AHC: Interwar/Post-World War 2 French Monarchical Restoration

[Basileus_Komnenos]

The best way to get a monarchist restoration in my view is for some monarchists to get in Petain's circle and convince him to restore it, at least in name. Then said monarch pulls the same move pulled in Romania; getting the actual leader ousted then switching sides. The monarch engages in secret communication in 1944 with the Allies about switching sides. The two coordinate and just days after Petain is ousted, Allied troops begin landing in Southern France, to meet the inevitable German forces sent in retaliation. As such, there is no D-Day, as Allied troops land in Southern France and head north.

The problem with this is that Romania at least was allied with Germany, was still a sovereign state.

France under the Vichy Regime was more or less an autonomous province of Germany with tenuous control of the South while German troops occupied the rest of the country. The Vichy regime alienated any other potential supporters it could have drawn into its column by bending over backwards to accommodate German demands. Instead of acting or cooperating with resistance groups behind the scenes, the Vichy regime sent its police forces after them or handed them over to the Germans. Heck, the Vichy regime started cracking down on Jews well before the Germans even broached the subject among their allies and other recently occupied/puppet states.

The Petain regime was despised as the specter of collaboration hung over his government and along with that came the question of legitimacy and had they come into power through other means at another time, they could have been seen like a contemporary of Franco and Salazar rather than as being seen as the the ones who chose to "lick Hitler's boots."

The monarch engages in secret communication in 1944 with the Allies about switching sides. The two coordinate and just days after Petain is ousted, Allied troops begin landing in Southern France, to meet the inevitable German forces sent in retaliation. As such, there is no D-Day, as Allied troops land in Southern France and head north.

After the war, things get awkward given the Allies were previously allied with the Free France movement. The monarch invites De Gaulle to negotiate. The two come to a compromise in that the monarch will stay only as the ceremonial head of state while the actual governance is done by a democratic government. In the interim, De Gaulle is appointed prime minister of the Interim government.

The problem with this is that by that time, the allies didn't really consider the Vichy Regime the legitimate government of France. The time for that was gone, and if the Vichy regime wanted recognition, the time for that was somewhere between 1940-1941 as by 42' the allies were helping de Gaulle assert Free France's control over its colonial Empire.

It was in opposition to this that the Vichy regime invited Japan to invade French possessions in Asia.

The monarch/or his successors manage to play off politics to prevent their unpopularity causing an abolition long enough to get to the point where most French just acquiesce to monarchy; thus setting the French monarchy on a new level of stability.

Ngl the better chance the monarchists have is to not be associated with the reviled Vichy regime, something almost everyone today universally despises. In political circles you can find an audience/group engaging in discourse regarding most French governments and eras, but when it comes to the Vichy regime, its looked at almost universally as a shameful period.

Initially after the Vichy Regime was established, the Third Republic with its history of unstable government was seen as discredited by many, but the abject failure of the Vichy Regime subsequently helped to comparatively polish the image of the Third Republic, as a sort of resilient entity that kept on for as long as it could until the Nazis took over. Prior to that it was seen as a dysfunctional mess, looked upon cynically sort of like the Second Republic which grew unpopular toward its end (actually from its outset too).

Part of the issues with Henri d'Orleans is the black mark on his name due to him vacillating between the Vichy and Gaullist Free France as in his own words he didn't want to be seen as picking a side.

If he joins de Gaulle, he'd be riding along the coat tails of him, which would considerably boost his standing similar to how the monarchists got a boost in support from Boulanger's rise in popularity.

The monarch/or his successors manage to play off politics to prevent their unpopularity causing an abolition long enough to get to the point where most French just acquiesce to monarchy; thus setting the French monarchy on a new level of stability.

This could be how he runs for the presidency to begin with, catapulting his platform off De Gaulle's own popularity and endorsement.

Agreed, if the AF's or at least Maurras can be replaced as a primary monarchist advocate, that would do a lot.
Not all Catholics were monarchist, but the monarchist couldn't afford to lose, at minimum, Catholic ambivalence.



