• 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

The likelihood of French surrender in WW1

The Red

Well-known member
Published by SLP
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?
 
This is kind of going for action spectacle and retrofitting OTL events over real plausibility, but that post made me think of a sort of "D-Day 25 years earlier" where the Anglo-Americans and exiles launch an amphibious reinvasion of metropolitan France.
 
I think it makes a big difference whether we are talking about the Germans successfully breaking through and taking Paris in 1914, or if it's the the result of the Michael Offensive in 1918 when everyone's close to breaking point.

Ah, yes, George [checks notes] "Le Tigre" Clemenceau, famously known for giving in to external pressure.

It's a valid point that it could be the straw that broke the camel's back, but France survived the murderous Battle of the Frontiers and the Germans coming so close to Paris the animals in the Jardin des Plantes were eyeing nervously the knives in 1914, the utter waste of men in the 1915 offensives, the immense bloodletting at Verdun in 1916, the mass mutinies against attacking and Russia throwing in the towel in 1917. By 1918, they had access to a virtually inexhaustible source of credit, they had husbanded their manpower since near mid-1917. I don't think even more serious defeats in the Michael Offensive could have drawn them to the negotiating table, let alone to surrender.
 
This is kind of going for action spectacle and retrofitting OTL events over real plausibility, but that post made me think of a sort of "D-Day 25 years earlier" where the Anglo-Americans and exiles launch an amphibious reinvasion of metropolitan France.

DID YOU KNOW SEVERAL MARK V's WERE MODIFIED TO OPERATE AMPHIBIOUSLY AND PLANNING WAS COMPLETED FOR TANK-SUPPORTED LANDINGS IN 1917?

BECAUSE NOW I HAVE A VIGNETTE IDEA
 
I mean at best you just get the Brits propping up a bunch of puppet French colonies. Technology's not really there for some sort of proto-D-Day AFAIK. Either the French government will surrender or a new one will be created in its place by the occupiers, unless the French people organize an effective enough resistance.
 
DID YOU KNOW SEVERAL MARK V's WERE MODIFIED TO OPERATE AMPHIBIOUSLY AND PLANNING WAS COMPLETED FOR TANK-SUPPORTED LANDINGS IN 1917?

BECAUSE NOW I HAVE A VIGNETTE IDEA

There is not a mechanical system in all the world I can see keeping those tanks from turning into artificial reefs. Even the Duck modified Sherman had atrocious water crossing habits, and those tanks at least had properly welded hulls that could be made watertight. The only way to get a breakdown lozenge across the Channel would be boxed up in the hold of a ship.
 
The notion of France being completely overrun by the Central Powers and the French government being forced to evacuate does open up an interesting possibility of a widespread guerrilla war in the country - the Kaiser's French ulcer perhaps?
The idea was explored in the Jour J AH graphic novel series, as a WW1 variant of the France Fights On premise: the Métropole is overrun and the government evacuates to Algiers.

jourJRevolutionRusse-EdSpe-2.jpg
 
The idea was explored in the Jour J AH graphic novel series, as a WW1 variant of the France Fights On premise: the Métropole is overrun and the government evacuates to Algiers.

jourJRevolutionRusse-EdSpe-2.jpg
Ah yes,the comic where the French aid anarchists in the Russian civil war and somehow remove the Bolsheviks and install a Anarchist government that the Antante is a okay with

God,Jour J is so stupid.
 
Remember, by 1916 the British and French were already almost completely broke, burning through much of their financial reserves to the point that the coffers were almost empty. Not only that but the French army was constantly mutinying on an on/off basis for most of the war, with several mutinies almost toppling the Third Republic.

The French by mid-war were pretty much teetering on the brink of collapse. Without France, the British wouldn't be able to do much as that would be a major blow to British morale, forcing the government to make a white peace.

That actually came upon an Alt-History thread a while back, one of those 'Nightmare!Versailles' threads that had Germany broken up... the same thread that started a timeline that would form into the backbone of a GATE fanfic that I've been doing.
Ah yes,the comic where the French aid anarchists in the Russian civil war and somehow remove the Bolsheviks and install a Anarchist government that the Antante is a okay with

God,Jour J is so stupid.
The Bolsheviks only won in the grand scheme of things because they held the royal tea warehouses, thus making them defacto unassailable.
 
That actually came upon an Alt-History thread a while back, one of those 'Nightmare!Versailles' threads that had Germany broken up... the same thread that started a timeline that would form into the backbone of a GATE fanfic that I've been doing.

