As we all know the rise of the Third French Empire was one of the biggest surprises of the mid 20th century. After France was overrun and occupied by the Germans, Emperor Napoleon VI emerged as the face of France where he coordinated the continued resistance against the Nazis with the cooperation of the colonies and the allies. Him personally commanding operations also made him very popular among the French public. His military skill also made the French Resistance (the remnants of the French Military) a formidable force to the Germans.

Without Emperor Napoleon VI, supposing he dies in battle or is captured, who would lead the French Resistance? Emperor Napoleon VI was almost killed by a German sniper at the Battle of Paris in otl.

Without the Third Empire, what would be the fate of France's Colonial Possessions in the modern day? France still is major power today thanks to the retention of most of its colonial Empire which was preserved by the reforms of the Third Empire. Is it possible that would France actually lose its colonies in an alternate timeline?

If France isn't under an Emperor, would France emerge as a monarchy under the Orleanists perhaps? Could Jean d'Orleans have managed to take the reigns of France as King Jean III, or would the Legtimists restore the Bourbons to the throne with Infante Jaime as King Henri VI?

Would France instead become a Republic again? In otl the Third Republic was largely discredited by the loss of France to the Nazis in WWII. How would international relations be affected by a fourth Republic rather than there being a Third Empire.

How do you see Germany evolving in this alternate timeline? France under Napoleon VI managed to regain the Rhineland for France while Germany remained divided until the late 90's as a shell of its former self. Would Germany emerge as a strong economic power in a world without the Third French Empire?
 
Last edited:
Regardless of who comes out on top, I think France would retain the overseas empire. Really calling it colonial does it, its people, and administration, a disservice. The overseas troops won equality in the resistance and Colonial Apartheid was beyond discredited by the nazis and japanese. Anyone with sense would grant equal rights and begin proper building of the overseas citizens. Though Britain's is harder to maintain without the civil rights napolean IV pushed for, since it lost india and canada so soon after, leaving it with less than France...

As for other candidates, I dont think any other monarchical claimants would try anything but the Bourbon. Which, while it would mean interesting things for Spain, (assuming they retain the neo-absolutism of Franco and Jaun Carlos like otl) wouldn't go over as well as otl. The bonaparte are synonymous with the french revolution and all the glory, equality, and European dominance it entails, with none of the chaos and defeat of the republics. Anyone else would be seen as establishment kings who care only for themselves. Especially since no way in hell they'd lead the charge personally.

Germany would probably be "democratic," instead of the deindustrialized duchies of otl only allowed to reunite into the Kingdom of Lesser Germania in 98 tbh.

But I wonder what happens to the Static War. Otl, western Europe fell out with the Americans who pushed for decolonization while europe favored civil rights and integration. Similarly China and the Soviets fell out after China's failures in Korea and indochina. Ultimately we were left with a quad polar world until the Soviets collapsed in 92. Could a weaker france and Britain mean china's raw numbers carry the day and spread the revolution?
 
The overseas troops won equality in the resistance and Colonial Apartheid was beyond discredited by the nazis and japanese. Anyone with sense would grant equal rights and begin proper building of the overseas citizens.
Algeria when France classified its overseas possessions as colonies, was considered to part of the mainland French government. They simply extended the French system to its colonies. Plus this was easier for France since most of its colonies were Francophone and more geographically contiguous. The Trans Sahara Railroad that was later build in French Africa after the push for integration helped with integration and tying up France's overseas possessions together. The French Propaganda posters depicting the Algerian troops as loyal French Imperials helped launch the idea for universal citizenship within the Empire.

Would a French Republic or a restored French Kingdom have the political impetus to do this? Or would they only extend citizenship to Catholics only or restrict it to just the Pied Noirs. Would a Fourth Republic be able to muster enough public support in the National Assembly for the Trans-Saharan Railroad. In otl it was very expensive, and it was heavily reliant on the backing of the Emperor and in turn the army for its completion.

