"Nazi" France

[Ironduke]

gunnut brought up the following in the "Central Powers Victory" thread. Not exactly a discussion of academic value, but what-ifs are fun. Now in a scenario where Germany clearly defeated all the Allies in WWI, I think it would be a bit unrealistic to imagine a "fascist" revanchist France being able to take on Germany with it would-be domination of Eastern Europe.

Let's imagine the armistice was fair. No winners, no losers, no territorial cessions, no indemnities, except for Turkey. Turkey's Arab lands are the ones carved up among the Western Allies and Germany. Syria/Lebanon to France, Palestine, Jordan, Arabia to Britain, and Mesopotamia to Germany (Berlin to Baghdad).

Germany isn't able to completely dominate Eastern Europe as it did under Brest-Litovsk with a slightly resurgent Soviet Union, but has incorporated the rest of Poland into it's empire, with say the Baltic states and Finland as "client states" with Hohenzollern monarchs. The South Slavs and Czechoslovaks are elevated to the level of kingdoms alongside Austria and Hungary in the Hapsburg Empire, or the empire becomes a federal republic with a constitutional monarchy (in other words, a viable state).

The east Slavic lands (Belarus, Ukraine), are incorporated into the Soviet Union. Turkey lost the war with Germany/Austria making a separate peace, with the Middle East carved up between Germany, France, and Britain, but still retains Caspian Turkic areas in conquered towards the end of WWI.

France, understandably upset, has not regained Alsace-Lorraine, and its citizens are upset that millions of lives have been lost for "trivial" gains in the Middle East. Stronger feelings of revanchism set in, and a new political ideology arises in Italy under Mussolini (same as our timeline). Pierre Laval (b. 1883, really prime minister under Vichy France) is inspired by this new movement and creates his own fascist movement in France. He seeks to create a "Greater France" and sees himself as a "Napoleon" of the modern age.

None of the old alliances necessarily hold true -- except for perhaps France and Italy. France and Germany are at odds, and there are tensions between Germany and Austria. Soviet Union and the UK are wildcards. Germany obviously has the population edge over France and Europe... but France can still bring much of West Africa into play. How does it play out?

Pierre Laval - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[astralis]

ironduke,

sorry for intruding onto the scenario like this, but i think a few things might need clarification within the scenario:

1. if the central powers win, why does the ottoman empire fall/turkey get carved up? in this scenario, does the ottoman empire go for the allies? (which seems unlikely as the ottoman empire had deeper contacts with the germans prior to the war.)

2. if the armistice was to be "fair", it really had to be done by end of 1914, maybe 1915 at latest. in fact, i can't imagine a scenario where france would actually get anything (a la horse-trading) after end of 1914. the bloodbaths of 1916 made a "fair armistice" all but impossible, and certainly in this scenario where the USSR is formed, that probably meant that the germans had sent back lenin on a sealed train. where is the point of departure here?

3. finally, if the armistice was fair, would there be enough public discontent to form the fascist movements? it took ten years for the nazis to come into power, and that was with absolutely crushing indemnities (which also screwed the german economy, and later on the world economy), and some very significant territorial losses. here, france actually gets a slight gain- perhaps the public would feel more pacifist than anything else?

just some thoughts, please feel free to ignore/use as you wish! :)

[Ironduke]

ironduke,

sorry for intruding onto the scenario like this, but i think a few things might need clarification within the scenario:

1. if the central powers win, why does the ottoman empire fall/turkey get carved up? in this scenario, does the ottoman empire go for the allies? (which seems unlikely as the ottoman empire had deeper contacts with the germans prior to the war.)

2. if the armistice was to be "fair", it really had to be done by end of 1914, maybe 1915 at latest. in fact, i can't imagine a scenario where france would actually get anything (a la horse-trading) after end of 1914. the bloodbaths of 1916 made a "fair armistice" all but impossible, and certainly in this scenario where the USSR is formed, that probably meant that the germans had sent back lenin on a sealed train. where is the point of departure here?

3. finally, if the armistice was fair, would there be enough public discontent to form the fascist movements? it took ten years for the nazis to come into power, and that was with absolutely crushing indemnities (which also screwed the german economy, and later on the world economy), and some very significant territorial losses. here, france actually gets a slight gain- perhaps the public would feel more pacifist than anything else?

just some thoughts, please feel free to ignore/use as you wish! :)

As far as the Ottomans are concerned, the Young Turks were in power and were Turkish nationalists -- they sought a "Greater Turkey" and pursued a policy of territorial expansion in the former Russian Empire while practically giving up their Arab domains. There is no point in divergence here except that the former Arab domains are split between France, Germany, and Britain. This is used as war booty instead of Alsace-Lorraine. (?) I forgot to mention it, but Germany retains the upper hand in Europe, Britain in the ME.

I'm thinking the hypothetical fascist movement in France comes parallel with Italy's -- except that it's more reminiscent of Nazi Germany that fascist Italy.

Except for Germany, France and Britain are discontented... they lost nothing in Europe, but Germany gained. All gained in the Middle East, but the Brits and French don't see it as being worth it... the Brits mildly, and the French extremely.

