Why are so many people assuming Hitler will remilitarize the Rheinland in 1936? Hitler believed that democracy made countries weak and cowardly. If a Fascist France would also form a block with Italy, Hitler would not be gambling so soon. He backed off in Austria in 34.
Fascists takes power in France in 1934
- Thread starter Supreme
- Start date
Well, there almost certainly would be a war between them, considering the Nazis were very anti-French, and the French fascists, whatever group, would probably be very anti-German as they aren't installed by a foreign government.
Like, there's no way France and Germany are gonna be at peace if EITHER one is far-right wing. Period.
He also knew an opportunity when he saw one. If there is a brief political instability in France in 1934 (but no outright civil war) before Fascists take power, could they make a gamble for the Rhineland early? Not sure if they are in any shape to do so but they weren't really ready OTL either. They can just march a few battalions ceremoniously in there and in will be done before France settles down enough to react. This will give the new French government enough justification to take a more forward stance against Germany and would probably align with Italy and take a hard line against the Anschluss.
thaddeus
Donor
my speculation is always for the Cynical Plan division of the "weaker" colonial powers' territories in the aftermath of the fall of France and formation of the Vichy regime (to sort between France, Italy, and Spain, and taking into account, of course, the wishes of the Nazi regime)
under this scenario of a Fascist (or authoritarian) France, the same could happen without regards to Germany. it seems France could back a successful coup in Spain, just due to proximity, French naval power, and their long standing cooperation in Morocco.
can see Portugal becoming the junior Junior partner to Spain, which has not lost their treasury or been devastated by civil war here? and (just IMO) France could become more assertive towards Belgium, wanting a defensive line there? (could the annexation of French speaking areas become a real thing?)
under this scenario of a Fascist (or authoritarian) France, the same could happen without regards to Germany. it seems France could back a successful coup in Spain, just due to proximity, French naval power, and their long standing cooperation in Morocco.
can see Portugal becoming the junior Junior partner to Spain, which has not lost their treasury or been devastated by civil war here? and (just IMO) France could become more assertive towards Belgium, wanting a defensive line there? (could the annexation of French speaking areas become a real thing?)
What's been said but I'd add that remilitarization was always the plan for Germany but how 'ready' they are to achieve that earlier than OTL's 1936 date is a good question. More to the point instability in France throws a lot of responsibility on England who's more likely to be willing to oppose and early move on the Rhineland especially if they can get backing from some of the "cordon sanitaire" the French were organizing. (Who frankly would appreciate a sign of English support frankly)
Also as I noted it will take a bit of time for a Fascist France to get cozy with Fascist Italy, but prior to 1936, (when Hitler promised Mussolini that Germany would not seek the return of Austrian territory granted to Italy after WWI) and really 1939 (when an actual agreement was written and signed) there's a window of opportunity for France. While there was a bit of a personal connection between Hitler and Mussolini it's not certain that Mussolini will fall into Hitler's orbit. He did so OTL because Hitler and Germany supported his aims in Ethiopia and allowed him to keep the Austrian territories taken after WWI. The main question would France do and promise the same to gain Italian support for containing Germany?
As noted Hitler was after France to 'avenge' French humiliations of the Versailles Treaty, plus the various payment demands, occupation of the Ruhr, etc.
France, even a Fascist one will still want Germany in a sub-servient position.
France wanted Germany neutralized so it would not be a threat to them again, Germany wanted France to feel the humiliation they'd suffered so the 'seeds' are there but if France can contain Germany short of war, (arguably the strategy they were trying prior to WWII OTL) they will but a more aggressive Fascist France would still need time and money to re-arm for it.
Germany is not really in shape enough in 1934 but it might be a risk Hitler is willing to take. He has to consider the down-stream effects when the more militant and (to him) the "stronger" France stabilizes. Doing so without the actual military might to back it up if France (and England) actually decide to oppose the move is very risky, and I think from his perspective it would not be clear enough during the actual crisis on who's going to emerge as the government of France. Especially if its a fairly short affair. Now if it drags out into a kind of Civil War then yes he'll jump on it but his biggest fear during the run up to WWII was France and England actually being willing to stand up to his movements as Germany was about as "not ready" for war as they were. And there are other considerations, see below.
If he does and succeeds then "appeasement" is likely over France will threaten war every time he so much as looks sideways at them. And if France is not getting active support from England over it then they will go looking for support elsewhere and start looking at Britain with the "evil eye".
