Plausibility Check: Großdeutschland in 1866

[Thucydides]

I've heard it said before that the second most likely time for German unification would be the Austro-Prussian war, and that if that occurred it would be possible for them to shoehorn Austria into a Großdeutschland scenario.

To me this seems unlikely, as far as I understand the events it seems rather difficult of the Prussians to basically annex all the German speaking parts of Austria as well as the rest of the German states. Besides this, what would happen to the rest of Austria? I admit that I do not know much about the politics of the time and would greatly appreciate it if someone could explain to me that this is, indeed, plausible.

[Rosenheim]

I find that the most likely case for an 1866 Großdeutschland scenario would be that of an Austrian victory in the Austro-Prussian war. It would need to be a large victory, to move the peace terms beyond realignment of the German spheres of influence.

France, which in OTL was willing to stay neutral in return for support in gaining Luxembourg, would then likely, seeing Prussia's inability to keep this arrangement, invade the Rhineland before the end of the war in hope of gaining some say in Post-War Germany.

As far as a Prussian lead Großdeutschland, I'm nost sure they had the amount of troops or the luck to win a Großdeutschland scenario.

[CivisOccidensSum]

Another factor: How would the Great Powers react to a pan-German union? IMHO, Britain and France (and Russia too, for that matter) would see this as a huge shift in the balance of power....and they wouldn't have let it fly.

[Eurofed]

It would not strictly happen that year for various reasons, but a good Italian performance in 1866 (Italian victory at Custoza, no battle of Lissa), with the Prussians doing just as well as OTL, has very good chances to start an event chain that collapses the Habsburg empire in a few years and causes the formation of Grossdeutchsland.

[Eurofed]

I find that the most likely case for an 1866 Großdeutschland scenario would be that of an Austrian victory in the Austro-Prussian war. It would need to be a large victory, to move the peace terms beyond realignment of the German spheres of influence.


In all likelihood, Austria is too weak in 1866 to unify Germany, even with a victory.


France, which in OTL was willing to stay neutral in return for support in gaining Luxembourg, would then likely, seeing Prussia's inability to keep this arrangement, invade the Rhineland before the end of the war in hope of gaining some say in Post-War Germany.


Indeed. French intervention would undo everything if Prussia or Austria get too daring in 1866. The obstacle it represents needs to be removed with a different war.


As far as a Prussian lead Großdeutschland, I'm nost sure they had the amount of troops or the luck to win a Großdeutschland scenario.

That is the reason why an Italian victory (which is rather easy as a PoD, it just requires a couple changes in the Italian high command, the quality of the army as a whole was good) is the most feasible way to do it. It provides extra success that is additional to and independen from the Prussian one.

[Thucydides]

It would not strictly happen that year for various reasons, but a good Italian performance in 1866 (Italian victory at Custoza, no battle of Lissa), with the Prussians doing just as well as OTL, has very good chances to start an event chain that collapses the Habsburg empire in a few years and causes the formation of Grossdeutchsland.

So better performance in 1866 could lead to a Großdeutschland later? What about a Small-Germany after a Prussian victory in 1866 with Austria being added later?

[Eurofed]

Another factor: How would the Great Powers react to a pan-German union? IMHO, Britain and France (and Russia too, for that matter) would see this as a huge shift in the balance of power....and they wouldn't have let it fly.


Another reason why it is better if a total Prusso-Italian victory in 1866 destabilizes Austria so much that the Habsurg empire collapses on its own in a few years. At that point, the opposition of France has been removed the usual way, on the battlefields of Sedan. Russia can be won over to a partition of Austria with the pespective of losing Austrian competition in the Balkans and a piece of the Habsburg booty (Galicia and Bukovina).

[Thucydides]

Another reason why it is better if a total Prusso-Italian victory in 1866 destabilizes Austria so much that the Habsurg empire collapses on its own in a few years. At that point, the opposition of France has been removed the usual way, on the battlefields of Sedan. Russia can be won over to a partition of Austria with the pespective of losing Austrian competition in the Balkans and a piece of the Habsburg booty (Galicia and Bukovina).

Is it still possible for Small-German unification to occur in 1866 though? Or does Prussia need more time to consolidate their power.