The other thing with preventing the monarchist from becoming collaborators.
Radicalism, regardless of direction, often grows through a perceived "lack of alternatives."

If the monarchist are able to maintain some level of influence in the government, there may not be a "need" for many of them to collaborate.

And even if plenty of them do, it may come off as something that person did rather than something the ideology supports.

Do you have any ideas on who could replace Maurras?

 

[da Racontor]

Do you have any ideas on who could replace Maurras?

Unfortunately not.

It's been a very long time since I last time I tried to explore an idea like this in-depth.

 

[NedStark]

The best way to get a monarchist restoration in my view is for some monarchists to get in Petain's circle and convince him to restore it, at least in name. Then said monarch pulls the same move pulled in Romania; getting the actual leader ousted then switching sides. The monarch engages in secret communication in 1944 with the Allies about switching sides. The two coordinate and just days after Petain is ousted, Allied troops begin landing in Southern France, to meet the inevitable German forces sent in retaliation. As such, there is no D-Day, as Allied troops land in Southern France and head north.

After the war, things get awkward given the Allies were previously allied with the Free France movement. The monarch invites De Gaulle to negotiate. The two come to a compromise in that the monarch will stay only as the ceremonial head of state while the actual governance is done by a democratic government. In the interim, De Gaulle is appointed prime minister of the Interim government.

The monarch/or his successors manage to play off politics to prevent their unpopularity causing an abolition long enough to get to the point where most French just acquiesce to monarchy; thus setting the French monarchy on a new level of stability.

First, France was an occupied zone, so the chance of ousting a leader and switching side would be big fat zero. The Germans would have simply moved in and arrest him. Alternatively, he would have simply become a new collaborationist leader.

Second, look, IOTL, there was no attempt to differentiate actual collaborators from mere Revolution Nationale supporters following liberation - they were treated as the same.

In the end, Henri would have been viewed as a collaborator and would have kissed restoration goodbye.

 

[NedStark]

Initially after the Vichy Regime was established, the Third Republic with its history of unstable government was seen as discredited by many, but the abject failure of the Vichy Regime subsequently helped to comparatively polish the image of the Third Republic, as a sort of resilient entity that kept on for as long as it could until the Nazis took over. Prior to that it was seen as a dysfunctional mess, looked upon cynically sort of like the Second Republic which grew unpopular toward its end (actually from its outset too).

However, not many wanted to do away with the republic as a concept, most just aimed to replace the Third with a different one, and monarchists & monarchist sympathizers were certainly few by that period. The Third Republic did succeed in making Republicanism part of French identity.

If he joins de Gaulle, he'd be riding along the coat tails of him, which would considerably boost his standing similar to how the monarchists got a boost in support from Boulanger's rise in popularity.

The difference is that the monarchist base was stronger in Boulanger’s time. By the 1930s-1940s, their base was weak and small and totally discredited after the war. Plus, the majority of the Resistance movement/French Forces of the Interior (which formed the majority of the French Army after Normandy) were republican and a large part were Socialists and Communists.

It does not help that the monarchists agreed with the Vichy regime in terms of ideological principles - which means it is hard for them not to become collaborators, it was essentially their wet dream.

 

[Imperador Pedro III]

Plus, the majority of the Resistance movement/French Forces of the Interior (which formed the majority of the French Army after Normandy) were republican and a large part were Socialists and Communists.

Would post-WW2 French society be more amenable to a Bonapartist restoration than to a Borboun/Orleans due to the reasons you exposed? The Borboun regime imposed on France after the end of the Napoleonic Wars has some similatiries to Vichy France and this would probably not go unnoticed.

Besides, the implications of Free France coming back from the grave, landing on France and liberating it from the Germans is also in paralel to what Napoleon did during his escape from Elba. Maybe a good POD for this could be Napoleon VI managing to link with De Gaulle on London instead of being imprisoned by the Germans.

A liberal monarchy under the House of Bonarparte has much more in common with the zeitgeist of post-war France than anything that the Borbouns and the Orleans could offer. The later could only becomes monarchs due to a pre-war right-wing coup or by virtue of Germany winning WW2.