It was (in 1934) already being run as a LoN mandate and at the time was being run by an English "Governor". Arguably an earlier remilitarization of the Rhineland would automatically lock Germany out of use of the Saar and turn it into a permanent mandate, likely given to France to govern (pretty much annexed in all but actual name) I'd suspect. That literally cuts the industrial "heart" out of Germany as there is likely NO chance now of the plebiscite that returned the Saar to Germany in OTL 1935. So the more I look at it the more I don't see Hitler making that move. He needs the Saar more than he needs the Rhineland at this point, which means he's more likely to use the 'opportunity' to get that back rather than take the Rhineland. Keep in mind that a lot of his "army" at this point were still disguised as police forces so he's got a bit more 'cover' for doing that than marching them into the Rhineland.
He'd also likely have more LoN and world opinion support for such an action.
Of course that's still going to piss off an aggressive Fascist France so Hitler is going to be facing a lot more opposition to any future moves. Frankly I see a Fascist France as more a nightmare for Hitler and the Nazi's than anything else.
Randy
The Spanish "Nationalists" would likely go to a French Fascist government over a German one if it existed as they frankly have more in common, and France would likely leap on the idea of supporting them. It's a bit of a toss up if France would do so openly or not, the LoN is essentially powerless but there would be consequences for doing so openly. I'd suspect mostly informal and supposed "volunteer" help as per Germany/Italy/etc OTL. With similar support the Civil War likely still takes time and effort to OTL unfortunately.
I can see a more aggressive France demanding more overt 'containment' of Germany than OTL but as I noted above would they still want to pursue the Maginot Line as the main aim of French military doctrine? I can see them demanding Belgium build and maintain an extension of the line, essentially reducing Belgium's "options" should France actually look towards them but I don't see annexation unless a lot of the background circumstances change.
i was looking at a 'stronger' more 'aggressive' France but frankly this is a bit scary
It sure as heck will make England sit up and notice.Randy
According to the treaty of Locarno, the other signatories had promised to act, if one of the signatories would break the treaty by sending militaries into the Rheinland. In OTL one of the reasons Hitler still got away with the action in 36 was that Italy by that time had invaded Ethiopia, which meant a break up of relations. In 1934 Hitler couldn't be sure how Italy would react. In OTL actually all the major powers were treatybreakers of the Locarno treaty.
Absolutely, in OTL up to 1937/1938 it was a constant debate in the foreign office which one of Germany or Italy was the more dangerous one that would threaten peace in Europe. If France is alligning with Italy this debate will have a clear answer in the mind of the british diplomats.i was looking at a 'stronger' more 'aggressive' France but frankly this is a bit scary
I also don't believe as some here do that the relationship between France and Great Britain was free of tensions, because there was a lack of competing interests. Especialy the mandates in the Middle East is an area where the relationship between the two could worsen very strong and very quickly. In OTL they were providing shelter and weapons for rebels in each others territory.
I mean if France becomes the aggressive ones and keeps Germany weak, why would Britain support them? If anything considering how this France holds control over Europe I find it likely that Britain tries to create it's own block in Europe which it would likely get into conflict with France and Italy especially if Italy wants to expand like the wanted OTL.
Really WW2 might still happen but under different circumstances.
Really WW2 might still happen but under different circumstances.
What? A major power break a treaty they signed for some likely temporary and relatively minor reason? I'm shocked, shocked I tell you that you could even THINK such an ungentlemanly thing might even occur to such civilized people!
(Now the main question is if I could ever actually say that without breaking out in a grin or outright laughter
)Reading up on the various specifics brought up here it's pretty clear that while several people of power on both sides of the Channel were trying to hold the "Entente Cordiale" together a LOT of basic policy decisions and choices on both sides really strained thing on several occasions and more than once came close to crashing the whole thing. Fascist France going out of it's way to marginalize Germany, aligning with Fascist Italy and frankly looking to organize a series of "client" and "dependent" states is pretty much England's second worst nightmare at this point.
And given some of the "lack of support" and what many citizens saw as outright betrayal by England I suspect relations will turn very cold very quickly.
Britain has pretty much two choices and neither one is going to be especially palatable; Germany or the USSR
By about 1935/36 Fascist France would likely be more willing to outright make binding treaties with its " cordon sanitaire" something with more power and 'teeth' and if they can't get Italy on-board they can at least pressure them to remain "equidistant"/neutral concerning Germany. That's going to really allow an "early" effort to suppress German expansion. And enticing Italy on-board would not necessarily be all that hard I'm thinking. Possibly toss Spain into the mix and yikes...