Though Britain's is harder to maintain without the civil rights napolean IV pushed for, since it lost india and canada so soon after, leaving it with less than France...
France and Britain faced huge losses from the Second World War. Though Napoleon VI continuing the fight from North Africa, and the subsequent reprisals in France by the Nazis helped spur French Revanchism and more support towards the Partisans in WWII. The British Empire unlike France however depended on India which was its most valuable colony. The Loss of India and the loss of public support for the old Empire after the scarring of WWII made the collapse of the British Empire inevitable. France on the other hand saw a boost in the notion of monarchism and the old Napoleonic style of Imperialism. This was something that the Bonapartists used to great effect against the Germans. Napoleonic victories like the Battle of Jena was played up tremendously.

As for other candidates, I dont think any other monarchical claimants would try anything but the Bourbon.
The Infante Jaime was deaf though because of a childhood operation so that might hamper them. I feel like French Nationalists would be more likely to accept the House of Orleans who were more French than the Spanish line of Bourbons.

Which, while it would mean interesting things for Spain, (assuming they retain the neo-absolutism of Franco and Jaun Carlos like otl) wouldn't go over as well as otl.
Spain is an interesting case actually. They're one of the few de-facto absolute monarchical states in Europe besides the French Empire itself. Though in the case French Empire, Napoleon VI had a Constitution put in place, but it basically enshrines the powers of the Emperor in a legal framework rather than actually limiting the powers of a monarch by forcing him to share it with a Legislature like other contemporary "Constitutional Monarchies."

Anyone else would be seen as establishment kings who care only for themselves. Especially since no way in hell they'd lead the charge personally.
While this earned Napoleon VI much acclamation and praise, his government practically begged him not to do it. Napoleon VI was insanely lucky that he wasn't killed by enemy artillery and sniper fire. Napoleon VI was the public face of the Empire, and should he have died in combat this might have allowed the Republicans to take advantage of the power vacuum to install a 4th Republic or keep Napoleon VI's Charles-Napoleon as a figurehead in a British style system.

Germany would probably be "democratic," instead of the deindustrialized duchies of otl only allowed to reunite into the Kingdom of Lesser Germania in 98 tbh.
What do you think the border and state of geopolitcs would be in Europe? With the collapse of the British Empire, France was the de-facto continental hegemon against the influence of the Soviets. Most of Europe resented the Soveits and thus fell into France's orbit with the US being estranged from France after it refused to disband its empire. Do you see the US more involved in Europe without the France filling in the void?

How might have been the occupation of Germany been different though with France under a Republic? Would France have been able to take the entire Rhineland like in otl?

What would happen to the Hohenzollerns? In otl they managed to take the title of German Kings but their powers were greatly reduced? Could the Wittlesbachs or perhaps the Austrian Hapsburgs fill this role.

Ultimately we were left with a quad polar world until the Soviets collapsed in 92. Could a weaker france and Britain mean china's raw numbers carry the day and spread the revolution?
The question is whether China would go Communist like in otl, or would the Nationalists somehow manage to eek out a victory?
 
Last edited:
The question is whether China would go Communist like in otl, or would the Nationalists somehow manage to eek out a victory?
I fail to see how it could wind up any different. Otl, the nationalists got as much support as possible from the remnants of the japanese army, and France (for the price of western Hainan of course...) and still lost due to the Nationalists being so despised, brutal, and incompetent, even before the Soviets started interfering. Good luck.

As for the German state under a Republican French thumb? I imagine America and Britain would be the dominant powers in the occupation. Republics are harder to establish than monarchies and it requires more political power. A France establishing another republic and trying to learn the lessons of the other ones would be so beyond screwed it can't be expressed, and might actually lose the colonies (this is why I didn't touch on it in my original post; I have no idea what that could mean)
 

Arlos

Donor
One of the major roadblock recognized today to the greater integrations of French colonies was the unwillingness of the French people to share the power they got from democracy, aka, the vote, with people they considered as « outsiders », needless to say, locals people resented this, a lot. So once Napoleon established Autocratic rule it lessened tension and resistance a lot, all that was left after that was to bring up living standard across the Empire.
Well, that is the take of Historian at least.
 
