AHC: With a PoD after April 1933, have France and Germany fight a war, and Britain stay entirely out of it

raharris1973

Well-known member
Here's the challenge - With a PoD after April 1933, have France and Germany fight a war, and Britain stay entirely out of it, whether the war is long or short? What could stop Britain from doing its habitual historical meddling and balance of power things and make an exception, like the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-71?
 
What about having France militarily respond to the remilitarization of the Rhineland but then realize that simply expelling Hitler from the Rhineland isn't enough to dislodge him from power in Germany (and really, the idea that a failure in the Rhineland would result in an anti-Nazi coup in Germany strikes me as excessive fantasy, at least until and unless French troops are actually in Berlin or close to it) and then proceed to march onto Berlin, which in turn causes Hitler to organize a levee en masse in an attempt to repel the French invaders. The French probably win in the end but have to deal with a German insurgency for quite some time afterwards.
 
I imagine that for the OP scenario to happen, something must change in France. That something being Big.
Like France going red or brown.
Maybe the 1934 crisis in France escalates to an overthrow of not only the left-wing government at the time but the Third Republic as a whole, in favor of the Action Francaise (led by Charles Maurras, an integralist monarchist who ironically was also an agnostic & got condemned by the Pope) or the Croix-de-Feu (populistic Catholic corporatist & militarist types whose own leader, Francois de La Rocque, later moderated into a proto-Gaullist)?
 
Here's the challenge - With a PoD after April 1933, have France and Germany fight a war, and Britain stay entirely out of it, whether the war is long or short? What could stop Britain from doing its habitual historical meddling and balance of power things and make an exception, like the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-71?
Impossible. Britain could not stay out of a France-Germany fight. Balance of power and not wanting Germany on the English Channel.
 
Impossible. Britain could not stay out of a France-Germany fight. Balance of power and not wanting Germany on the English Channel.

Britain explicitly or implicitly threatened it quite often in the interwar era though, to get France to back off from policies it didn't like. And France seemed to take the threat seriously, worried about being stuck in a long war with Germany without Britain's superior resources on its side.

Was it a case of John Bull bluffing and Marianne falling for it?
 
Impossible. Britain could not stay out of a France-Germany fight. Balance of power and not wanting Germany on the English Channel.
There is no impossible in politics.
Have the Action Francaise take power in 1934 and invade Germany (with Poland) in response to the remilitarisation of the Rhineland.

It also would work if the commies take over and invade Germany because evul! fascist Adolf is a threat to the Motherland of the Proletariat.
 
There is no impossible in politics.
Agree to disagree.
Have the Action Francaise take power in 1934 and invade Germany (with Poland) in response to the remilitarisation of the Rhineland.
Not really possible given the financial situation in France in 1936 that prevented them from mobilizing to stop Germany, not to mention the butterflies that would result from Action Francaise taking power. Britain if anything would invade to STOP France, so would not stay out.

It also would work if the commies take over and invade Germany because evul! fascist Adolf is a threat to the Motherland of the Proletariat.
They effectively did take over under Blum.
The Popular Front won a sweeping victory in June 1936. The Popular Front won a solid majority with 386 seats out of 608. For the first time, the Socialists won more seats than the Radicals; they formed an effective coalition. As Socialist leader Blum became Prime Minister of France and the first socialist to hold that office, he formed a cabinet that included 20 Socialists, 13 Radicals and two Socialist Republicans. The Communists won 15 percent of the vote, and 12 percent of the seats. They supported the government, although they refused to take any cabinet positions. For the first time, the cabinet included three women in minor roles, even though women were not able to vote.[7][8][9]

They lacked the military power to do so and were more interested in serving their electorate, which was more interested in internal reform than external wars.
 
Not really possible given the financial situation in France in 1936 that prevented them from mobilizing to stop Germany,

What if the French decide that crushing the Germans is more important than having their people endure a lot of financial misery, though? This could prevent a lot of French lives from being lost in a future war against Germany when Germany is stronger, after all.
 
What if the French decide that crushing the Germans is more important than having their people endure a lot of financial misery, though? This could prevent a lot of French lives from being lost in a future war against Germany when Germany is stronger, after all.
It went well beyond financial misery. The government was insolvent and couldn't even pay to mobilize:
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 a financialized economy highly dependent on imports, so letting the economic crisis play out would effectively crash the French economy so badly that the economy would virtually cease to exist. No way to wage war then. More likely the public would lynch the government officials and the army would mutiny from not getting paid.

If Action Francaise were in charge the Left would revolt against the government and use the opportunity to seize power and decry foreign wars.
 
