AHC: France wins back Alsace-Lorraine (and only Alsace-Lorraine) from Germany, post Franco-Prussian War

[raharris1973]

Here is the Alternate History Challenge - France ends up fighting Germany again sometime after the Franco-Prussian war and does better. It wins significant, but still limited, victory. This can be a late 19th century war, it can be a 20th century war, you can satisfy it however you'd like.

• Germany exits the war with its territorial losses in Europe limited to all of Alsace-Lorraine and no indemnity
• Significantly, the pre-1870 border with France is restored, there is no French or other foreign occupation (or annexation) of Saar, Rhineland, or the Ruhr.
• There are no losses to Germany's northern, eastern, or southern borders as a direct consequence of the armistice and peace treaty that ratifies France's victory.
• Outside of Europe, Germany may lose one more of its colonial territories to France or a French ally
• France (and Germany) can both fight one another with, or without allies, in any scenario you present
• Make the scenario and chain of events leading to the points above sound plausible and convincing.

 

[Circle of Willis]

Maybe Georges Boulanger goes all the way & leads a successful coup against the Third Republic after being elected to the Chamber of Deputies in 1889, becoming France's populist military dictator, following which he 110% commits to war with Germany in the 1890s? Ideally after solidifying the Franco-Russian alliance as happened IOTL, to improve his chances as much as possible. IIRC, for all his other failures in leadership and character Boulanger was extremely popular with the military and a solid military reformer - big sponsor of the Lebel rifle if I have it right, and he came on the heels of & worked under Charles de Freycinet who had already made great improvements to France's war readiness himself.

So yeah, just have Boulanger take the new & improved French military to butt heads with Germany sometime in the early to mid-1890s (not sure who Germany could bring in to counter Russia if they're involved on the French side; Austria maybe? I doubt Britain would want to entangle themselves in the war this early on), and settle for a limited victory in A-L. There's this interesting thread from ye olden days of AH.com that talks about how such a victory might be achieved and the apparent advantages of the French Army over the Germans in this time period (which was news to me, my initial assumption was that the Germans would still have had the upper hand) although the victory its now-banned writer (half of the posters in that thread, really...) discussed is more optimistic than what you want.

Longer term effects...I foresee France/Russia and Germany/A-H remaining at loggerheads for the foreseeable future, losing A-L but not the Rhineland will leave the Kaiser with plenty of resources to fuel his own grasp at revanche (or 'rache', I guess). At this time the French right cared way more about revanche and continental affairs in general while it was the French left who were such huge fans of colonial expansion that Jules Ferry historically even tried to achieve some understanding with Bismarck so he could pursue overseas ventures, so I could definitely see Boulangist France concentrating on containing & combating Germany even if it means they have to appease Britain. Perhaps WW1 would be mainly limited to the European mainland ITL if it still happens at all, while the UK stays aloof until & unless they perceive one side is getting way too overwhelmingly powerful?

 

[raharris1973]

Maybe Georges Boulanger goes all the way & leads a successful coup against the Third Republic after being elected to the Chamber of Deputies in 1889, becoming France's populist military dictator, following which he 110% commits to war with Germany in the 1890s? Ideally after solidifying the Franco-Russian alliance as happened IOTL, to improve his chances as much as possible. IIRC, for all his other failures in leadership and character Boulanger was extremely popular with the military and a solid military reformer - big sponsor of the Lebel rifle if I have it right, and he came on the heels of & worked under Charles de Freycinet who had already made great improvements to France's war readiness himself.

So yeah, just have Boulanger take the new & improved French military to butt heads with Germany sometime in the early to mid-1890s (not sure who Germany could bring in to counter Russia if they're involved on the French side; Austria maybe? I doubt Britain would want to entangle themselves in the war this early on), and settle for a limited victory in A-L. There's this interesting thread from ye olden days of AH.com that talks about how such a victory might be achieved and the apparent advantages of the French Army over the Germans in this time period (which was news to me, my initial assumption was that the Germans would still have had the upper hand) although the victory its now-banned writer (half of the posters in that thread, really...) discussed is more optimistic than what you want.

