AHC – France sustains its post-Versailles security order for 44 years

....and if counting on rapprochement with Germany, not eastern alliances, then the French financial intervention to thwart the Austro-German customs union of 1929 made no sense.
I didn't claim they actually were interested in rapprochement as a nation, rather Briand pushed that plan and couldn't find enough people to support him to make it work. What I'm saying is that that is something France should have done if they wanted to avoid having a potentially hostile Germany recover and then come after them. Though as it were Hitler wasn't really interested in fighting France, he just expected it to be a possibility because of his expansionistic plans that aimed at the destruction of their alliance system.

The Prussians were no less interested in the destruction of the ToV political order too, so once Stresseman is gone France was not going to have any friendly politicians in Germany even without the depression turning into the Great Depression due to your postulate about the Austrian banking system. Weimar was already planning on rearming once the Hoover Moratorium went into effect, which of course ensured that the ToV was partially already repealed; from that point on it was only going to collapse further. So yeah, the 1920s were the time for France to create a friendship with Germany not try to punish them as long as they could get away with it, since they weren't strong enough or well led enough to really make it sustainable.
 
Especially with Wilson's commitment to borders matching national identities.
Wilson was ignored by the European powers. And the above principle was applied very losely. Especially where Germans - A-L, Tirol, Austria, etc., or Hungarians were concerned.
Is that a typo or are you dumping on the guy?
Hitler wasn't really interested in fighting France,
He wasn't? I thought France figured very high on his "to do" list from the very beginning.
 
Last edited:
FDR only transitioned to confrontation in 1938 after the collapse of the economy after trying to balance the budget; only then did it become clear that the New Deal had failed to restart the economy and that is when he turned to military build up and confrontation to prop up the economy. Of course coupled with that was German trade competition, which was getting pretty serious by 1938; they had cut their imports from the US by 50% and dramatically increased their exports to areas the US considered their backyard in Latin America. On top of that China was being cut off from trade by Japan, so US exporters were freaking out.

So the New Deal would be attempted, but by 1938 he'd turn toward military buildup when it was clear that politically it was not possible to spend enough to really help the economy; plus prior to 1938 and the advance of the Axis powers politically war mongering was not popular in the US and even after 1938 it took a massive effort to get the US out of isolationism, including years of illegal efforts.

And now that illegal efforts would face united France,England and Japan,no Germany to start war in Europe and cautious Sralin who do not start anything if USA do not join.Which mean no WW2.
And world ruled by 5 states,not 2 like after WW2.
 
He wasn't? I thought France figured very high on his "to do" list from the very beginning.
AFAIK the last document of his 'plan' such that it was suggested he didn't:
According to the memorandum, Hitler did not want war in 1939 with Britain and France.
....
The second part of the document detailed three 'contingencies' that Hitler would take if certain situations prevailed in Europe, purportedly to ensure the security of the Reich. Beyond that, Hitler claimed that two "hate-inspired antagonists" (Britain and France) were blocking German foreign policy goals at every turn and that sometime in the next five years or so, Germany would have to achieve autarky by seizing Eastern Europe to prepare for a possible war with the British and the French.
Granted there are significant problems with the memo, seeing as it was written 5 days later based on hand notes by an adjunct and not proofed by anyone else there.

Still it does imply that Hitler, while certainly expansionistic, anticipated war would come as a result of France and Britain blocking his FP goals rather than attacking France or Britain as a goal in itself. Later on after Czechoslovakia France is barely mentioned by Hitler and Britain is looked at as the instigator of resisting German expansion by Hitler.

Obviously Hitler wasn't against war with Britain or France if they got in the way, but fighting either was not considered a goal as much as a risk that came with Hitler's FP goals of seizing control over Central Europe.
 
Wilson was ignored by the European powers. And the above principle was applied very losely. Especially where Germans - A-L, Tirol, Austria, etc., or Hungarians were concerned.

Is that a typo or are you dumping on the guy?

He wasn't? I thought France figured very high on his "to do" list from the very beginning.

Dumping.
Back to topic - after squasing Germany in 1936 all France need is to made Bavaria free again with as many as possible other states,and occupy Prussia till they pay for WW1 - with colonial troops.
Then made some friendly goverment in Belgium,be close to little Ententa,and either made polish junta see light or let them suffer from soviets and save in last hour.
England could do nothing to France as sole european superpower.
 