 

[da Racontor]

It does not help that the monarchists agreed with the Vichy regime in terms of ideological principles - which means it is hard for them not to become collaborators, it was essentially their wet dream.

How much of the collaborate's promotion of Catholicism was only a tool to gain support though?

The Third Republic had already proven it was not interested in working with anything that was publicly Catholic.

Having a third, actual Catholic friendly opinion, may undercut collaborator support.
Sure, it probably won't change the mind of OTL collaborator politicians, but it might effect their support based.

Anything to this effect would have to be an early POD rather than later though to fit the OP. To late & their won't be enough monarchist to overcome both republicans & collaborationists.

 

[Declan]

The problem with this is that Romania at least was allied with Germany, was still a sovereign state.

France under the Vichy Regime was more or less an autonomous province of Germany with tenuous control of the South

Which is why I would imagine this move only be pulled maybe a day or two before Allied troops start entering the country. They just need to take control of the Southern coast and it's ports to give the Allies an easier time.

The Vichy regime alienated any other potential supporters it could have drawn into its column by bending over backwards to accommodate German demands.

It's not that the Vichy government sought out monarchists and the latter aligned with the former. But rather a handful of monarchists managed to bother Petain enough to do it.

The problem with this is that by that time, the allies didn't really consider the Vichy Regime the legitimate government of France. The time for that was gone, and if the Vichy regime wanted recognition, the time for that was somewhere between 1940-1941 as by 42' the allies were helping de Gaulle assert Free France's control over its colonial Empire.

I don't think it's a question of whether the Allies conisder the Vichy government legitimate. It's that there exists a political actor that, if things go right, can allow them to bypass a costly invasion.
It would even give them the element of surpise. By 1944, Italy had been invaded already. So the mass movement of Allied troops into the Southern Mediterranean, if the Germans detect it, would not give them a clue that the Allies are going to be entering Europe through a new country. They would probably guess that the Allies are prepring for a major push in Italy, which ironically might cause them to decrease the number of troops in Vichy France.

Ngl the better chance the monarchists have is to not be associated with the reviled Vichy regime, something almost everyone today universally despises. In political circles you can find an audience/group engaging in discourse regarding most French governments and eras, but when it comes to the Vichy regime, its looked at almost universally as a shameful period.

Given the scale of what I imagine would be done, I think the monarch's actions would supercede his association with collaborators. If no switch sides happens, then yes, the restoration being swept away is likely

First, France was an occupied zone, so the chance of ousting a leader and switching side would be big fat zero. The Germans would have simply moved in and arrest him. Alternatively, he would have simply become a new collaborationist leader.

If done swiftly enough, Allied troops would just make to shore before Germans arrives to retaliate.

Second, look, IOTL, there was no attempt to differentiate actual collaborators from mere Revolution Nationale supporters following liberation - they were treated as the same.

In the end, Henri would have been viewed as a collaborator and would have kissed restoration goodbye.

I think by helping out the Aliies in such a decisive way, he can counteract any negativity associated with collaboration. Regardless, at the end of the war, you have a situation were non insignificant portion of France is controlled by the Vichy government. The Free French and the Vichy monarchy in this ATL would come to a negotiated settlement.

 

[Seandineen]

What did other resistance leaders like Jean Moulin and Henri Giard think about the monarchical idea?

 

[Basileus_Komnenos]

Henri Giard think about the monarchical idea?

Considering how Darlan refused a Vichy plot for an Orleanist coup, he's out.

Girard might have been a potential collaborator had he taken over instead of De Gaulle.

Though if Vichy never forms, you'd have essentially Moulin, de Gaulle, Girard and admiral Darlan all working together. De Gaulle had monarchist leaning/sympathies for sure, I'm not sure about the others. Though for a more united "Free France" you'd probably need a pod where Reynaud lives and decides to flee with the likes of De Gaulle.

Reynaude was generally conservative leaning, so under the right circumstances he might have been amenable to a monarchist restoration.

