Arable land which still exists from Samara to Krasnoyarsk (albeit in smaller amounts), which is why the Soviets could support such "large" cities in Siberia; they can import too, which they also did OTL. Of course, that's not enough food or people to actually retake Moscow, St Petersburg or Volgograd, but definitely enough to make White Russia worried about such an event.
Good hypothesis, though I'll add that there are lots of things which can lead to the deaths of millions, and war is only one of them
If it isn't war then it's likely eugenics related or related to wars of colonialism, but with how you framed it it could be either one of the three (I'm don't think France is going to cause a pandemic lmao).
Or France doing artificial famines in Algeria or Indochina in response to the locals getting uppity.
That’s also a possibility, although if it’s by that metric the British also shed millions of innocent blood in Ireland and Burma, and I think the wording is too dramatic for it.
One thing that I am going to be leaning into in this story is that there is a huge spectrum between classical Conservatism and Fascism, and that you can be fascist but keep Conservative elements, and vice-versa. Portugal, for example, had fascist elements, but didn't consider themselves fascist, while Austria was nearly identical but many within Austria did and do see it as fascist. France doesn't have to go fascist to be considered pro-Mussolini, same as how the ostensibly Republican governments in Germany and France befriended the Soviets
On that note, with the Action Francaise being the dominant force in the French Right, I could see the main difference between a right-wing France and Fascist Italy in ideology being that while Italian Fascism is an ideology built around a "national revolution" and has roots in national-syndicalist thought while the right-wing regime in Paris is self-consciously reactionary in tone and rhetoric with its nostalgic views on the ancien regime and all that.
Somewhat, yes. Also, while Italian Fascism put a big emphasis on, like you said, the "national revolution", which idealised the formation of a new societal and governmental order, a (hypothetical) Far-Right French government would be more focused on purging the echoes of the old Revolution and forming a France envisioned as a successor to the ancien régime rather than a direct contrast to it. Monarchism was definitely present, but it seemed to never gain much ground with the common folk, in part because of the continuous debate over the ideal candidate.
Hmm that's interesting, I could see things getting very sketchy for France if they go too ham on centralisation, especially for regions like Brittany and Aquitaine where Breton and Occitan speakers would be chafing under French designs. I could very much see those regions have a lot more want for a separate state from France due to the centralisation.
It is actually very fascinating to me how, according to the 1936 electoral map, the areas most opposed to the Popular Front were Brittany, Alsace-Lorraine, and Corsica, the biggest minority regions. What they wanted was autonomy under a Catholic, Conservative government, but what was being pushed was either a Centralist, Communist one or a regionalist but French nationalist one. They really had no good options, and it sort of makes one understand why it took something worse, like the Nazis, to really break the idea of seperation
yeah without the insanity of the Nazis I think these secessionist movements would have a lot more steam and a lot more patrons ie. Germany to support them if the French fall far into conservatism and centralisation. It would be cool if we see the breaking of France during de-colonisation or an alt WWII where the French attack the germans out of desperation as they know doing nothing would only make their prospects worse.
Problem is that by the 1920-1930's, the Occitan speakers were already in severe decline with the Bretons not having it as bad but still going down and if we're being honest, it would just be a fascist Frace speedrunning what they were already doing to minority languages.
Seriously, France, which did not disintegrate in the Wars of Religion, the French Revolution, the end of Napoleon's Empire, the Revolution of 1832, the end of the monarchy in 1848, the Franco-Prussian war and the Paris Commune, will disintegrate due to "excess" of centralization?
My thoughts on it basically are that 'if Britain wants to punish France I don't think anyone will be able to stop them', and a lot of things could allow Britain to split the nation. At least corsica is doable if Britain is sufficiently angered, as is Brittany and Alsace-Lorraine.
I think it'd be similar to otl unless turkey is in WWII. their political system periodically loosens and tightens their control over the people, and I don't see things being different.
I don't see them doing that tbh, Britain always wanted powers strong enough in the continent to prevent the formation of a super country which could successfully overcome it, so while ITTL they have better relations with Germany and are very frustrated with the French, Britain wouldn't allow something like naked German annexation of her territories(especially because it would make them look like hypocrites who cried about the Saar but are willing to put the French in the same situation, again) nor would she want something like Brittany and Corsica to separate(as these territories would just vote themselves back into being French unless they're being held at gunpoint) because beyond only pissing off the closest thing they have to a major ally in the continent, would make them look even bigger hypocrites where they gain nothing and lose a lot.
To add to this, any war between Britain and France would most likely have Germany backing Britain, and in that case Britain really won't be in the position to dictate a peace deal since Germany would do all the fighting, unless somehow Germany was overrun. As said before, British Power in this era was about half-real, half-illusion based on precedent, so if Germany wants Alsace-Lorraine, Britain really can't do much to stop them. If, for some reason, Britain has to fight and beat the French alone, that's a different story, of course.
Well-said. Britain seems really cozy with Germany just based on our ability to contrast it to real life, but frankly all they've done is allow Germany to do something they would've already done anyway, just with the illusion of Britian having a say, and nodding their head while Germany legally annexed some land. They are hardly good chums, just... cordial.
I think this might also be just me, but I think that if push comes to shove, Britain would back France, they're easier to... Nudge in the right direction and having them be stronger is preferable to Germany being stronger(because they're not as easy to push around) and because France wouldn't be able to take significant territory outside of maybe the Saar, it would still leave Germany strong enough to act as counter against the USSR and keep the status quo in Central(and to a lesser extent, Eastern) Europe that only benefits Britain not having to intervene there.
People always say ww2 was what killed the big colonial empires but I would argue it was WW1 that did it as it put them into immense debt, loss of life and the use of colonial troops raised a generation of Africans and Asians that were to become politically active and demand more and more rights for their people. Even without a WW2, outside of some important colonies, maintaining the huge empires is not a viable thing, so there's something for Britain to stress over in places like the Raj or the Middle East.
I do agree that Germany prob would gain Alsace-Lorraine, but I do think they'll probably not agitate for anything more except Corsican independence/unification with Italy, which I doubt would happen considering how Germany don't care about Italy either. But if the germans want it, I see corsica as the most likely region outside of Alsace-Lorraine to be lost.
Is the federalisation of France with strong minority language laws a weakened France? It is definitely not run the way the French would want, but their power is still very much present.
probably yeah. I defo see a few factions calling for the full scale destruction of France while Lettow-Vorbeck would want a milder peace deal so France wouldn't go through what weimar Germany went through.
There's no nudging something into the right direction when they're going right off the deep end tho, which is what France would be post 1937, and even with French atrocities being in France proper, Algeria and Indochina I think the repercussions would make Britain move towards Germany. Britain can't exactly be allied with France who's either started WWII or attempted to commit genocide in either French territory or Algeria. The PR would be absolutely abysmal.
I think WWII definitely hastened the death of empire tho. Without the war I think Britain could've held on to some possessions for longer since they'd not be in debt and the Royal Navy would be in much better shape, even though I would agree with you that with nationalism and the spreading of industrialisation the days of empire are numbered.