[Eurofed]

So better performance in 1866 could lead to a Großdeutschland later? What about a Small-Germany after a Prussian victory in 1866 with Austria being added later?

Yep. Basic event chain: Prussian victory at Sadowa and Italian victory at Custoza. Prussia gets OTL stuff, Saxony, Austrian Silesia, and northern-central Sudetenland; Italy gets Veneto, Trento, South Tyrol, Gorizia-Gradisca, and Dalmatia; Austria is thoroughly humiliated and destabilized. The NGF is created. The Ausgleich fails or proves ineffective. The Italo-Prussian alliance is confirmed. France goes to war with it over Luxemburg and Rome in 1867-68, and gets its butt on a plate. The German Empire is created. Germany gets Elsass-Lotharingen and Luxemburg. Italy gets Nice, Savoy, and Corsica. There is a surge of Pan-German sentiment among Austrian Germans, while the Hungarians get ever more restive. The Hasburg empire collapses and is partitioned between Germany (Austria proper, Bohemia-Moravia, Slovenia), Italy (Istria), Hungary (lands of St. Stephen, Croatia), and Russia (Galicia, Bukovina).

[Eurofed]

Is it still possible for Small-German unification to occur in 1866 though? Or does Prussia need more time to consolidate their power.

It needs a little more time to consolidate its power and another war to remove French opposition.

[Mirza Khan]

Here's an idea I had, after looking over some old threads.

Napoleon III is either more imperialistic (France falls under some sort of other right-wing imperialist government) and intervenes in the Austro-Prussian war of 1866. The Franco-Austrian alliance inflicts a major defeat against Prussia, which is effectively pared down to just historic Prussia, Brandenburg, and Pommeriania. Austria gets Silesia back, and France, in a moment of cleverness, gives the Rhineland and Westphalia to Bavaria (thus greatly enlarging Bavaria but also giving it a long border vulnerable to France-France hopes this threat will force Bavaria to ally with them, thus giving them a friendly and relatively powerful German state to work with). France annexes Saarland and gets a promise from Austria and Bavaria not to interfere should it try to aquire Luxembourg from the Netherlands. Bavaria and Austria kick Prussia out of the German Confederation and, in order to protect against any Prussian revanchism, strengthen it into a "German Union", with a common foreign policy, free trade area, common navy, and common army command during wartime. On paper it's somewhat similar to the OTL German Empire, however unlike the German Empire, which was dominated by Prussia, the German Union is much more of a partnership between Bavaria (+Rhineland) and Austria, with all this entails-both states maintain separate armies, and any major decision has to have the consent of both the Bavarian king and the Austrian Emperor (the head of the Union). Complicating this further is Austria's Hungarian appendage, which (similar to OTL), gets a parliament and self-rule in internal affairs, while its military and foreign policy remain controlled by Austria. The massive disaster in Prussia causes an attempted revolution, which almost succeeds in toppling the government before Russia intervenes and puts it down.

Howver, *Napoleon III's successor is much less clever than he is. After 1866, France is seen-by itself and the rest of the world-as the single most powerful state in Europe and in the late 19th century this begins to go to its head-France begins a large naval and army buildup, entertains schemes of annexing Belgium and the Rhineland, and allies with Russia (mad at Austria/Germany, for OTL reasons). Britain, searching for a way to contain French and Russian power, turns to the two-headed monster sitting in between them, and the German Union gradually becomes Britain's closest ally on the European continent.

Eventually, this all leads to alt-WWI, with France and Russia on one side and Germany, Britain, and the Ottomans on the other. Germany's army isn't as strong as OTL (its essentially a hodgepodge of small state armies, Austria's and Bavaria's being the largest), but on the other hand, Britain still has the strongest navy in the world and can blockade France and Russia. France's armies penetrate deep into Germany before the offense stalls out, and like OTL, the two become ground down in trench warfare (on the eastern Front, Germany, with British help, has much more success against Russia). The war proves to be a "baptism of fire" for German nationalism, as Germans from every state fight to keep their fatherland safe from France and Russia. At the same time, the inefficiancies of Germany's army(s) become very obvious to most of the soldiers, who gradually begin to chafe at the Austrian and Bavarian aristocrats commanding them. In Hungary the war occaisions a great deal of resentment, as thousands of Hungarians (serving in the Austrian-and thus German-military) die for what seems to them a primarily German cause, that they had no say in.

