WI France won the Franco-Prussian war?

[raharris1973]

WI France won the Franco-Prussian war?

Would France be considered the "big bad", or "peace breaker" for much of the later 19th century and 20th century in the Europe and/or the Anglophone world instead of Germany?

 

[Buba]

Maaaybe ... the irresponsible adventurist Nappy III is a about to kick the bucket, so maybe the 2nd Empire will stop kicking up shit under new leadership?
Or if he lives long enough no.III involves France in the 3rd Carlista War and everybody with a greviance dogpiles France

 

[Circle of Willis]

I asked this very question myself a couple months ago. Consensus seems to be that WW1 will probably come down to a Franco-Austrian 'Entente' that includes the rump Papal State, South German kingdoms (possibly even a Westphalian one if France is really successful in the FPW and carves it out of Prussia's westernmost holdings) & also quite possibly a Carlist Spain vs. a Russo-Prusso-Italian 'Allies', with the UK playing kingmaker if it involves itself at all - they have historical reasons to dislike both France and Russia, after all.

Whether France becomes Britain's big villain of the late 19th-early 20th centuries is far from guaranteed, IMO. The 2ème Empire put quite a bit of effort into trying to become Britain's buddy - fighting with them in the Crimean War, entering the Cobden-Chevalier Treaty, and Napoleon IV (historically killed by Zulus in 1879) was even considered a potential suitor for Victoria's youngest daughter Beatrice for some time. So it does seem that the later Bonapartes didn't quite share the first Napoleon's aggression in foreign policy, or rather had learned well enough from his example to try to channel it in ways that didn't offend Britain too much.

I guess a lot depends on whether Napoleon IV continues to be a foreign policy disaster like his dad (who was suffering severe health problems by 1870 and is unlikely to live long past the FPW, historically he died only 3 years after), although personally I don't consider that too likely. Wilhelm II, who filled that role IRL, had some rather serious issues which helped shape his foreign policy, and the Prince Imperial seems to have been a much better-adjusted personality than the Kaiser: indeed he appears to have been a pretty charismatic and likable guy (with several highborn ladyfans, other than Beatrice he was also romantically involved with the Spanish infanta Maria del Pilar - another hypothetical match would be to Franz Josef's daughter Gisela, who was the same age as him) to the point that Victoria herself thought he'd be good for peace in Europe. Of course disputes like Fashoda could still flare up, but I'm inclined to think Nappy IV would be reasonable enough to at least try to find a peaceful solution in the first place.

 

[stevep]

WI France won the Franco-Prussian war?

Would France be considered the "big bad", or "peace breaker" for much of the later 19th century and 20th century in the Europe and/or the Anglophone world instead of Germany?

I think a lot would depend on what victory meant in this case. Obviously A-L stays French and possibly Nappy III goes for Belgium which he wanted to gain? Which would definitely alienate Britain.

If he takes parts of OTL Germany then which ones and also what happens with the 'rump' Germany? Does the defeat mean a serious reduction of Prussia, especially if say its Rhineland territories were detached - not necessarily to France - or Hanover and other areas restored. In which case France probably stays the primarily continental power for at least another couple of generations. Especially if say the Catholic S German states turn towards Austria for protection.

Alternatively if Prussia is largely unaffected territoriality and the German states still band together, possibly for fear of France, then you might see the rapid economic and technological development of Germany OTL saw in which case its going to very likely surpass France in economic and potential military strength which could mean a new war at a later stage, either France seeking to prevent Germany from becoming too powerful or Germany looking for revenge.

Plus as others have said a lot depends on what happens when Nappy dies. Its very unlikely that the new emperor will be anywhere near the Zulus so he's going to probably have a very long life and what cause he takes.

 

[Aaron Fox]

If you think things are bad now, oh boy it's going to get worse. None of the German states are going to ally with France. No way, no how. France has always fucked with the various German states and I wouldn't be surprised that France will screw with the German states again just to be a prick to them. I would see a Franco-Prussia War 2 kicking up again later on, and this time the various German states are going to likely rampage through France.

 

[stevep]

If you think things are bad now, oh boy it's going to get worse. None of the German states are going to ally with France. No way, no how. France has always fucked with the various German states and I wouldn't be surprised that France will screw with the German states again just to be a prick to them. I would see a Franco-Prussia War 2 kicking up again later on, and this time the various German states are going to likely rampage through France.

Possibly but historically Bavaria was a frequent ally of France and during Napoleon's time Saxony was also a persistent ally of the French empire.