As for the German state under a Republican French thumb? I imagine America and Britain would be the dominant powers in the occupation. Republics are harder to establish than monarchies and it requires more political power. A France establishing another republic and trying to learn the lessons of the other ones would be so beyond screwed it can't be expressed, and might actually lose the colonies (this is why I didn't touch on it in my original post; I have no idea what that could mean)
Suppose this Fourth Republic managed to shirk off American influence like the Empire did in otl. How would it finance the recovery and reconstruction of mainland France itself. Would it receive Marshal Plan aid? The French Empire only managed a recovery thanks to the integration of colonies and restructuring of the Empire allowing for resources to flow in. The newly discovered oil also helped the French. If this hypothetical Fourth Republic also found oil would this be enough motivation for it to try and retain its overseas holdings?

What would result from French Indochina?


One of the major roadblock recognized today to the greater integrations of French colonies was the unwillingness of the French people to share the power they got from democracy, aka, the vote, with people they considered as « outsiders », needless to say, locals people resented this, a lot. So once Napoleon established Autocratic rule it lessened tension and resistance a lot, all that was left after that was to bring up living standard across the Empire.
Would something like this have been achievable in Britain? There were talks of an Imperial Federation/Commonwealth being created. Some in the military saw France as a model but this was shot down in Parliament.
 

Arlos

Donor
Would something like this have been achievable in Britain? There were talks of an Imperial Federation/Commonwealth being created. Some in the military saw France as a model but this was shot down in Parliament.
I’d say it depend on the competences of the ruler, a system is only as good as the people who uphold it after all, Napoleon VI was scarily competent, frankly put, what he achieved was nothing short of a miracle, he was the Einstein of administration, military matters and politic, and I doubt we will see another like him anytime soon.
Perhaps Britain could have succeeded in holding onto a reduced Empire, something like Canada, Australia, New-Zealand and perhaps South Africa since they had much more in common culturally, anymore would have taken a Napoleon VI like person.
 
But I wonder what happens to the Static War. Otl, western Europe fell out with the Americans who pushed for decolonization while europe favored civil rights and integration. Similarly China and the Soviets fell out after China's failures in Korea and indochina. Ultimately we were left with a quad polar world until the Soviets collapsed in 92. Could a weaker france and Britain mean china's raw numbers carry the day and spread the revolution?

Well, I imagine that Communist China would be massively more powerful. OTL, Napoleon VI rushed seven divisions to Korea in 1951, ensuring that Pyongyang fell a few months later. Then, he viciously clamped down on Communist insurgency in Indochina. Without the Third Empire, both the Korean and Indochinese conflicts might've gone differently.
 
I’d say it depend on the competences of the ruler, a system is only as good as the people who uphold it after all, Napoleon VI was scarily competent, frankly put, what he achieved was nothing short of a miracle, he was the Einstein of administration, military matters and politic, and I doubt we will see another like him anytime soon.
Perhaps Britain could have succeeded in holding onto a reduced Empire, something like Canada, Australia, New-Zealand and perhaps South Africa since they had much more in common culturally, anymore would have taken a Napoleon VI like person.
I dunno, Louis XIX, while not his father by any stretch, has been a long reigning and powerful king, managing to conquer Rhodesia and enforce a not horribly racist order in the duchy. And his son, Charles, looks to be close to his grandfather in terms of capacity, at least in financial stability if not in establishing a new government
 
I’d say it depend on the competences of the ruler, a system is only as good as the people who uphold it after all, Napoleon VI was scarily competent, frankly put, what he achieved was nothing short of a miracle, he was the Einstein of administration, military matters and politic, and I doubt we will see another like him anytime soon.
I agree. But Napoleon VI managed to rule for 50+ years from 1940 after France fell to the Nazi menace, and until his death in 1997. During those many years in power, he manged to install strong institutions and a stable political apparatus meant to supplement the empire should the throne be held by a less than capable figure. He had to completely rework French administration after evacuating whatever remained of the French military and government. The Vichy Regime which was a puppet government for the Nazis while being a thorn in Napoleon's side, had many traditionalists and Bonapartists sympathetic to Napoleon. They were instrumental in French invasion of Toulon and their defection gave Napoleon VI an administrative structure to work with. They also spread pro-Bonapartist propaganda throughout France which helped drum up support for the restoration of the Third Empire. Napoleon was also pretty meritocratic in his administration, and the bravery of the French troops from North Africa and even as far and Indochina motivated him to push for Civil Rights. His attention to detail also made some historians compare him to Napoleon I. The Emperor after all kept up with developments in the Empire even on his deathbed. He still issued ordinances and dispatches even while on his deathbed. His loss left a great vaccum in France.