Longer term effects...I foresee France/Russia and Germany/A-H remaining at loggerheads for the foreseeable future, losing A-L but not the Rhineland will leave the Kaiser with plenty of resources to fuel his own grasp at revanche (or 'rache', I guess). At this time the French right cared way more about revanche and continental affairs in general while it was the French left who were such huge fans of colonial expansion that Jules Ferry historically even tried to achieve some understanding with Bismarck so he could pursue overseas ventures, so I could definitely see Boulangist France concentrating on containing & combating Germany even if it means they have to appease Britain. Perhaps WW1 would be mainly limited to the European mainland ITL if it still happens at all, while the UK stays aloof until & unless they perceive one side is getting way too overwhelmingly powerful?

Very interesting. You posit Boulanger taking over, continuing reforms, and continuing to build advantages into the 1890s with an alliance with Russia. The thread you cited spoke of the OTL French coming to achieve a bilateral advantage vis-a-vis the Germans by the late 1880s (I guess circa 1887). Another thread on that board, "A New Kratocracy" also has Boulanger leading France to victory in the late 1880s and Russia opportunistically joining against Germany.

Do you have a sense of when France started to get an edge in land warfare, and when Germany lost it? Obviously, Germany had it in 1871. How had things evolved more or less to French advantage by 1875? 1878-79? 1881? 1885? the 1887 Schnaebale affair?

Longer term effects...I foresee France/Russia and Germany/A-H remaining at loggerheads for the foreseeable future, losing A-L but not the Rhineland will leave the Kaiser with plenty of resources to fuel his own grasp at revanche (or 'rache', I guess).

It's funny, but it is commonplace for people in pop history or casual observation for people to say that WWI led to WWII because the settlement of WWI was harsh, and to imply that a negotiated peace of more equal powers would have been more lasting than a dictated victor's peace.

But then, in most what-iffing about hypothetical wars, people tend to treat wars that are won by close margins as *exactly* the kinds of wars that are *most likely* to lead to a rematch, and clearer, more decisive wins, are seen as more likely to be permanent. Why the disconnect between the evaluation of WWI in particular and wars in general?

At this time the French right cared way more about revanche and continental affairs in general while it was the French left who were such huge fans of colonial expansion that Jules Ferry historically even tried to achieve some understanding with Bismarck so he could pursue overseas ventures, so I could definitely see Boulangist France concentrating on containing & combating Germany even if it means they have to appease Britain. Perhaps WW1 would be mainly limited to the European mainland ITL if it still happens at all, while the UK stays aloof until & unless they perceive one side is getting way too overwhelmingly powerful?

With the French getting Alsace-Lorraine back, what else are they revanche-ing about? - towards Germany? I can see they want to safeguard their wins and 'never again' lose them. Per the earlier part of the quote, you're treating WWI as a matter of course, even though, theoretically, Germany and France could call their rivalry "even" at this point. To be fair, you do mention the *possibility* of 'if it still happens at all'.

 

[Circle of Willis]

Very interesting. You posit Boulanger taking over, continuing reforms, and continuing to build advantages into the 1890s with an alliance with Russia. The thread you cited spoke of the OTL French coming to achieve a bilateral advantage vis-a-vis the Germans by the late 1880s (I guess circa 1887). Another thread on that board, "A New Kratocracy" also has Boulanger leading France to victory in the late 1880s and Russia opportunistically joining against Germany.

Do you have a sense of when France started to get an edge in land warfare, and when Germany lost it? Obviously, Germany had it in 1871. How had things evolved more or less to French advantage by 1875? 1878-79? 1881? 1885? the 1887 Schnaebale affair?

I think 1879 onward is a good bet for the French starting to steadily gain the upper hand. That's when the Third Republic stabilized (more or less) between the final defeat of McMahon and the monarchists, and the ascendancy of republican parliamentarianism under Grévy (who brought the aforementioned De Freycinet and his reforms along). I really don't think France would have been able to get to the point it historically reached a decade later without that decisive victory & consolidation of one of its feuding ideological factions.