Alternatively the southern states, with Prussia discredited and weakened possibly look towards Austria as a protector with a similar culture.

It all depends on the circumstances. If France behaved badly then it could alienate just about everybody in Germany and you get something like your idea. Although in that case some sort of 1914 conflict sees France with A-L and a secure border on the upper Rhine as well as no political need for massive attacks to 'regain the lost provinces'. In fact if France has taken say the Saar region and some others it might be the Germans feeling obligated to frontal assaults on fortified positions. As such any such conflict, even assuming no one else was involved could see a relatively quick limited victory for either side or a long grueling slog that probably ends up exhausting both powers.

 

[ATP]

WI France won the Franco-Prussian war?

Would France be considered the "big bad", or "peace breaker" for much of the later 19th century and 20th century in the Europe and/or the Anglophone world instead of Germany?

You need competent generals,modern fieldguns and quick victory,becouse France do not have good reserve troops.Higly unlikely.
But if miracle happened - France rule in Europe,Bavaria is free again, and...France get Chile and Argentine ! in OTL mapuche indians still fought there,and some french voyager try to made them french subjects.Now,he would succed.
Mapuche in OTL was hold in reserves ,but still 10% of Chile population is made from them.Argentinian indians was genocides.

 

[raharris1973]

I asked this very question myself a couple months ago.

Props to you, and apologies for thunder-stealin' good sir.

All:

If France wins enough to impose terms, which of these old territorial borders is France more likely to claim from the German states if it wins, a relatively modest increase to get the borders of 1814 (in orange) or a much more dramatic increase to get the border of 1801 (in blue)?

How well would either of these impositions be received Europe-wide or in Britain?

Yet a third option, perhaps more sensitive to the divisions between German states, might involve French annexation of Prussian Rheinprovinz only, leaving Bavarian Palatinate alone, while resurrecting all the states liquidated by Bismarck in 1866 like Hanover, Electoral Hesse, Lauenberg, etc.

A fourth option might be France being restrained and taking no territory for itself, but resurrecting all the states liquidated Bismarck in 1866, and then brokering an exchange of the Rhineland-Westphalia to the Wettin Dynasty of the Kingdom of Saxony, to get the Prussians off France's border, compensate the Wettins with a larger Kingdom, and keep the Prussians and Austrians in each other's faces.

 

[stevep]

Props to you, and apologies for thunder-stealin' good sir.

All:

If France wins enough to impose terms, which of these old territorial borders is France more likely to claim from the German states if it wins, a relatively modest increase to get the borders of 1814 (in orange) or a much more dramatic increase to get the border of 1801 (in blue)?

How well would either of these impositions be received Europe-wide or in Britain?

Yet a third option, perhaps more sensitive to the divisions between German states, might involve French annexation of Prussian Rheinprovinz only, leaving Bavarian Palatinate alone, while resurrecting all the states liquidated by Bismarck in 1866 like Hanover, Electoral Hesse, Lauenberg, etc.

A fourth option might be France being restrained and taking no territory for itself, but resurrecting all the states liquidated Bismarck in 1866, and then brokering an exchange of the Rhineland-Westphalia to the Wettin Dynasty of the Kingdom of Saxony, to get the Prussians off France's border, compensate the Wettins with a larger Kingdom, and keep the Prussians and Austrians in each other's faces.

A variant on the latter might be restoring Saxony to its 1812 borders but establishing a restored Westphalian state, although who would be the monarch - as I doubt Nappy III would support a republic but could be wrong - I don't know. This further weakens Prussia which Berlin and Silesia aside is now largely an agricultural state in eastern Germany. Still militarily formidable but even weaker economically.

One other option on this last. The Dukes of Oldeburg who IIRC were linked by family with the Czars, could be offered the Westphalian throne, giving up Oldenburg to Hanover which gives that state much simpler borders.

 

[Buba]

The Romanov's are family to half the German Royalty.
Alexander III's beloved babushka* was a Prussian Princess ...

The scale of the French victory matters - at some point the UK will step in. Austria probably not, as then it could be jumped by Russia (for all sorts of reasons going back to 1854) and/or held back by the Hungarians (like in OTL?). Also, too powerful France is baaad.
Hence I'd not expect over the moon changes, as London would be unhappy by swings in the Balance of Power.

* granma

 

[ATP]

The Romanov's are family to half the German Royalty.
Alexander III's beloved babushka* was a Prussian Princess ...

