have been realistic.
 
This is just wrong. And the best proof this is wrong is Hitler himself saying that if the french had intervened, the german troops would have been forced to retreat tail between legs.

If you're talking about the Rhineland crisis, yes, he did later say that. But he did so in order to boast about his "nerves of steel," show how much more daring he was than his diplomats and generals (although they actually didn't put up any real resistance), etc. See my post at https://groups.google.com/d/msg/soc.history.what-if/qtvUxyKQ6hI/tVfsLI6cbMUJ As I note there, "The actual military orders, Emmerson claims, show that resistance was intended. Moreover, Hitler's statement to Schuschnigg in 1938, often used to bolster the theory that Hitler wouldn't resist, actually was that Germany 'would withdraw perhaps 60 kilometers but would still hold the French.'"
 
Top