Dumping.
Back to topic - after squasing Germany in 1936 all France need is to made Bavaria free again with as many as possible other states,and occupy Prussia till they pay for WW1 - with colonial troops.
Then made some friendly goverment in Belgium,be close to little Ententa,and either made polish junta see light or let them suffer from soviets and save in last hour.
England could do nothing to France as sole european superpower.
Like in 1923 with the Ruhr Occupation Britain and the US would use their financial leverage to cripple the French economy. As it was IOTL 1936 France couldn't even afford to mobilize to stop Germany reoccupying the Rheinland given their insolvency:
Historians such as the American historian Stephen A. Schuker who have examined the relevant French primary sources have rejected Shirer's claims, finding that a major paralyzing factor on French policy was the economic situation.[127] France's top military official, General Maurice Gamelin, informed the French government that the only way to remove the Germans from the Rhineland was to mobilize the French Army, which would not only be unpopular but also cost the French treasury 30 million francs per day.[128]

At the same time, in late 1935 to early 1936 France was gripped by a financial crisis, with the French Treasury informing the government that sufficient cash reserves to maintain the value of the franc as currently pegged by the gold standard in regard to the US dollar and the British pound no longer existed, and only a huge foreign loan on the money markets of London and New York could prevent the value of the franc from experiencing a disastrous downfall.[131] Because France was on the verge of elections scheduled for the spring of 1936, devaluation of the franc, which was viewed as abhorrent by large sections of French public opinion, was rejected by the caretaker government of Prime Minister Albert Sarraut as politically unacceptable.[131] Investors' fears of a war with Germany were not conducive to raising the necessary loans to stabilize the franc, and the German remilitarization of the Rhineland, by sparking fears of war, worsened the French economic crisis by causing a massive cash flow out of France, with worried investors shifting their savings towards what were felt to be safer foreign markets.[132] The fact that France had defaulted on its World War I debts in 1932 understandably led most investors to conclude that the same would occur if France was involved in another war with Germany,. On March 18, 1936, Wilfrid Baumgartner, the director of the Mouvement général des fonds (the French equivalent of a permanent under-secretary) reported to the government that France, for all intents and purposes, was bankrupt.[133] Only by desperate arm-twisting from the major French financial institutions could Baumgartner manage to obtain enough in the way of short-term loans to prevent France from defaulting on its debts and to keeping the value of the franc from sliding too far, in March 1936.[133] Given the financial crisis, the French government feared that there were insufficient funds to cover the costs of mobilization and that a full-blown war scare caused by mobilization would only exacerbate the financial crisis.[133] The American historian Zach Shore wrote, "It was not lack of French will to fight in 1936 which permitted Hitler's coup, but rather France's lack of funds, military might, and therefore operational plans to counter German remilitarization".[134]

France was simply unable to do what you're saying they should; the demographic damage from WW1 plus their financial situation due to a variety of factors as well as their dependence on international trade made they too weak to play 30 Years War 2.0
 
Like in 1923 with the Ruhr Occupation Britain and the US would use their financial leverage to cripple the French economy. As it was IOTL 1936 France couldn't even afford to mobilize to stop Germany reoccupying the Rheinland given their insolvency:


France was simply unable to do what you're saying they should; the demographic damage from WW1 plus their financial situation due to a variety of factors as well as their dependence on international trade made they too weak to play 30 Years War 2.0

What 30 years war? with whom? Germany would fall in week,and England had no army.And with Europe under french thumb,they would not need USA or England money.
Only state with army was soviets,but they would never attack without allies attacking first,like in 1939.
 
What 30 years war? with whom? Germany would fall in week,and England had no army.And with Europe under french thumb,they would not need USA or England money.
Only state with army was soviets,but they would never attack without allies attacking first,like in 1939.
Germany wouldn't fall in a week, they had more clandestine troops than thought and even the French taking that into account thought they wouldn't be through with the Germans for quite some time. Militias and police would likely fight as well and without question the US and UK would immediately impose crippling financial pressure on France as they did before since both of their economies were quite linked to German trade.

France is not Nazi Germany either, so the public is hardly going to go along with such a scheme given that they'd be in an open ended occupation of the entirety of Germany and face a lot of guerrilla warfare.
 
Germany wouldn't fall in a week, they had more clandestine troops than thought and even the French taking that into account thought they wouldn't be through with the Germans for quite some time. Militias and police would likely fight as well and without question the US and UK would immediately impose crippling financial pressure on France as they did before since both of their economies were quite linked to German trade.

France is not Nazi Germany either, so the public is hardly going to go along with such a scheme given that they'd be in an open ended occupation of the entirety of Germany and face a lot of guerrilla warfare.

Hitler answer to what to do if France act in 1936 was commit suicide and let other think about that.So,there would be no much fight.
And even if,it would be infrantry with field guns against tanks,heavy artillery and planes.
And USA and England are democracies,too - so in the name of what they could impose that pressure? Even if they do,then by the time it start working Bavaria would be free state and Prussia occupied.
French in 1939 actually fought well - 1940 was effect of stupidity of commanders,doing nothing and commie propaganda.
Not apply here.
Becouse in 1936 after top 2 months soldiers would be again in homes/Prussia hold by colonial troops only/,and good ties with Bavaria and other german states which would be smart enough to become free again.