One of the outcomes I'm working towards but I was thinking was likely anyway. Don't get me wrong I don't think WWII is inevitable but it has a LOT of historical momentum built up at this point in time.
Peace and puppies? Unicorns and rainbows?
Ya I know what you mean but really if France gets froggy what can he do and with who? Part of the reason I had him taken out is because really at the point we're talking about (about 1937/38) if France actively opposed his move in the Rhineland, I don't see any less active opposition to his plans for Austria. He's kind of stuck unless he can clearly get the USSR to plausibly show possible support and that's going to have its own repercussions.
So far we've discussed that a Fascist France would likely be less 'defensive minded' than OTL's inter-war France but they have money issue too and the massive Maginot Line which isn't very good for anything BUT defense so what happens if bluffs get called all around say as early as 1936? The Line is still two years from full operation, France still has a mostly 'defensive' military, possibly with two years of intensive upgrades and training but what can they afford to do or not do?
I'm currently convinced that a Fascist France is going to be looking for any and every excuse not to hand back the Saar if for no other reason than it assures Germany is crippled. I don't see Germany (nor frankly the LoN among others) standing for that. And if France is rapidly rearming where are THEY getting the money and/or resources to do it all?
Randy
France might actually get farther than Germany considering they actually had a navy and depending on how bad any potential anti-Fascist forces in France fight they might also receive very little damage during their rise allowing them greater ability to militarize compared to Germany OTL. If they do fight against the Soviets they might do better considering they would not have the same stigma the Germans had in their hatred of the Slavs and would have an easier time gaining allies in the Soviet Union compered to the Nazis.
Of course the British know this and they might come down harder on them since they would appear more of a threat earlier on compared to the Germans.
Of course the British know this and they might come down harder on them since they would appear more of a threat earlier on compared to the Germans.
RanulfC's comment on the Maginot Line in post 68 raises interesting possibilities.
France still has the same manpower shortage, and Maginot forts provide useful protection with reduced manning. Here, rather than allowing better defensive use of their troops, is it instead seen as an aid to attack. By providing sufficient flank protection with lower quality immobile divisions, the line allows them to concentrate their best attacking forces when or if they decide to attack Germany through the Saar and Rhineland.
France still has the same manpower shortage, and Maginot forts provide useful protection with reduced manning. Here, rather than allowing better defensive use of their troops, is it instead seen as an aid to attack. By providing sufficient flank protection with lower quality immobile divisions, the line allows them to concentrate their best attacking forces when or if they decide to attack Germany through the Saar and Rhineland.
thaddeus
Donor
The Spanish "Nationalists" would likely go to a French Fascist government over a German one if it existed as they frankly have more in common, and France would likely leap on the idea of supporting them. It's a bit of a toss up if France would do so openly or not, the LoN is essentially powerless but there would be consequences for doing so openly. I'd suspect mostly informal and supposed "volunteer" help as per Germany/Italy/etc OTL. With similar support the Civil War likely still takes time and effort to OTL unfortunately.
I can see a more aggressive France demanding more overt 'containment' of Germany than OTL but as I noted above would they still want to pursue the Maginot Line as the main aim of French military doctrine? I can see them demanding Belgium build and maintain an extension of the line, essentially reducing Belgium's "options" should France actually look towards them but I don't see annexation unless a lot of the background circumstances change.
i was looking at a 'stronger' more 'aggressive' France but frankly this is a bit scary
IDK, that was not a well formed idea about Portugal OR Belgium, but if "Nationalist" governments in France and Spain looked to enhance their position(s), the colonial empires of Portugal and Belgium seem vulnerable, whether formally or as puppets?
we are talking about a much different type of government for France, if they acted somewhat similar to Italy or Germany, the industrial region of French speaking parts of Belgium (and Belgian Congo) could be akin to the German annexation of Austria.
to extend the Maginot Line around parts of Belgium? IDK how tempting that would be to those populations? (also IDK the practical effects, even incomplete, through Belgium, it seems certain to change from the 1940 historical situation)
it seems all the treaties of France would be viewed by GB in a different light? the Nazi party might not be able to take advantage but GB might tolerate some Mitteleuropa concept to check a Latin Bloc as well as Communist USSR? (especially where the French were still seeking arrangements with the Soviets)