Though the borders in Western Europe remain the same, perhaps France has severe economic problems due to no reparations flowing in from Germany?

Hopefully we can refine this out a bit better. :)

[zraver]

Assuming that Germany has the victors disease and sees no need to change its military (don't fix it if its not broken) and France does re-invent her armed forces with an emphasis on technology to cut down on causalities... and ends up with the the French equivalent of the late 30's HEER but with French equipment...

Then if France can mobilize fast enough and get her armored colums across the Rhine and Rhur (probalby by violating Belgium) before Germany can drop the spans then you are looking at a march on Berlin as the West Wall gets outflanked and France goes across the North German plain. Stalin probalby won't be able to resist invading from the East as Germany enter sher death throes.

But here is where it gets interesting... A victorious France allied with Italy and now possessing the German High Seas Fleet and the Rhur industrial area is now a direct threat to Britain and an almost perfect replay of Napoleon's Continental Embargo develops.

[Feanor]

Does the Soviet Union industrialize as it did in real life?

[zraver]

Does the Soviet Union industrialize as it did in real life?

Yes, communist have an absolute hard on for state owned heavy industry.

[Feanor]

Hmm. What about Stalin? Does he win the battle against Trotsky at the same time as in real history, earlier, later? (if he didn't win there would be no industrialization, Trotsky was against industrializing he wanted world revolution tomorrow)

[zraver]

Stalin wins, he simply had to much force of personality and was to ruthless to lose.

[Tarek Morgen]

My Take on this :

The way to the scenario the world now is in:

USA does not join the war, and the German spring offensive 1918 is far more succesful than it was in our timeline (not due the absence of the U.S. but other reason). The British tanks are to few and to late to have a huge impact and all sides are to tired to keep on fighting for another year, and peace is archivied with the results mentioned above. (This way, we get the Soviet Union, and it does not sound to freaky to be complete absurd).

France:
France is in a similar position as Germany was in our timeline and succumbs to facisim. Since they are pretty much the "loser" of the Great War, they look at want wreng wrong and learn from the mistakes and improve their doctrines and tactics. In contrast to Weimar Germany, they are not bound to any military restictions and can research the mordern weapons like planes and tanks freely. Since their ultimate objetive is revenge on Germany and reconquer Alsace-Lorraine it is far more offensive oriented than the real one was. But even when they are able to get some good doctrins for mobile combat and the technic to fight it together, they still need a "practice yard" before they can take on Germany again. The most likly one would be that they take on Nazi Germanys role during the Spain civil war (which due french influence starts a few years earlier) and their involvment is much bigger and easier (due the shared border) and Franco wins the war much faster. Maybe they would get (or take) some of Spains areas in Africa as reward.

Further they will look for allies before taking on Germany, and due their politcal standpoint the natural canditates Italy and to a part Spain. (I think France would be able to put much bigger pressure on Spain then Germany was, again, since they are neighbours).

Italy (similar as in the real world) feels cheated for not gaining anything, and is keen on any chance to "correct" this outcome on the war and has to take on Austria-Hungary (uh Now Austria-Hungary, Czechslovakia-& Rest...uh I think i simply use KuK from now on), to archieve dominace in the mediterranean sea, further it would not mind to get some more parts of africa or asia minor under its control. And of course Albania, one of the last free states in eastern europe is a promising target, which would also open up a big beachhead on the Kuks Flank.

From an Alliance woth France, Italy might gain support in the mediterranean sea from the french fleet and some technogoly transfer, while Frane would hope han like in the Great war Germany has to divert ressources to support Kuk (in case they would work together, I'll come later to that).

I would beleive that while the relationship between Germany and Kuk would surely not been somehting you could call love, they would still be allied, simply due the fact that for kuk an alliance with the soviet union would be unimageable (the same for Germany), and with Italy on its border they already have one enemy (and in Germanys case France) and neither of them would need a second one. And after all Kuk know that without Germanys help they would not have survived the Great War.

The Soviet Union is ruled under the Iron fist of Stalin, and while I doubt we would see a Laval-Stalin-pact, I still think that when France attakcs Germany (and has some succes), Stalin would try to use his chance to to gain some parts in Eastern Europe like the baltics and Finland. (hoping that Germany would give their Heartland which is threaten by France a higher priority than keeping their client states in ther east).

The U.K. would most likly stay out of it all (at least for the time) since their is simply no side they could easily chose. They would hardly re-ally with France and Italy after they have become facist dictatorships, an alliance witht he Godless Communist is out of question any way, and to even think about taking the side if the Hun is quite unthinkable so short after the Great War. Only when they the balance of power in too much danger, i.e. one of the three sides threating to dominate whole europe they might act. Until then they probaly woul dbe more worried about their Empire, and about the ambitions of Japan in the east.

Germany would most likly make the same mistakes as France after the Great War and go with keeping most things as they are, after all you should not chance a winning system. They would likly fortify their border with France and Belgium (after all they don't want to fall for their own tricks) and have big amounts in the east and their client states to keep peace and order there, and therefore not have the manpower to guard the Border with france as much as they might would like to. To compensate this they would further increase their fortifactions in the West, while their doctrines will be mostly defensive after all..what is left for them conquer?

uh..I might some more stuff another time buts thats it for now.