Hitler ordered Paris to be razed to the ground in response to the Allies invading from Normandy and Napoleon invading through Italy and Toulon. While the French forces managed to reach Paris before the operation could be carried out, a good portion of the city was badly damaged from the Nazi retaliatory strikes against the French Partisans and resistance movements. Hitler however managed to bomb Les Invalides where Napoleon I and Napoleon II were buried however most of the explosives failed to detonate leaving the building mostly intact with the tomb of the Emperor virtually unscathed.

This was pushed the French army's resolve and caused them to rapidly advance into Germany after France was secured. How do you think the German occupation would be different than otl? Some within France and among the Allied powers' government, wanted the Morgenthau plan to be implemented. This would have meant that Germany's industrial facilities and capabilities would have been systematically destroyed while it was forced to become an agrarian nation. This would have resulted in the deaths of millions had it actually been implemented.

Because of his own personal friendship with Wilhelm III which began after French troops entered Germany in 1945 He instead had Wilhelm installed as King of Germany in the French occupation zone of Germany while the UK and US zones merged into a federal Republic. Napoleon tried to have Eastern Germany and Eastern Prussia restored to Wilhelm III's rule but the Soveits refused to budge. Though Napoleon got to see his wish fullfilled after the USSR fell and Germany was restored under the Hohenzollerns.

How would the unification of Germany differ without Napoleon III's rump Kingdom of Germany? Would the Morgenthau plan be implemented or would Germany be divided into just a democratic West Germany and a Communist East Germany?

How would the Nazi occupation would have been different without Napoleon continuing the fight from North Africa? Who would be the face of France if Napoleon VI doesn't take up the mantle of Free France? How would a Fourth Republic manage to continue the fight from North Africa? Is it possible that a Communist led Commune of France emerges in the absence of Napoleon VI?

I dunno, Louis XIX,
OOC: Louis XIX? The current Legitimist claimant is Louis XX. Louis XIX was Charles X's son (duc d'Angouleme) who was King for 20 minutes after Charles X abdicated and argued with him to abdicate in favor of abdicating in favor of Henri V Comte de Chambourd. The main French line of the House of Bourbon died with him. The current claimants are from the Spanish branch. Who are you referring to when you say Louis IX? Do you mean Jean-Christophe Bonparte who's the grandson of Napoleon VI? I don't think the Bonpartes would go by the French Kingdom's count for names since the Empire was distinct entity from the French Kingdom.

while not his father by any stretch, has been a long reigning and powerful king, managing to conquer Rhodesia and enforce a not horribly racist order in the duchy. And his son, Charles, looks to be close to his grandfather in terms of capacity, at least in financial stability if not in establishing a new government
Napoleon VI while somewhat lacking in administrative matters compared to Napoleon VI, is still is a pretty good military commander thanks to his father having him gain military training early on. Now that Charles-Napoleon has attained the legal age of maturity, he likely will have more power delegated to him by his father as he gets older.

The conquest of Rhodesia though sent shock-waves throughout the UN and significantly soured relations with the US and UK. They even tried to pass a resolution condemning this but France along with the Russian Federation used their veto powers to block it. This did lead a warming of relations with the Russians who up until the fall of the USSR, were considered a major geopolitical threat to France.

How do you guys see Italy faring without the French Empire leading the its invasion?
 