Worth noting that Boulanger himself only really started rising to prominence post-1879, in part because at that time he was perceived as a rare republican unlike the rest of the generally conservative & monarchist-dominated military brass.

It's funny, but it is commonplace for people in pop history or casual observation for people to say that WWI led to WWII because the settlement of WWI was harsh, and to imply that a negotiated peace of more equal powers would have been more lasting than a dictated victor's peace.

But then, in most what-iffing about hypothetical wars, people tend to treat wars that are won by close margins as *exactly* the kinds of wars that are *most likely* to lead to a rematch, and clearer, more decisive wins, are seen as more likely to be permanent. Why the disconnect between the evaluation of WWI in particular and wars in general?



With the French getting Alsace-Lorraine back, what else are they revanche-ing about? - towards Germany? I can see they want to safeguard their wins and 'never again' lose them. Per the earlier part of the quote, you're treating WWI as a matter of course, even though, theoretically, Germany and France could call their rivalry "even" at this point. To be fair, you do mention the *possibility* of 'if it still happens at all'.

That's pretty much what I was getting at. A French victory that recovers only A-L might have gotten Bismarck to go 'OK, fair enough, we're even' as you suggest, since he didn't even particularly want it in the first place - but by the 1890s (when the war is most likely to take place, assuming Boulanger needs a little time to consolidate his domestic position and the alliance with Russia) Bismarck will have almost certainly resigned and Wilhelm II is the one in Germany's driver's seat. I don't see how Boulanger taking power could have averted their fight, considering it seems to have started practically immediately after Wilhelm succeeded his father and was driven by their clashing personalities & visions before Boulanger ever enters the picture.

With his difficult (to put it charitably) personality and issues, I really doubt Wilhelm is going to take getting smacked in the face by Boulanger well, at all. More like he'd take that as a great reason to concentrate his antagonism against France right there. Conversely I doubt Boulanger will have any difficulty transitioning his regime's raison d'etre from 'we must avenge 1871' to 'we must make sure Germany can't avenge 189X' with a Kaiser right across the border that seems unlikely to be able to keep any rabidly anti-French comments to himself (hell, even if he did want to say something nice about them, he'll probably flub it horribly if his 1908 interview is anything to go by). Having fought and lost a continental war in the late 19th century, Wilhelm and the German establishment would've found their stab at continental hegemony gravely threatened and so I do believe they'd concentrate on opposing France & its allies rather than moving to square off against the UK.

(I'm not a big fan of historical determinism myself, but I do find it tough to imagine how you could avoid an alt-WW1 between Boulanger and Wilhelm after the former just gave the latter a beatdown early in his reign. What do they have to bond over? If they're both aiming to become the main continental power they're probably not going to share, and they can't even unite against Britain because Boulanger never hated the British AFAIK and was aligned with the French right, which cared a great deal more about continental matters over colonial ones, while Wilhelm still blamed the British for his mangled arm and didn't get along with his British royal relatives. Then, throw in the mutually exclusive geopolitical designs of their Russian and Austrian allies...)

 

[WolfBear]

Here is the Alternate History Challenge - France ends up fighting Germany again sometime after the Franco-Prussian war and does better. It wins significant, but still limited, victory. This can be a late 19th century war, it can be a 20th century war, you can satisfy it however you'd like.

• Germany exits the war with its territorial losses in Europe limited to all of Alsace-Lorraine and no indemnity
• Significantly, the pre-1870 border with France is restored, there is no French or other foreign occupation (or annexation) of Saar, Rhineland, or the Ruhr.
• There are no losses to Germany's northern, eastern, or southern borders as a direct consequence of the armistice and peace treaty that ratifies France's victory.
• Outside of Europe, Germany may lose one more of its colonial territories to France or a French ally
• France (and Germany) can both fight one another with, or without allies, in any scenario you present
• Make the scenario and chain of events leading to the points above sound plausible and convincing.