Even in 1939 germans do not welcomed war,becouse remembered WW1.Only relatively easy victory in 1939 and cumberstomps in 1940 changed that.Now most would surrender.

All we need is french politician with Will to act.Somebody like Clemensou.
 
England could do nothing to France as sole european superpower.
Odd. They certainly won the last time France was the sole continental European superpower. France immediately loses its colonies and any elements of its navy that stray out of port and England starts running overseas propaganda comparing whoever proposed this plan with Napoleon and supporting anyone who doesn't like being under French domination.

In an England against continental Europe scenario England doesn't need an non-colonial army for a couple years as they're mopping up the French colonies and blockading. And by then they'll find allies. Probably the likes of Mussolini and Franco. Last time they fought to the last Prussian. This time they fight to the last Italian or Spaniard. Either way France can't win this unless the US acts as their big brother and fights the English for them, which violates the premise.

The USSR could unilaterally contain Germany only because of the atomic bomb. Without that the anglosphere would have been turning the German occupation force to backing German reunification and Polish liberation within a decade or two. Any AUTLwhere France gets the atomic bomb and bombers able to reach London with them in the 1920s without time travel is an ATL I can not suspend my disbelief for.

France needs to maintain the ability to keep Germany in its box without leaving its own box. I don't believe this would have been impossible, but it could not be done by emulating the future USSR's methods. They need to maintain credible offensive force and send punitive expeditions every time Germany violates any article of the treaty and then leave. That may mean they also need to write some debt swaps into the ToV so that America and Britain are responsible for collecting the reparations that pay off their loans to France.
 
Odd. They certainly won the last time France was the sole continental European superpower. France immediately loses its colonies and any elements of its navy that stray out of port and England starts running overseas propaganda comparing whoever proposed this plan with Napoleon and supporting anyone who doesn't like being under French domination.

In an England against continental Europe scenario England doesn't need an non-colonial army for a couple years as they're mopping up the French colonies and blockading. And by then they'll find allies. Probably the likes of Mussolini and Franco. Last time they fought to the last Prussian. This time they fight to the last Italian or Spaniard. Either way France can't win this unless the US acts as their big brother and fights the English for them, which violates the premise.

The USSR could unilaterally contain Germany only because of the atomic bomb. Without that the anglosphere would have been turning the German occupation force to backing German reunification and Polish liberation within a decade or two. Any AUTLwhere France gets the atomic bomb and bombers able to reach London with them in the 1920s without time travel is an ATL I can not suspend my disbelief for.

France needs to maintain the ability to keep Germany in its box without leaving its own box. I don't believe this would have been impossible, but it could not be done by emulating the future USSR's methods. They need to maintain credible offensive force and send punitive expeditions every time Germany violates any article of the treaty and then leave. That may mean they also need to write some debt swaps into the ToV so that America and Britain are responsible for collecting the reparations that pay off their loans to France.


In Napoleon times England still had Austria,Prussia and Russia armies to use.In 1936 - only soviets,and Sralin was too cautious to act without big english army landing in Europe.Which would not happen.

In 1936,after France taken over Germany,England could do nothing.And if they start taking colonies,France simply invade England.Their navy would not hold to planes,and their army did not existed.

So,they must wait till they would have army - 1940.But that time free Bavarian and other german states would fight so Berlin would not could occupy them again.
And France would have bigger army and more planes,so could invade if they send anything to take french colonies.
 
So the requirement for this challenge is for France to sustain the security order over western and central Europe it imposed at Versailles 1919, including multiple alliances and ententes it established in the few years after, without a collapse or fatal breach of the system until at least 1963.

Why 44 years? Because I’m making an analogy with another European country that was faced with a massive and terrifying German invasion, was forced to retreat so much the fate of its capital was in doubt, made enormous sacrifices and suffered great human losses, but rallied its own people and own industrial powers, and with significant support from its allies, turned the tide and beat back the Germans, until the Germans couldn’t take it anymore. Subsequently that European power occupied part of Germany, charged it reparations, and made a set of alliances to contain the possibility of a resurgent German threat.

That country of course was the Soviet Union, it’s security system, practically in existence from 1945, but only formally codified in 1955, was the Warsaw Pact, and its system did the containment job without irreparable breach for 44 years, until 1989.

It was a finite amount of time, but it was more than a generation, and more than twice as long as the French-backed post-Versailles alliance system which lasted, generously 19 years (Versailles to Munich), or less generously 17 (Versailles to Rhineland).

Oh, and one more requirement -like the USSR, the France of this challenge needs to be the leader of its own block, unable to appeal to greater or richer powers like Britain or America, who remain aloof at best, for back-up or subsidization.