Because of his own personal friendship with Wilhelm III which began after French troops entered Germany in 1945 He instead had Wilhelm installed as King of Germany in the French occupation zone of Germany while the UK and US zones merged into a federal Republic. Napoleon tried to have Eastern Germany and Eastern Prussia restored to Wilhelm III's rule but the Soveits refused to budge. Though Napoleon got to see his wish fullfilled after the USSR fell and Germany was restored under the Hohenzollerns.

How would the unification of Germany differ without Napoleon III's rump Kingdom of Germany? Would the Morgenthau plan be implemented or would Germany be divided into just a democratic West Germany and a Communist East Germany?

How would the Nazi occupation would have been different without Napoleon continuing the fight from North Africa? Who would be the face of France if Napoleon VI doesn't take up the mantle of Free France? How would a Fourth Republic manage to continue the fight from North Africa? Is it possible that a Communist led Commune of France emerges in the absence of Napoleon VI?


How do you guys see Italy faring without the French Empire leading the its invasion?
Ultimately I doubt Germany would exist. Without the autocracy, france would be in too much chaos to take the Rhineland, and Napoleon letting Germany unite was the biggest controversy since claiming the empire, so I doubt a Republican Republican France would or could allow it.

The nazi occupation would be far more brutal, since Napoleon's empire drew in a lot of french nationalists and they fought mostly in north Africa at Napoleon's behest- my great grandfather once told me he heard him on the radio in north Africa.

"We can save the homeland, but if the french people are wiped out it will not be our home. Those who seek to fight, come to me in Algiers, where the allies and I can help you. To those of you who do not wish to endanger yourselves, cooperate with the occupation for now."

But if Napoleon isnt encouraging those who wish to fight come to him and the new resistance leaders arent as cautionary about resisting the occupation, then the people will revolt an be crushed
 

Dolan

Banned
How would the unification of Germany differ without Napoleon III's rump Kingdom of Germany? Would the Morgenthau plan be implemented or would Germany be divided into just a democratic West Germany and a Communist East Germany?
I might go against the grain here, but without Kingdom of Bavaria adopting "we speak German but we are not German, just like Austria" attitude, they would be reintegrated into The Unified Germany.

The Germany OTL was called Kingdom of "Lesser" Germany because Bavarian Parliament refused the unification proposal and proclaimed the Wittelsbachs as Kings again instead of Dukes, rather than once again bowing down to the Hohenzollerns, same goes with Austria who almost tried to upshot the Habsburg as Emperor again, but this time they realized it would be a laughingstock of The World and settle for Kings instead.

I would bet that without French backing Bavaria, Germany would settle into the Fourth Reich (or Third Kaiserreich) instead of "not large enough to be Reich" and hence "The Lesser".
 
I might go against the grain here, but without Kingdom of Bavaria adopting "we speak German but we are not German, just like Austria" attitude, they would be reintegrated into The Unified Germany.

The Germany OTL was called Kingdom of "Lesser" Germany because Bavarian Parliament refused the unification proposal and proclaimed the Wittelsbachs as Kings again instead of Dukes, rather than once again bowing down to the Hohenzollerns, same goes with Austria who almost tried to upshot the Habsburg as Emperor again, but this time they realized it would be a laughingstock of The World and settle for Kings instead.

I would bet that without French backing Bavaria, Germany would settle into the Fourth Reich (or Third Kaiserreich) instead of "not large enough to be Reich" and hence "The Lesser".
I mean Hungary raised the Hapsburgs back to their throne after the iron curtain fell Croatia did in 05, so the Danubian Kingdom isn't doing to bad, all things considered.

THANKS COMMUNISM! Without you being so awful, the Chin Empire wouldn't have been reborn!
 

Dolan

Banned
THANKS COMMUNISM! Without you being so awful, the Chin Empire wouldn't have been reborn!

Well, after the fall of Communist China, they did split into several camps, The earliest one that everyone bet for reunifying China is obviously the American-backed Republic of China, who managed to go from Taiwan only to took over Fujian, Jiangxi, Zhejiang, Anhui, and Jiangsu.

