Before he was assassinated in late July 1914, the French socialist politician Jean Jaures was planning general strikes in both France and Germany in an effort to stop the countries from declaring war on each other. At the time of his death Paris was said to be close to revolution but his assassination destroyed his movement. However, in a timeline in which he wasn't assassinated, could he succeed? Would it be possible for him to instigate general strikes in France and Germany, and would they be able to stop the war? Is there any chance of Britain getting involved too?
-
Hi Guest!
The costs of running this forum are covered by Sea Lion Press. If you'd like to help support the company and the forum, visit patreon.com/sealionpress
General Strikes to stop the Great War
- Thread starter Venocara
- Start date
In France? Maybe. Getting Germany to initiate it at the same time? Doubtful. Getting Germany to join in once it's clear it worked in France? Less doubtful I guess.
But you still have to contend with the fact the SPD went social patriotic to the hilt, and that didn't require any convenient death. Maybe the French socialists being more principled inspire them or maybe the fact France is forced to sit it out due to the strike ruining their mobilization reassure them about the lack of threat to Germany?
If it works Britain might not be pulled into it at all? After all, my understanding is that they only really got into it because Germany opened the western theater of the war. If the French fail to mobilize that's avoided.
Germany might be able to wrangle a partial mobilization across its own strike wave, enough to back up Austria against Russia alone. Russia is absolutely toast without France and Britain, even against a hampered Germany. And the German strike would probably run out of steam if there's no threat of conflict with their French comrades.
But you still have to contend with the fact the SPD went social patriotic to the hilt, and that didn't require any convenient death. Maybe the French socialists being more principled inspire them or maybe the fact France is forced to sit it out due to the strike ruining their mobilization reassure them about the lack of threat to Germany?
If it works Britain might not be pulled into it at all? After all, my understanding is that they only really got into it because Germany opened the western theater of the war. If the French fail to mobilize that's avoided.
Germany might be able to wrangle a partial mobilization across its own strike wave, enough to back up Austria against Russia alone. Russia is absolutely toast without France and Britain, even against a hampered Germany. And the German strike would probably run out of steam if there's no threat of conflict with their French comrades.
Death's Companion
General Ugg Apologist.
I think the guy gets shot again just officially and whoever does it gets a parade.
I mean even with Great War happening, a great war that is pretty exclusively a German/Austrian v. Russian v. Ottomans Maybe affair over The Balkans, Yet Again is big butterflies
Yeah. I think we could explore what happens having taken the western theater out of it. I expect Russia gets crushed in shorter order. You might get the Germans to stick Brest-Litovsk borders on them for good.
On the other hand the combination of the repression at home to suppress the strike for mobilization against Russia and the repression in the new puppets is likely to skew Germany for the worse over time (not that it was glorious already).
The SPD will initially look stupid because look, the war was glorious (ignore how it only worked out because France didn't join) but the people who stick with the anti war stance after the repression will look like genius when soldiers keep dying enforcing German influence over Eastern Europe.
Similarly the French left will look bad because no one will realize how many casualties Europe avoided, having no idea about the realities of industrial war yet. This could easily lead to a right wing turn in France.
On the other hand, the left did flex its internationalist muscles successfully. Those who survive the backlash will know that it does have the strength to do so.
Meanwhile, Britain doesn't feel as cheated because it only entered over Belgium OTL anyway, but Germany's growth is still a scary prospect.
And of course who knows how rump Russia evolves.
Imperial Germany was only about 50 kilometers away from Paris even without strikes disrupting the mobilization. When France is humiliated for the second time in living memory all of the blame will be placed on the strikers.
Do you think Germany is going to invade either way? I thought the line of thought we were talking about was the general strike just leading to France not getting involved in the first place.
History Learner
Well-known member
Problem with that is twofold.
First, if the French are holding back, German logistical issues are immediately solved and there is no threat of them being forced to surrender due to loss of supplies. This is because this enables the Germans to secure the railways in Eastern France in a way they were unable to do so historically:
Second issue is that if the BEF is late coming up, the Germans take Hazebrouck or Amiens, in which case the newly deployed BEF is unable to deploy offensively North of the Somme; if the Germans take both, then the BEF now needs a Dunkirk scale evacuation. Incidentally, the French also lose access-either directly or indirectly via the railway connections being cut-to the Bethune Coal Mines. Why is that important? 70% of French war production depended upon access to that coal. The Germans being able to engage in shelling of it in 1918 during the Spring Offensive was enough to cause production stoppages and disruptions historically.
In short, I do not see anyway a delayed French mobilization is to the detriment of the Germans.
Death's Companion
General Ugg Apologist.
Pretty sure if France somehow doesn't violently crush the general strike then yeah it's mobilisation simply is not happening in time to stop the Germans. Having your main rail hub and political centre paralysed tends to do that.
I personally don't see it happening because well the public were in favour of the war and the French government hardly hesitant to shoot Parisians in a pinch. I think it would be a footnote as OTL.
If somehow it got off the ground then the Germans almost certainly have an easier time of it as complete chaos is rarely a good way to start a war. Even if the Germans still lose the war or do more or less comparable to OTL though you can bet the conventional wisdom will be the filthy traitors wrecked France's chance of winning quickly and that will probably have long term influences.
I personally don't see it happening because well the public were in favour of the war and the French government hardly hesitant to shoot Parisians in a pinch. I think it would be a footnote as OTL.
If somehow it got off the ground then the Germans almost certainly have an easier time of it as complete chaos is rarely a good way to start a war. Even if the Germans still lose the war or do more or less comparable to OTL though you can bet the conventional wisdom will be the filthy traitors wrecked France's chance of winning quickly and that will probably have long term influences.
It would. Germany had no plan in which France did not get involved. If it tried and stay neutral, the German ambassador had orders to seek "guarantees" so humiliating (turning over the border fortresses), they were designed to get France in. The German military was so obsessed with the need to knock France out of the war so quickly to turn back to deal with Russia... that it had forgotten for more than a decade to formulate even a sketch of a plan where France did not involve itself or clear with the Foreign Ministry whether this could be achieved through negotiations.
History Learner
Well-known member
Okay, why are they not capturing the railways in the East intact? You've already stated the French Armies are holding themselves back in the rear due to the General Strike, and to disable the railways would require them to go forward in large numbers otherwise the Germans capture them without a fight. Likewise, you're dramatically over-stating artillery at this juncture; besides the range limitations, small arms-not artillery-was the main killer on the Western Front until 1916 when sufficient volume and doctrine was achieved. The rifle and the new machine gun reigned supreme in 1914-1915.
Also, we need to conceptualize a General Strike as a multi dimensional problem rather than one just effecting the timing of when the French Armies arrive at the front. If French industrial workers are revolting, there is going to be no French artillery being made or shells being produced for existing models. If French railway workers and truck drivers are revolting, said artillery is not going to reach the front due to the collapse of the transportation network. If French civilians are draft dodging, there is going to be a serious lack of artillerymen to fire the aforementioned existing pieces.
It does seem a long-term blow to the French left, and not just the French left, and especially any communist movements - "Workers Of The World talk helped the Hun and the war lasted until 1918" is not a thing you want to have to argue with if you're trying to organise strikes in Britain.