The history of the French Third Republic has been something I've found very interesting for some years now and one of the reasons for this is the pecularity of the 'Revanchist' feeling that took hold of the country after the French defeat in the Franco-Prussian War. The notion of getting revenge against Germany became an existential one, so overbearing that it transcended the other deep political divisions in French political life. Although this feeling was overrided by political realities, Germany was stronger than France on its own and the two were major trading partners, by the time the First World War had broken out the 'Sacred Union' was formed between all major French political parties and to a lesser extent in wider society in the name of defeating Germany.
It's for this reason that I'm rather confused when the notion of France being brought to the table in the case of the Germans doing better in the First World War is brought up. Often the tirgger seems to be Paris falling or at least being besieged. This belief seems rather widespread from what I've come across but it seems rather bizarre based on my own reading. I would have imagined the French would have kept fighting even with Paris lost and I would argue it's more likely than not that they would have kept going even if the entire country was lost, the Government relocating to Algiers or somewhere similar. Have I missed something or is this a case of something implausible being presumed plausible on the basis of assumption or convenience?
It's for this reason that I'm rather confused when the notion of France being brought to the table in the case of the Germans doing better in the First World War is brought up. Often the tirgger seems to be Paris falling or at least being besieged. This belief seems rather widespread from what I've come across but it seems rather bizarre based on my own reading. I would have imagined the French would have kept fighting even with Paris lost and I would argue it's more likely than not that they would have kept going even if the entire country was lost, the Government relocating to Algiers or somewhere similar. Have I missed something or is this a case of something implausible being presumed plausible on the basis of assumption or convenience?