Too bad, British-backed, Hong-Kong based Cantonese Confederation and Lamaist State of Tibet refused to join with Republic of China out of spite for Kuomintang dominance, The Western Part becoming Republic of East Turkestan independently, and French-and-Japanese backed Qing Dynasty Restoration under Emperor Pujie managed to control the greater Northern Half of China, including Beijing and almost took Shanghai, before the infamous standoff with American and ROC Army occured in 1989.

Today the split of China, and subsequent gifting of the UN security council seat to the neutral Persian Empire as a forced compromise, is one of the biggest point of hostility between Americans and Europeans.

The Siege of Shanghai is still a sensitive topic, even now.
 
I might go against the grain here, but without Kingdom of Bavaria adopting "we speak German but we are not German, just like Austria" attitude, they would be reintegrated into The Unified Germany.
This was a pragmatic move that both Britain and France supported so that Germany wouldn’t be strong enough to upset the balance of power again. Perhaps in an alternate scenario Bavaria might join out of self interest as they'd dominate this German Empire. Out of all the German states, Bavaria has the largest population.

Though in otl thanks to the speed of the French invasion, Napoleon VI was able to get Pomerania and Eastern Prussia as a part of Eastern Germany. He did this as a nod to Wilhelm III who also kept the titular title of King of Prussia. Stalin apparently had plans of giving those lands to Poland as compensation for it taking the Eastern bits of the country. This contributed to the great Polish uprising of 1958 and the East German uprising of 1960 in favor of King Wilhelm IV (Louis-Ferdinand). These uprisings were directly funded and supplied by French agents and were brutally crushed by the Soviets. This incident almost sparked a Third World War due to the fervent Anti-Communist stance of Napoleon VI. His public ceremony for the Last of the Romanovs was a deliberate insult to the Soviet Premier. Napoleon also made a point of funding monarchist groups like he did with the Brazilian Imperial Family which saw their restoration in 1964. They served as a key ally to the French Empire which was worried about the growing influence of the US. The US and USSR both being against the old European Empires also saw them united against Napoleon during his interventions in the Middle East and Africa.

Without the French Empire how would the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe be affected? Would they hold it under their iron rule for even longer without a strong neighboring power serving as a counterbalance to their influence? Would the US emerge to rival the Soviets here in Europe? How would such an arrangement work out with the US being so distant from Continental Europe?

The Germany OTL was called Kingdom of "Lesser" Germany because Bavarian Parliament refused the unification proposal and proclaimed the Wittelsbachs as Kings again instead of Dukes, rather than once again bowing down to the Hohenzollerns
The Bavarian Kingdom was a part of the German Empire. There were other constituent Kingdoms like the Kingdom of Saxony under the rule of the German Emperor who was also King of Prussia.

OOC: I can see the Bavarians not wanting to have the lesser title and status of being a Duchy, so they refuse to join the Kingdom of Germany.

same goes with Austria who almost tried to upshot the Habsburg as Emperor again, but this time they realized it would be a laughingstock of The World and settle for Kings instead.
The Austrians just reverted back to the title of Archduke (equivalent to King) after the war. No one wanted another German Empire. Although feelings withing Germany towards the old Empire became more nostalgic after the devastation from WWII, the other Great Powers did not want another militaristic Germany rising to try and dominate Europe again.

Though the Hapbsburgs were successful in retaining their rule as Kings of Bohemia thanks to the backing of France who wanted to build its own set of alliances to counterbalance the Warsaw Pact and US led series of alliances. Would the Hapsburgs have been able to retain Bohemia in a world without a French Empire, or would a Czech Republic emerge instead?

I would bet that without French backing Bavaria, Germany would settle into the Fourth Reich (or Third Kaiserreich) instead of "not large enough to be Reich" and hence "The Lesser".
I doubt they would call themselves the Fourth Reich as they wouldn't want to portray themselves as the successor to the Third Reich that saw Germany brought to ruin. Maybe just the Kaissereich would work.

I mean Hungary raised the Hapsburgs back to their throne after the iron curtain fell Croatia did in 05, so the Danubian Kingdom isn't doing to bad, all things considered.
Hungary during the Interwar period saw a surge of Royalist support. There was a chance of a restored Austria-Hungary as Kaiser Karl I never formally abdicated his throne. Even Mussolini before Hitler annexed Austria, sought to creat a rump Austria-Hungary as a counterbalance to Germany.