That is an impressive misunderstanding of the whole shebang, to be sure. Breaking up Germany postwar runs into two very real problems: first, there's nothing saying they have to accept the treaty; and more importantly second, there's no real impetious for America to accept that treaty. Breaking up Germany would destroy the central European market and make it neigh impossible to conduct business there like in the Bad Old Days, and unless Wilson is angling on causing another mass I'm wave like the one that happened shortly after the Unification (which is bad for him, Confederate under the Union he is) there's no reason to take that treaty. If America doesn't back it and the Euros are being unreasonable, there's a lot of subtle ways to explain we'd like a return to the status quo ante bellum; starting by unfreezing the interest accumulation on the various war loans, which would be the fiscal warning shot saying "we can crash this economy with no survivors"
 
[Citation Needed]
From what I can understand, the situation in France was pretty bad economically and in morale. Without US loans, France would have to put in the towel because they lost so much money in the conflict. Britain was already not in the best economic state because of the RN's 'outbuild everyone in terms of naval strength' they had as standard naval policy, and the war quickly drained the coffers.

In addition, after 1915, morale started to drop not only in the REF but also in the French Army, enough to have minor mutinies but the biggest ones would be in 1917. Without the US, the war would have ended in 1917 with a negotiated white peace.
That is an impressive misunderstanding of the whole shebang, to be sure. Breaking up Germany postwar runs into two very real problems: first, there's nothing saying they have to accept the treaty; and more importantly second, there's no real impetious for America to accept that treaty. Breaking up Germany would destroy the central European market and make it neigh impossible to conduct business there like in the Bad Old Days, and unless Wilson is angling on causing another mass I'm wave like the one that happened shortly after the Unification (which is bad for him, Confederate under the Union he is) there's no reason to take that treaty. If America doesn't back it and the Euros are being unreasonable, there's a lot of subtle ways to explain we'd like a return to the status quo ante bellum; starting by unfreezing the interest accumulation on the various war loans, which would be the fiscal warning shot saying "we can crash this economy with no survivors"
Yeah, that would have probably happened if it was conducted in real life but given that France was more than willing to suggest it...
 
Basically while I'm probably one of the harsher people on the site when it comes to reviewing the French performance in 1940, a large part of that failure was due to the determined to the point of utter bloody mindedness success of the French in 1914-1918.
 
Last edited:
France was utterly willing to go bankrupt to win the war and the mutinies were never about war weariness the delegations the troops formed on their own were always of a "Continue the war but stop being stupid about it" policy, in many ways more then a strike then a Revolt.

When I've seen mutinies mentioned in the wild, the bit where they still wanted to fight anyway doesn't come up - probably because that doesn't sound 'right' with what we 'all know' about WW1.
 
I must admit, I had thought that the fact that the French Army mutinies were essentially strikes against futile attacks was well-known. It looks like it's yet another subject area to add to my topics on be covered in my articles on WWI. I think I'm currently into about late August for stuff written, and early October for stuff planned. It certainly won't be over before the leaves fall.

Now I'm wondering why the French Army mutinied and was on the verge of collapse trope comes up so often. I have a suspicion on this, with the "cheese-eating surrender monkey" trope eliding the surrender of 1940 (which in itself is a silly view when put under any sort of examination) with the First World War. It's a nonsense view, obviously, but it seems to crop up from time to time.

It might be a European thing versus an American thing- here, and to a reasonable extent elsewhere in the Americas and some parts of Southeast Asia, the French mutinies were seen as a total lack of control on the part of command- the soldiers did not respond to the efforts of commanding officers and this basically went without notice, but is held in derision since the officers were stupid enough to make orders that weren't followed and to the men for allowing their shitty orders to get them into the situation they need to be in revolt over.

The issue is with the "cheese-eating surrender monkeys" is that the French determination in the Great War is seen as a bad thing, especially in light of the Great Rollover of '40. First, and most important, is that they demonstrated the ability to hold, come Hell or high water once- thus in failing to do it again is a bad sign to the long-term fortitude of the country. Second, and just as notable, is that post-war analysis showed that the Germans weren't actually rolling over with a massive superiority- they had a shoelace for a margin, and it's demonstrable that if someone, literally anyone, managed to break that shoelace then France wouldn't have fallen.
 
When I've seen mutinies mentioned in the wild, the bit where they still wanted to fight anyway doesn't come up - probably because that doesn't sound 'right' with what we 'all know' about WW1.
Now I'm wondering why the French Army mutinied and was on the verge of collapse trope comes up so often. I have a suspicion on this, with the "cheese-eating surrender monkey" trope eliding the surrender of 1940 (which in itself is a silly view when put under any sort of examination) with the First World War. It's a nonsense view, obviously, but it seems to crop up from time to time.

I think more than 'cheese-eating surrender-monkeys', it's the Catholic Latin people lack of a 'Protestant work ethic' about the French being constantly blocking and striking and demonstrating.

My favourite story (except it has a tragic ending) is that there were Russian divisions on the Western Front, and when they eventually heard about the Revolution (they had been kept uninformed for fear of their response), they organised themselves into soviets, refused to go back to the front, and had to be besieged and shelled.
 
Back
Top