I submit – A devastated USSR found a way. France could have found a way too.
What could help here would be having the US Senate ratify the Security Treaty between the US, Britain, and France in either 1919 or 1920. This would, of course, likely require a different US President--either Charles Evans Hughes, Thomas Marshall, or someone else, since Woodrow Wilson was too focused on the League of Nations and thus essentially ignored this Security Treaty. Then, once you've essentially got a proto-NATO in Western Europe as a result of this Security Treaty, you'd have to come up with a realistic way to extend the committments of this treaty (which only protected France against an unprovoked German attack) to other countries, including to Eastern European countries. This would be the major challenge here considering that it would be difficult to get isolationist Americans in the 1920s and beyond to sign up for any commitments beyond the French one, and even permanently keeping the French committment might be a challenge for the US.

Still, if Adolf Hitler gets a bullet in his head back in 1923, and Poland is a bit more successful in its war against the Soviet Union in 1919-1921, expanding up to Kiev and also getting most or all of Belarus, and also France is able to establish a security alliance with Italy, then things might be somewhat more hopeful. But there might still need to be a safety mechanism of Britain and/or the US acting in the event that France, Italy, and France's Eastern European allies can't control Germany by themselves.

As a side note, I'm not categorically sure that a Germany that would have actually remained democratic would have actually been willing to ever wage war over the Polish Corridor. Militarily, it could win such a war if the Anglo-Americans stayed out and Germany was actually sufficiently rearmed, but the economic sanctions that could be implemented on Germany as a result of such a war could last for a very long time, similar to what happened to Russia after its actions in Crimea and the Donbass in 2014 in real life.
 
If France wasn't going to do this and hold firm to it's 'contain Germany on all sides approach' and go ahead with Locarno....

...it needed to go all in on the alternative Briand-esque approach of the proto-EU that sillygoose mentioned:



....and if counting on rapprochement with Germany, not eastern alliances, then the French financial intervention to thwart the Austro-German customs union of 1929 made no sense.

Possibly, had the French left well enough alone, Europe's slide into the Depression wouldn't have been as fast and as bad, and if Austro-Germans customs union led to early political union, this might have strengthened the vote and political weight Catholic Centrists (and Bruning) in Germany against far right groups like Hindenburg and the Nazis.

But that's all a digression from the topic.

AFAIK, Briand's proto-EU was going to fail since Germany would have likely made any participation on its own part contingent on border revision whereas France and Poland would have likely made the acceptance of existing borders a precondition for entry into this proto-EU.
 
As a side note, one way to get Germany to accept the post-World War I peace settlement in the East for good (especially without Hitler and the Nazis) would be for a plebiscite to be held in the Polish Corridor in 1919. Of course, this could result in *both* a Polish coastline (the territories around Gdynia) *and* a German land connection to East Prussia. In such a scenario, Gdynia will need some kind of extraterritorial road to connect it to Poland. And Danzig might be a free city for, say, 20 or 30 years and then hold a referendum which will virtually certainly return it to German rule, similar to the Saarland in 1935. In such a scenario, Germany might actually permanently accept the post-World War I peace settlement in the East as well as in the West, especially if Hitler and the Nazis never actually come to power in Germany in this scenario.
 
I don't think that Weimar would accept territorial losses to Poland ever. Same as the IIIrd Republic never accepted the loss of A-L in spite of their German speaking population.
It took a Hitler to make peace with Poland (temporarily).
 
I don't think that Weimar would accept Poland. Same as the IIIrd Republic never accepted the loss of A-L in spite of their German speaking population.

Germany recognized an independent Poland back in 1916. It was a puppet Poland, but still. AFAIK, Germany's main beef with Poland was Danzig and the Polish Corridor, and to a lesser extent, Upper Silesia as well. Germany didn't care about the rest of Poland and indeed might have valued it as a buffer against Communism for all I know. The rest of Poland was indisputably Polish, other than of course the Kresy, which was in the east and claimed by the Soviet Union.
 
I humbly disagree - Weimar had a French 3rd Republic size hateboner towards Poland.
Upper Silesia, Posen, Corridor ...
Any Poland reaching westward beyond the 1914 border would elicit such reaction from Weimar Deep State elites.
 
Last edited:
I humbly disagree - Weimar hate a 3rd Republic scale hateboner towards Poland. Upper Silesia, Posen, Corridor ...
Any Poland reaching westward beyond the 1914 border would elicit such reaction from Weimar Deep State elites.

But that's the thing--once this territorial dispute would have been solved (or had it simply never been created in the first place), Weimar Germany would not have had any additional beef with Poland. And AFAIK Weimar Germany never disputed the loss of Posen.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top