The whole concept of the Danubian Kingdom was to serve as a provisional government before the Empire was restored with the Crowns of Austria, Hungary, Croatia, and Bohemia United under the Hapsburgs.

Unlike the other uprisings in Eastern Europe, the Hungarian revolt was successful as it was closer to France. This allowed Napoleon VI to basically install Otto von Habsburg as King. This paved the way for the reconstitution of Austria Hungary as the Imperial Habsburg Commonwealth reflecting the Empire’s federal nature with there being four United Kingdom’s rather than it being just the Crown of Austria and Hungary.

What would be the fate of Hungary without Imperial France being there to directly challenge the USSR? Could an Austria-Hungary be resurrected peacefully or by democratic means?

Napoleon as a punishment for Italy stripped it of its gains in the Balkans during the occupation. He even considered annexing Piedmont and Genoa like Napoleon I did but only relented after fierce opposition from the other allied powers and a special delegation by the Pope. Italy’s harsh treatment in OTL led to a Communist uprising that would have resulted in a Civl War had it not been for the King’s Royal Army cracking down and restoring order.

How do you think Italy would fare in otl? Would the monarchy have stayed in power, or would it have emerged as Republic?

What would happen to its colonies? Italian Libya has a sizeable minority of Italians. France however annexed thos territories into the Empire as compensation for Italian attacking France.

Too bad, British-backed, Hong-Kong based Cantonese Confederation and Lamaist State of Tibet refused to join with Republic of China out of spite for Kuomintang dominance, The Western Part becoming Republic of East Turkestan independently, and French-and-Japanese backed Qing Dynasty Restoration under Emperor Pujie managed to control the greater Northern Half of China, including Beijing and almost took Shanghai, before the infamous standoff with American and ROC Army occured in 1989.
Puje's brother Puyi turned out to a monster and a tyrant who was executed by his own troops with his brother hailed as Emperor. The Japanese had initially intalled the House of Aisin Gioro (Qing Dynasty) as its puppets in the Empire of Manchukuo. Once the war turned against the Japanese Manchkuo was basically abandoned and set to be conquered by either the Chinese or the USSR. This was where Napoleon VI came in. Fearing the further expansion of Communism, France began sending in military advisors along with weapons and training to help resist the oncoming Soviet or Chinese attack. Because the USSR was tied in Berlin and Eastern Europe, France together with its forces in Indochina, were thus able to use the power vacuum to great benefit.

The new Sino-French army was a very competent force and together with French "volunteers," they were able to retake most of China. Though the situation is mostly in a standoff due to the other major powers adhering to the policy of Mutually Assured Destruction. Ever since the cooling of relations between France and the US over the issue of its Empire, the two powers were competing over influence along with the USSR. And though fighting has officially ended there are still occasional border skirmishes still going on.

Though I wonder how the situation would have been different if it was just the US and the USSR in a proxy war in China in world without the Third French Empire.

Too bad, British-backed, Hong-Kong based Cantonese Confederation and Lamaist State of Tibet refused to join with Republic of China
Though this confederation nominally recognizes the Suzzerainty of Queen Elizabeth II. Perhaps they might firmly be under British rule if China had completely been taken over by the Communists. Though I doubt it would be stable if either the nationalists of the Communists somehow manage to win.

The Siege of Shanghai is still a sensitive topic, even now.
Well yeah this almost sparked WWIII among all three Great Powers. This standoff shocked the world.
 

Dolan

Banned
Well yeah this almost sparked WWIII among all three Great Powers. This standoff shocked the world.
President Clinton's declaration about how France, Britain, and Japan being "The Imperialist Axis of Evil" definitely made everyone realized that either:
* The Real Cold War was actually waged between Freedom and the old, but still dangerous Imperialism, with Communism being re-interpreted as well-meaning socialist utopianism (the American interpretation).
* Or Americans are Power-Hungry Corporatist Nuts pretending to be Democracy that tried to break World Stability for their own nefarious purposes, just like the now dysfunctional Communists (the European interpretation)

It is kind of weird seeing how quickly Americans, who just several years before was rather hostile to Soviet Union, quickly hosting the Soviet Union Government-In-Exile and befriending diehard Communists.
 