Does it have to involve a new war? Could German Kaiser Friedrich III living longer and offering France a plebiscite in Alsace-Lorraine in exchange for permanent demilitarization and French concessions elsewhere be good enough for this, if France will actually win this plebiscite?

 

[raharris1973]

Does it have to involve a new war? Could German Kaiser Friedrich III living longer and offering France a plebiscite in Alsace-Lorraine in exchange for permanent demilitarization and French concessions elsewhere be good enough for this, if France will actually win this plebiscite?

I realistically think that is what it would take. A plebiscite will be too embarrassing to the losing side. A genuine, uncoerced plebiscite will be too unpredictable, and therefore dangerous. France might not even win. As for a territorial trade, I can't think of what territory in the colonial sphere Germany would regard as of equal political, security, and economic value. At the same time, France feels itself entitled to Alsace-Lorraine by justice and history alone, not at the price of other hard-earned territories.

 

[WolfBear]

I realistically think that is what it would take. A plebiscite will be too embarrassing to the losing side. A genuine, uncoerced plebiscite will be too unpredictable, and therefore dangerous. France might not even win. As for a territorial trade, I can't think of what territory in the colonial sphere Germany would regard as of equal political, security, and economic value. At the same time, France feels itself entitled to Alsace-Lorraine by justice and history alone, not at the price of other hard-earned territories.

What about Algeria and the rest of the French colonial empire in exchange for Alsace-Lorraine without any plebiscite?

 

[raharris1973]

What about Algeria and the rest of the French colonial empire in exchange for Alsace-Lorraine without any plebiscite?

That's where this becomes a problem, the cost seems exorbitant and inappropriate.

At the same time, France feels itself entitled to Alsace-Lorraine by justice and history alone, not at the price of other hard-earned territories.

Although, for France's own good and future salvation, nothing could be more perfect than making a trade with Germany that gets back Alsace-Lorraine and perpetual peace with Germany, and fobs off Algeria (Deutsch Vandalkusten) and Indochina (Deutsch Sudostasien) to them, dodging two great power wars and two nasty decolonizing wars for France.

It is just not realistic though, it's rather, sorry to say it, ASB.

 

[WolfBear]

That's where this becomes a problem, the cost seems exorbitant and inappropriate.



Although, for France's own good and future salvation, nothing could be more perfect than making a trade with Germany that gets back Alsace-Lorraine and perpetual peace with Germany, and fobs off Algeria (Deutsch Vandalkusten) and Indochina (Deutsch Sudostasien) to them, dodging two great power wars and two nasty decolonizing wars for France.

It is just not realistic though, it's rather, sorry to say it, ASB.

Perfect analysis here, Rob. As a side note, if ASBs did make it happen, would the pieds-noirs have stayed in Algeria after the German takeover and eventually become pro-German similar to how the Quebecois became pro-British? Or would they have left Algeria en masse and moved to France?

 

[WolfBear]

When you think about it, with some ASBs, you could really work wonders here:

France loses its colonial empire (or at least the Maghreb plus Indochina--it can temporarily keep the rest, which is going to cause less long-term problems for France anyway) in exchange for Alsace-Lorraine. In turn, this could result in the creation of not only peace between France and Germany, but perhaps even a Franco-Germano-Austro-Hungarian alliance. In such a scenario, a lot of French loans might go to Austria-Hungary instead of Russia, which could sort of make sense considering that France was historically pro-Polish and Austria-Hungary treated its own Poles much better than Russia treated its Poles. It would, of course, significantly help if Germany began treating its own Poles much better--with Home Rule for Posen Province, for instance. Germany already gave up Alsace-Lorraine, so why not have home rule for Posen Province as well to satisfy its Poles?

To counter this alliance, you could see an alliance of, say, Britain, Italy, and Russia emerging (the Ottomans will likely be in the Franco-German orbit), but still, such an alliance is likely going to have significant trouble fighting against France, Germany, and Austria-Hungary combined until at least the 1940s unless they will also manage to get the US on their side, which strikes me as being rather unlikely. Japan simply won't be enough to compensate for the absence of the US.