If an aggressive, militaristic regime had taken political control of France between the world wars, would it have experienced similar economic and military success?
How and why? Its totally out of the realm of possibility for OTL victorious France because of its population's political leanings. They were leftist very much more than any country in the world at the time save the Soviet Union. You'd have to literally brainwash the entire population to achieve this. This political leaning went back to before the first world war and one could probably trace it back to the French revolution. Basically a non-starter without making massive changes to history that would butterfly away WW1.
My understanding of 1930s Germany is that it was economically depressed, and was rejuvinated by the Nazi's burst of military spending. It was was a short sighted policy that was unsustainable and quickly resulted in collapse, but they in exchanged had a short window of military supremacy. They then used that military supremacy to conquer, plunder and loot all continental Europe. The constant war and continuous victories kept the population faithful. Overall, it was a system that kept the war machine going, but pissed off the rest of the world in the process and led to their demise.
Not exactly. The Nazis basically adopted the Weimar work programs and reaped the political benefits which took time to accrue. Then they started their military spending in earnest in 1935, which pretty much bankrupted the country. The conquests kept things going, but unlike what is often repeated as fact, Germany was not broke enough to need to go to war in 1939; she could have gone on spending for a few more years. There were a combination of events that pushed things along earlier than planned.
France seems to be in an even better position to pull this off than Germany. A French-Hitler would have had all the opportunites in the Fascist playbook. External enemies in the form of upstart Germany, the same internal enemies of Communists and Jews as the Nazis, colonial wars to be unendingly fought. Additionally, France was not the international pariah Germany was, and had many strategic advantages. Allies, a blue water navy, etc.
Except the French were pretty much anti-war at this point and very leftist. A Fascist France with a WW1 victory is impossible without ASB intervention. Action Franciase was a fringe party and had no chance of turning France into a war machine with the huge communist and socialist elements in the country that outnumbered conservatives by several times.
France also didn't have a reason to go to war or spend on war. She wanted to rebuild and have a good economy, though was still heavily in debt and really couldn't afford military spending.
Hitler got away with canceling German debts, but pretty much ended up cutting Germany off from trade as a result for several years. Ultimately Germany got by by selling all of her gold and foreign assets, even those forcibly taken from all private citizens in exchange for Reichsmarks. Plus stealing from Jews garnered something like 1 Billion RM too. That and she also worked out a deal with Britain to be able to trade/purchase through her Empire as well as set up barter agreements with virtually the entire Balkans, which produced a fair number of raw materials for German rearmament like Bauxite for Aluminum production. And then there was the Chinese barter arrangement for a while, plus trade with Japan in ball bearings and military technology.
During the war Germany also got tremendous amounts of goods via the Soviet Union, most of it unpaid for (because she attacked the Soviets).
The problem is that France cannot do this. She has her Empire, but is heavily in debt and did not produce all the materials she needed to rearm either. So she cannot borrow, nor import from her Empire what she need like Germany could through deals she worked out. And there is the tricky issue of getting the populace to vote in a Fascist regime when the vast majority of the population was Socialists, plus actually getting them to avoid riots as the government spent on the hated military rather than social programs...
But what are the grim economic realities? Was France so much worse off than Germany even after winning the first world war that it couldn't have hoped to compete in the next round? Or with hindsight, can we say that France missed an opportunity to establish that continental hegemony the Nazis always aspired to? I'm just wondering what kind of alternate history opportunities can be explored down this pathway.
Yes.
France was far too weak and had falling birthrates, so couldn't establish any hegemony in Europe. Germany had double her population and the British hated the French almost as much as the Germans (France was her traditional enemy after all), so didn't want to see France militarize or establish hegemony either.
OTL post war Europe was the very best situation France would have hoped for.
There are no opportunities for France down the war path, because she got just about everything she could from WW1, that is, all she could achieve given her weakening power. Peace favored France far more than war, because in war its not just Germany, but also Britain that would fight her if she picked a fight.
EDIT: To be clear, I'm talking about France becoming fascist after its victory in WWI. Germany lost WWI and became fascist. Italy won WWI and became facist. OTL, France won WWI and stayed democratic, but I'm asking what if it became fascist, Italy-style.
It cannot become Fascist because of the outlook of the French people pre and post war. They were too liberal and only fought in WW1 because they were attacked. Had the Germans not declared war, the French socialists would have rioted and pretty much caused a civil war if the French politicians declared war in WW1 to aid Russia.
Wait, wait, wait, wait. Every WI in this site involving the Western Allies going to the offensive in 1938 or 1939 with a proper offensive doctrine end up with (mostly) everyone agreeing on a German defeat within a few years, at most, as inevitable.
Britain would not be on France's side if she went Fascist. Britain would actively fight France, as would Belgium, as it would find itself invaded by a Fascist France. Of course France cannot go Fascist with a WW1 victory, but let's play a What If.
Britain is crucial to France being able to go on the offensive. That's why France didn't fight Germany IOTL when the Germans rearmed: Britain wouldn't go along, even on a 1939 offensive! Here with Britain an enemy, France is cut off from international trade and lacked a resource base at home, so would wither and die. Also without the Germans invading Poland to start the war and a Fascist France starting things to topple Hitler and establish hegemony, the whole German army would be on the defensive on the Rhein, which is the opposite scenario to what 'mostly everyone' agrees would happen IOTL if the French went on the offensive in 1939. In THAT scenario the German army is in Poland, not sitting in strength on the Rhein with a much better air force than France and a pretty solid Westwall (not as good as the Maginot line, but still pretty extensive).
So. First issue is the French will to start a war after WWI's massive casualties. A way to turn that around would be for the French army to develop their own blitzkrieg doctrine, not much unlike the Germans and Soviets were doing in the '30s. However, while a militaristic government and the top brass might be convinced that rolling over Belgium in order to launch an armored offensive into the Ruhr is a war winner, they might not be able to convince the general population.
What people don't understand about WW2 doctrines is that every nation just kept the doctrine they had in WW1 and just improved it. A 'Blitzkrieg' (there really is no such thing, just German
Bewegungskrieg) doctrine was what the Germans had in 1918, but with an air force and panzers.
The French would have to totally throw out their winning doctrine from WW1 for some reason and adopt a totally foreign tactical and strategic doctrine that the French soldier is not trained nor really equipped for socially.
There is just so much institutional inertia that its impossible to imagine until ASBs get involved. Remember the French won WW1 in this scenario so they have no reason to abandon the doctrine that won they the war!
However, let's assume German politics go pretty much the same and Hitler still ends up ruling Germany during the '30s and, thus, there is an ATL Munich crisis or an invasion of Poland. A French army with a proper armored doctrine and, perhaps, the political will to invade Belgium to get into Germany, attacking Germany while the Wehrmatch is busy in the east, will defeat Germany. It may not have the manpower to exert something similar to the Nazi occupation of France, at least not without allies (the UK? Italy?) and it's not powerful enough to invade the USSR. But, after defeating Germany, it can very well become the dominant player in Western, continental, Europe. A serious issue would be how the UK copes with a fascist France if the French are the ones to invade neutral Belgium.
Again the French becoming Fascist is impossible with the French people of OTL. What you're suggesting here is a France like ours, but with a totally different outlook and military doctrine. This also ignores Britain's and Belgium's responses to a French invasion of Belgium!
Frankly this entire scenario is ASB from the conception, but then you expect all to remain the same except for France, which is even more unlikely than France becoming Fascist.