President Clinton's declaration about how France, Britain, and Japan being "The Imperialist Axis of Evil" definitely made everyone realized that either:
* The Real Cold War was actually waged between Freedom and the old, but still dangerous Imperialism, with Communism being re-interpreted as well-meaning socialist utopianism (the American interpretation).
* Or Americans are Power-Hungry Corporatist Nuts pretending to be Democracy that tried to break World Stability for their own nefarious purposes, just like the now dysfunctional Communists (the European interpretation)

It is kind of weird seeing how quickly Americans, who just several years before was rather hostile to Soviet Union, quickly hosting the Soviet Union Government-In-Exile and befriending diehard Communists.
It's far more nuanced than that. Ask the average yank if they'd rather live in Brittany or post-stalin crimea and most would say brittany, for instance.

Personally I'm an american, so I see a lot of the hypocrisy of new-imperial Europe (yeah we try to split countries apart France but at least we typically let them be after that, unlike your affairs in germany) BUT, ultimately if you look at it, the countries under French or British or even Japanese control tend to be more stable and able to work with the people without immediately breaking into revolution
 
It's far more nuanced than that. Ask the average yank if they'd rather live in Brittany or post-stalin crimea and most would say brittany, for instance.
Britanny enjoyed prosperity from the postwar French economic boom while Most of Eastern Europe stagnated under the occupation of the Soveits.

Personally I'm an american, so I see a lot of the hypocrisy of new-imperial Europe (yeah we try to split countries apart France but at least we typically let them be after that, unlike your affairs in germany) BUT, ultimately if you look at it, the countries under French or British or even Japanese control tend to be more stable and able to work with the people without immediately breaking into revolution
Well the subsequent collapse of the British Empire and the loss of Canada and Australia would be used by the French as a counterpoint to that. But France had to be ruthless and shrewd in order to make it out of the 20th century intact and as a great power, or that's at least the French perspective. How do you think the German occupation would have been resolved. Would the Iron Curtain extend further into Europe? Would perhaps Hungary and the restored Kingdom of Bohemia be under Soviet rule?

What do you think though was one of the darker aspects of French Neo-Imperialism? One thing that France is usually criticized for was its sometimes ruthless and aggressive foreign policy. France's takeover of Belgium and the entire Rhineland still is a source of contention between the various powers of Europe. Napoleon VI's authoritative style of rule is frequently denounced as dictatorial and tyrannical.
 
Britanny enjoyed prosperity from the postwar French economic boom while Most of Eastern Europe stagnated under the occupation of the Soveits.


Well the subsequent collapse of the British Empire and the loss of Canada and Australia would be used by the French as a counterpoint to that. But France had to be ruthless and shrewd in order to make it out of the 20th century intact and as a great power, or that's at least the French perspective. How do you think the German occupation would have been resolved. Would the Iron Curtain extend further into Europe? Would perhaps Hungary and the restored Kingdom of Bohemia be under Soviet rule?

What do you think though was one of the darker aspects of French Neo-Imperialism? One thing that France is usually criticized for was its sometimes ruthless and aggressive foreign policy. France's takeover of Belgium and the entire Rhineland still is a source of contention between the various powers of Europe. Napoleon VI's authoritative style of rule is frequently denounced as dictatorial and tyrannical.
I mean the Belgian empire was worse than Britain or France had been in a long, long time. Especially during the rebuilding of europe, so honestly i tend to let them go there. However, their support of filipino, puerto rican, and cuban revolutionaries was rather hypocritical at least and one of our only proxy wars. And the installation of Vladimir Putin as regent in the search for a new Romanov (though they're considering just crowning him emperor), insuring mighty mother Russia is indebted to them has had the US on edge and brought us a lot closer to the independent states in Asia like Japan or India.
 
Top