[Feanor]

We're looking at a fall of Germany, and a clash between France and USSR. Most likely the French would lose, bringing to a Cold War style situation, except with the bulk of continental Europe under Soviet rule. Now I'm assuming that Austria either falls to France or becomes it's unwilling ally (like most of Eastern Europe with Hitler), and that Italy is as impotent as ever, when it comes to military.

[USAUSAUSA]

I'm no expert, but when it comes down to it, does France have what it takes to match Germany? The Germans needed what, 2/3rds or their Army to take on nearly all of France, Belgium, Britain and much of the common wealth?

Even if France out smarts the Germans at every turn, aren't they still out numbered 2-1 with at best equal soldiers?

If the Germans shoot threw Belgium, Paris is around 300 miles away, if the French do it Berlin is 500+ miles away(I just guessed the number in my head, I'm sure I'm off).



Maybe France, Italy and the Soviet Union could beat Germany and Austro-Hunary-Czech-Slovak-Pole-Romania-Everything else. But I think it would be evenly matched and WWI like in that sense, with the Germans being the Strongest, the Soviets being the second strongest, France being 3rd, Kuk being a dead weight and Italy being Italy and a clear 5th.





Either way, great scenario. Pretty interesting thought.

[glyn]

USAUSAUSA. I'm no expert,

Your final paragraph proved that point beyond any doubt.

[astralis]

okay, to get back into a more serious mode of discussion,

if france had lost in either 1917-1918, germany would have taken a vengeful peace.

the UK probably gets off relatively lightly, as germany simply did not have the ability to take the war to the UK. probably some form of indemnity/"war compensation", accompanied with a loss of a few african colonies.

france, though, probably would have been forced to shed most of its colonies. german planners were thinking of annexing belgium outright, extending germany's holdings in alsace-lorraine further, and creating an equivalent of a demilitarized zone stretching from northern france to the verdun area, which had given them such a nasty time. the netherlands would fall under german economic domination.

france is at an absolute strategic disadvantage. this was true even after the allied victory in WWI- people have said that germany lost the war but won the peace. this will be doubly true with a french defeat: smaller population, smaller land-mass.

france will probably become more anti-semitic (the place where europe tended to go after national suffering), but probably not at reich levels, simply because well, german armies had defeated french armies and were on french soil. "stab-in-the-back" is a harder proposition to bring about, when it's clear that the enemy did quite well in-the-front.

most likely there would have been the collapse of the republic, and a temptation to either go back to a "royal" king model, or the Emperor model. i'm betting the former, as both napoleons were fairly liberal at home. the new regime will be anything but.

under this framework, i'll try to look into what might happen next.

[Ironduke]

france, though, probably would have been forced to shed most of its colonies. german planners were thinking of annexing belgium outright, extending germany's holdings in alsace-lorraine further, and creating an equivalent of a demilitarized zone stretching from northern france to the verdun area, which had given them such a nasty time. the netherlands would fall under german economic domination.

I can see France losing most of West Africa, but I'm not sure to whom. Even if Germany prevailed on the Western Front, would it have the naval means with which to regain its own lost colonies, and those of France? My scenario set forth Mesopotamia falling into German hands (access through Turkey). My armistice is "fair" with no losers among the major Allied or Central Powers. In a situation where France lost, would the former French colonies fall under British control?

[astralis]

ironduke,

I can see France losing most of West Africa, but I'm not sure to whom.

not sure i see it- do you mean algeria? i don't think france would have lost that- france considered algeria to be an integral part of france, the equivalent of an even larger alsace-lorraine, and not simply a colony to be disposed of.

Even if Germany prevailed on the Western Front, would it have the naval means with which to regain its own lost colonies, and those of France?

you needn't have the means if you win the war. the germans took more at the peace settlement with russia than they had actually won in the war.

My armistice is "fair" with no losers among the major Allied or Central Powers.

again, not sure what you mean here- if you state there are no territorial cessations, why would former french colonies fall under british control? do you mean that france would voluntarily give up control of its colonies to the UK? i don't see that happening- too much national pride for that.

regarding mesopotamia falling into german hands, also not sure how that's gonna happen- it would mean that Ataturk's regime would need to keep the same alliance that the ottoman empire had with the germans, and would also necessitate that the germans somehow have the ability (logistical and otherwise) to get into the middle east, as well as overthrow the already present british interest in this area.

this i think the germans would have needed to take from the UK at the armistice talks. the most i think the germans could have gotten otherwise is increased influence within the middle east, perhaps a greater amount than they had in our timeline (which was middling at best: in WWII, they did manage to get the arabs- including the iraqis- to rebel against the brits, but the brits easily crushed the uprising).

to be sure, i think the scenario which you've posited for france is already pretty grim, even without the jerries taking mesopotamia. in WwII the germans relied on the czech and later romanian oil fields; despite that, they badly needed the oil the USSR was giving them, too.

this france ain't getting any of that.