The scale of the French victory matters - at some point the UK will step in. Austria probably not, as then it could be jumped by Russia (for all sorts of reasons going back to 1854) and/or held back by the Hungarians (like in OTL?). Also, too powerful France is baaad.
Hence I'd not expect over the moon changes, as London would be unhappy by swings in the Balance of Power.

* granma

Not in Europe,except free Bavaria and other german states.But in South america,France could get OTL Chile and part of Argentina.

 

[stevep]

Not in Europe,except free Bavaria and other german states.But in South america,France could get OTL Chile and part of Argentina.

Very much doubt the latter. Chile is an established state and a French attempt to impose control would be objected to both by the locals, including neighbouring states and also the UK and US. Especially since Nappy had his hand burnt in Mexico only a few years before.

 

[ATP]

Very much doubt the latter. Chile is an established state and a French attempt to impose control would be objected to both by the locals, including neighbouring states and also the UK and US. Especially since Nappy had his hand burnt in Mexico only a few years before.

Mapuche hold territories which cowered most of current Chile and other tribes hold most of current Argentina.They have harbour/Chile/ , and their chiefs really asked France for help.
It would be rather hard for USA or England explain why they want war against France which is welcomed by locals.In Mexico there was usprising,Mapuche would not start anything like that.

I knew,that they were racist and belived that indians are lesser race that could be robbed - but,they also pretended to be christian,just like their voters,so they could not say like Hitler :
"People,let go to war and kill underhumans!"

They would need uprising as pretext,just like in Mexico.

 

[stevep]

Mapuche hold territories which cowered most of current Chile and other tribes hold most of current Argentina.They have harbour/Chile/ , and their chiefs really asked France for help.
It would be rather hard for USA or England explain why they want war against France which is welcomed by locals.In Mexico there was usprising,Mapuche would not start anything like that.

I knew,that they were racist and belived that indians are lesser race that could be robbed - but,they also pretended to be christian,just like their voters,so they could not say like Hitler :
"People,let go to war and kill underhumans!"

They would need uprising as pretext,just like in Mexico.

You said Chile in total. A Mapuche state which excluded the already European controlled areas would be a lot more possible. As you say it would deeply offend the locals in those neighbouring states who did treat the Indians appallingly. Suspect they were every bit as willing as Hitler, also a Catholic of course to wage wars of large scale ethnic cleansing as they often did, especially in the Argentinian case OTL.

If it was just a Mapuche state its still going to be opposed by Chile, Argentina and the US, although the latter won't have a lot of direct military reach down there and is likely to last only as long as French has the willpower to maintain garrisons there. What the British opinion would be would depend on the circumstances. Possibly including the importance of nitrate deposits although I think its a decade or two before they become really important.

 

[ATP]

You said Chile in total. A Mapuche state which excluded the already European controlled areas would be a lot more possible. As you say it would deeply offend the locals in those neighbouring states who did treat the Indians appallingly. Suspect they were every bit as willing as Hitler, also a Catholic of course to wage wars of large scale ethnic cleansing as they often did, especially in the Argentinian case OTL.

If it was just a Mapuche state its still going to be opposed by Chile, Argentina and the US, although the latter won't have a lot of direct military reach down there and is likely to last only as long as French has the willpower to maintain garrisons there. What the British opinion would be would depend on the circumstances. Possibly including the importance of nitrate deposits although I think its a decade or two before they become really important.

Comrade Hitler was born as catholic,but he undarstandt his mistakes and become good socialist.And as such he could genocide "lesser races".
Both USA and England could not do that openly - which mean France would face only Chile.If they do not include current Argentinian land and let them genocide indians there,Argentinian would not be enemies.
Which leave Chile secretly supported by USA.I think,that french would manage it.

 

[stevep]

Comrade Hitler was born as catholic,but he undarstandt his mistakes and become good socialist.And as such he could genocide "lesser races".
Both USA and England could not do that openly - which mean France would face only Chile.If they do not include current Argentinian land and let them genocide indians there,Argentinian would not be enemies.
Which leave Chile secretly supported by USA.I think,that french would manage it.

Not clear what your saying here? That the French establish a state only in the Mapuche region or that they attack and conquer Chile? The former I could see but the latter is likely to cause a lot more problems.

 

[ATP]

Not clear what your saying here? That the French establish a state only in the Mapuche region or that they attack and conquer Chile? The former I could see but the latter is likely to cause a lot more problems.

Mapuche region only.