A "short victorious war" is what the doctor prescribed to take the electorate's mind off domestic problems ...
:p
 
Only if you can avoid collapsing your entire economy just to mobilize.
Wartime changes the situation and rules.
It would also allow for following the UK's and USA's example - devalue currency by 30-50 percent.
Something which France in September '36 did anyway ...

A large uprising in British Raj. Britain isn't going anywhere until it's dealt with.
A bit Deus ex machina ... and maybe ASBish ....
 
Agree to disagree.

Not really possible given the financial situation in France in 1936 that prevented them from mobilizing to stop Germany, not to mention the butterflies that would result from Action Francaise taking power. Britain if anything would invade to STOP France, so would not stay out.


They effectively did take over under Blum.


They lacked the military power to do so and were more interested in serving their electorate, which was more interested in internal reform than external wars.

blatant and open bs, gaslight, and category creep happening in your post -

Popular Front government with a Socialist Prime Minister and majority Socialist Cabinet members but a healthy number of non-Socialist Cabinet members, with zero Communist cabinet members but parliamentary support from the Communists = "Communist takeover of France".
 
blatant and open bs, gaslight, and category creep happening in your post -
The actual fuck are you babbling about?

Popular Front government with a Socialist Prime Minister and majority Socialist Cabinet members but a healthy number of non-Socialist Cabinet members, with zero Communist cabinet members but parliamentary support from the Communists = "Communist takeover of France".
The USSR stood for union of soviet socialist republics, yet we call them communists. This was closest possible thing to a communist take over of France. The actual communist party, since you're so hung up on titles, supported the Blum government even though they opted to remain outside of it for ideological reasons:
The Popular Front won the 1936 elections; the PCF itself made major gains - taking 15.3% and 72 seats. SFIO leader Léon Blum formed a Socialist-Radical government, supported from the outside by the PCF.
 
A large uprising in British Raj. Britain isn't going anywhere until it's dealt with.
If it is large enough they would just abandon the country as they did in 1946 since they couldn't hold it. Europe would come first. If they were not bad enough to abandon the country they'd handle it like they did in 1942:
According to John F. Riddick, from 9 August 1942 to 21 September 1942, the Quit India Movement:
attacked 550 post offices, 250 railway stations, damaged many rail lines, destroyed 70 police stations, and burned or damaged 85 other government buildings. There were about 2,500 instances of telegraph wires being cut. The greatest level of violence occurred in Bihar. The Government of India deployed 57 battalions of British troops to restore order.[16]
The British swiftly responded with mass detentions. Over 100,000 arrests were made, mass fines were levied and demonstrators were subjected to public flogging. Hundreds of civilians were killed in violence many shot by the police army. Many national leaders went underground and continued their struggle by broadcasting messages over clandestine radio stations, distributing pamphlets and establishing parallel governments. The British sense of crisis was strong enough that a battleship was specifically set aside to take Gandhi and the Congress leaders out of India, possibly to South Africa or Yemen but ultimately did not take that step out of fear of intensifying the revolt.[20]
Didn't even need to interrupt the war.

Wartime changes the situation and rules.
It would also allow for following the UK's and USA's example - devalue currency by 30-50 percent.
Something which France in September '36 did anyway ...
Not exactly accurate. They left the gold standard and free floated their currency, which is why it fell in value. They started liquidating gold stocks to pay for war preparations.

Had they not been able to organize that in peacetime the economy would have imploded, because if you read the linked info I shared investors fled the country and drained it of cash, so the banks became insolvent. It would take time to liquidate large gold stocks as well as shift the entire value of the currency. Organizing an entirely new financial system is not something easily done at the start of a war. After all if it were so possible it would have been done IOTL since the will to fight was there; the politicians didn't want to deal with the political and social fallout of trying to go full war communism though, since it would be extremely messy to try to do all at once while people are yanking all their money out of the banking system.

Not trying to be a dick about it, just pointing out that a lot of what people think is easy for alternate history is actually anything but simple. After all there are reasons why people didn't do it IOTL.
 
Last edited:
The actual fuck are you babbling about?


The USSR stood for union of soviet socialist republics, yet we call them communists. This was closest possible thing to a communist take over of France. The actual communist party, since you're so hung up on titles, supported the Blum government even though they opted to remain outside of it for ideological reasons:

Bolding socialist doesn't make it a magic word that means the same thing in the French Party politics and USSR party politics. It's a broad church and widely used label, like, 'democratic','capitalist', 'popular', 'national', or 'religious'.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top