 

[NedStark]

If done swiftly enough, Allied troops would just make to shore before Germans arrives to retaliate

No, this kind of action would not be possible, not after Case Anton when the Germans occupied Vichy and dissolved its military. And note that not long after Case Anton the Allies recognized Free France as the legitimate government.

The worst case scenario for Henri in your scenario would be Resistance members (especially the Communists) dragging him out on the streets, beating him to death and hanging him on the lamp post before DeGaulle could intervene.

I think by helping out the Aliies in such a decisive way, he can counteract any negativity associated with collaboration. Regardless, at the end of the war, you have a situation were non insignificant portion of France is controlled by the Vichy government. The Free French and the Vichy monarchy in this ATL would come to a negotiated settlement

Vichy had no military after Anton, other than well, the Milice. He would have been associated with collaboration by the French people and resistance members. DeGaulle would have also told him to pound sand. The best deal for him would have been not being executed.

Though for a more united "Free France" you'd probably need a pod where Reynaud lives and decides to flee with the likes of De Gaulle.

Reynaude was generally conservative leaning, so under the right circumstances he might have been amenable to a monarchist restoration.

Note that if Reynaud (and Daladier who IOTL actually fled to Algeria) successfully escaped, they would have formed a Third Republic Government-in-exile. That government would have been recognized by Britain and the US, thus kissing Restoration goodbye. Btw Reynaud was a republican, so nope, no restoration - don’t forget that there were more conservative republicans than monarchists.

 

[HyperMuscularDemon]

Maybe a monarchist ruler could gain popular support by stirring up anti German sentiment around the time of Nazi Germany, and use the support and restore the French Monarchy.

 

[Seandineen]

Intriguing. I have always felt France has an imperial heart in its republican flesh.

 

[yulzari1]

Perhaps a POD whereby post war France becomes fearful of an over powerful Presidential role and moves towards a Prime Minister as the executive head drawn from the elected representatives so looks for a neutral nominal Head of State to carry out the ceremonial and public face of France. The Orleanists are incapable of seizing power but have a history and a fan base to fit them to perform that duty so France becomes a modern European monarchy in that the monarch has no executive power other than public influence and actual power is in the hands of the parliamentary representatives.

Thus it is the King who struts the stage with the Royal (ex Republican) Guard and all the bling and the Prime Minister who does the work from his offices and some comfortable but modest home. The Monarchy representing the continuity of French history and culture into the future whilst the Prime Minister represents the day to day administration. One looks particularly to the North Sea modern monarchies as a model of stability. It also gives a certain style to the image of the State.

 

[Seandineen]

The legion of honnour turned into a knighthood. Titles intrigue me,

 

[da Racontor]

I just thought of an idea, I want to be clear though, I don't think this is very likely, especially on it's own. But it is an interesting idea from a story standpoint.

Through some foreign "shenanigans" France appears to elect a pro-German government. The government is hated, but as far as anyone knows at the time, they were legally elected.

You get the typical riots & so forth.

But what ends up happening is that the republicans are split between being stuck with supporting the republic & their anti-German sentiments.

This internal conflict gets to the point where those who are actively against the pro-German government are willing to ally with the monarchist just to remove the pro-German government. With the monarchist, they declare the republican government illegitimate in an attempt to bypassing the pro-Germans.

Whatever shady dealings that led to the pro-German government being elected isn't uncovered until well after the new monarchy is restored. And thus doesn't effect anything.

 

[Basileus_Komnenos]

Note that if Reynaud (and Daladier who IOTL actually fled to Algeria) successfully escaped, they would have formed a Third Republic Government-in-exile. That government would have been recognized by Britain and the US, thus kissing Restoration goodbye. Btw Reynaud was a republican, so nope, no restoration - don’t forget that there were more conservative republicans than monarchists.

Yeah you're probably right about that.

Though what about a pre-ww1 pod? Instead of riding on the coattails of Boulanger, what about 1899? This would be from the aftermath of the Dreyfus affair where not long after the death of President Faure, (actually right before his funeral) Paul Déroulède, conspired with the generals Gauderique Roget and Georges de Pellieux to try and stage a coup d'etat on the 23rd of February but Pellieux lost his nerve which caused Roget to stay loyal to the Republic much to the consternation of Déroulède who all but begged Roget to launch a coup. The coup most likely would have thrown the Third Republic into chaos which would have given an opportunity for the Orleanists along with other monarchists to seize the new opportunity in front of them. The Bonapartists up until the death of Victor Napoleon's father, were still quite divided and old wounds had to heal.

Tbh the coup was bound to be a mess if not an abject failure as Déroulède was not in favor of a monarchy, but more or less wanted a Republican dictatorship. This could provide breathing room for the monarchists to decry the Third Republic's "failings" and take power ushering in an orleanist restoration.

Of course the monarchy might get overthrown during the interwar years similar to what happened to the Spanish monarchy which could end up with the monarchists being a more potent force in France allowing for an eventual restoration after WW2.

Perhaps a POD whereby post war France becomes fearful of an over powerful Presidential role and moves towards a Prime Minister as the executive head drawn from the elected representatives so looks for a neutral nominal Head of State to carry out the ceremonial and public face of France. The Orleanists are incapable of seizing power but have a history and a fan base to fit them to perform that duty so France becomes a modern European monarchy in that the monarch has no executive power other than public influence and actual power is in the hands of the parliamentary representatives.

Thus it is the King who struts the stage with the Royal (ex Republican) Guard and all the bling and the Prime Minister who does the work from his offices and some comfortable but modest home. The Monarchy representing the continuity of French history and culture into the future whilst the Prime Minister represents the day to day administration. One looks particularly to the North Sea modern monarchies as a model of stability. It also gives a certain style to the image of the State.

Tbh its hard to conceive of a monarchy's role in this new France. Despite the ceremonial stance of the British monarchy, there was still an air of divine providence with it being stressed during the coronation rituals that the British monarchs were "transfigured" into something sacred, reigning by "Grace of God." The Orleanist idea of the "Citizen King"s sort of flies in the face of that.

But then again, they could probably wed the two concepts together. De Gaulle being a prominent Catholic probably would try to restore the Concordat of Napoelon, being astutely aware of the history and role of monarchy's symbolism and ceremonies in France.

Depending on how de Gaulle plays this, he might take on the title of "Grand Constable" of France. Though for this you'd need to change up how the post war government which led to the creation of the Fourth Republic was setup probably with de Gaulle outmaneuvering rivals like the socialists and taking over the government Napoleon style.

Then again this might lead to agitation from the Communists which could worry the UK and US who might nudge de Gaulle to do something before it gets out of hand.

I just thought of an idea, I want to be clear though, I don't think this is very likely, especially on it's own. But it is an interesting idea from a story standpoint.

Through some foreign "shenanigans" France appears to elect a pro-German government. The government is hated, but as far as anyone knows at the time, they were legally elected.

You get the typical riots & so forth.

But what ends up happening is that the republicans are split between being stuck with supporting the republic & their anti-German sentiments.

This internal conflict gets to the point where those who are actively against the pro-German government are willing to ally with the monarchist just to remove the pro-German government. With the monarchist, they declare the republican government illegitimate in an attempt to bypassing the pro-Germans.

Whatever shady dealings that led to the pro-German government being elected isn't uncovered until well after the new monarchy is restored. And thus doesn't effect anything.

Tbh it would have been political suicide at that time to run on a "pro-German" platform.

 

[da Racontor]

Tbh it would have been political suicide at that time to run on a "pro-German" platform.

That's why I mentioned it would have to be some sort shenanigans going on. There would probably have to be some sort of foreign rigging going on. How they would be able to do that, I have no idea, I doubt they would actually be able to.

 

[Declan]

No, this kind of action would not be possible, not after Case Anton when the Germans occupied Vichy and dissolved its military. And note that not long after Case Anton the Allies recognized Free France as the legitimate government.

Vichy had no military after Anton, other than well, the Milice. He would have been associated with collaboration by the French people and resistance members.

Ok, I will concede on that point.