After five years, the British/German alliance wins the war, though its about as destructive as OTL-WWI was. German and Hungarian troops come home and demobilize, and Hungary soon deposes the Austrian emperor as its king. Austrian attempts to call up its army to deal with this meet with mutinies and riots (everyone's sick of war, and as most Austrians have come to think of themselves as German, preserving Hapsburg Hungary isn't a cause that excites them all that much) which soon snowball into a full-scale revolt against Hapsburg monarchism, one that soon spreads to the rest of the German Union and Prussia. All the crowned heads of Germany are sent packing, and the Hapsburg empire disolves, with Hungary and Croatia becoming independent. The "German Union" is replaced by a Republican "German Federation", including Prussia.

So...Grossdeutschland, albeit somewhat later than 1866

[victoria944]

This is my favourite discussion.


Here's an idea I had, after looking over some old threads.

Napoleon III is either more imperialistic (France falls under some sort of other right-wing imperialist government) and intervenes in the Austro-Prussian war of 1866. The Franco-Austrian alliance inflicts a major defeat against Prussia, which is effectively pared down to just historic Prussia, Brandenburg, and Pommeriania. Austria gets Silesia back, and France, in a moment of cleverness, gives the Rhineland and Westphalia to Bavaria (thus greatly enlarging Bavaria but also giving it a long border vulnerable to France-France hopes this threat will force Bavaria to ally with them, thus giving them a friendly and relatively powerful German state to work with). France annexes Saarland and gets a promise from Austria and Bavaria not to interfere should it try to aquire Luxembourg from the Netherlands. Bavaria and Austria kick Prussia out of the German Confederation and, in order to protect against any Prussian revanchism, strengthen it into a "German Union", with a common foreign policy, free trade area, common navy, and common army command during wartime. On paper it's somewhat similar to the OTL German Empire, however unlike the German Empire, which was dominated by Prussia, the German Union is much more of a partnership between Bavaria (+Rhineland) and Austria, with all this entails-both states maintain separate armies, and any major decision has to have the consent of both the Bavarian king and the Austrian Emperor (the head of the Union). Complicating this further is Austria's Hungarian appendage, which (similar to OTL), gets a parliament and self-rule in internal affairs, while its military and foreign policy remain controlled by Austria. The massive disaster in Prussia causes an attempted revolution, which almost succeeds in toppling the government before Russia intervenes and puts it down.


This is i think unrealistic, it's too grand. First Bavaria isn't suddenly going to want to be lumbered with responsibility for Westphalia, the Italian's are going to be up in arms about it, so is everyone else, including the German states. The peace of 1815 was carefully constructed to try to lessen the chance of a Frech dominated Rhineland again. Britain won't allow it, and would be easily able to threaten/blackmale France in the maritime sphere. Any scenario that has Austria unifying Germany as a triumphant victor has the problem the other German states will be inclined to demand Austria jettison territories like Galicia. Then there is the problem of Hungary. Austria victorious is not going to give up territory, and it can't both hold Hungary and deepen it's membership of Germany.

Yep. Basic event chain: Prussian victory at Sadowa and Italian victory at Custoza. Prussia gets OTL stuff, Saxony, Austrian Silesia, and northern-central Sudetenland; Italy gets Veneto, Trento, South Tyrol, Gorizia-Gradisca, and Dalmatia; Austria is thoroughly humiliated and destabilized. The NGF is created. The Ausgleich fails or proves ineffective. The Italo-Prussian alliance is confirmed. France goes to war with it over Luxemburg and Rome in 1867-68, and gets its butt on a plate. The German Empire is created. Germany gets Elsass-Lotharingen and Luxemburg. Italy gets Nice, Savoy, and Corsica. There is a surge of Pan-German sentiment among Austrian Germans, while the Hungarians get ever more restive. The Hasburg empire collapses and is partitioned between Germany (Austria proper, Bohemia-Moravia, Slovenia), Italy (Istria), Hungary (lands of St. Stephen, Croatia), and Russia (Galicia, Bukovina).

This i think is too quick and too much like wishful thinking, the Three Emperors do not want Austria to collapse into it's various nationalisms. How does the Ausgleich fail ?. Why ?. A factor here is Hungary may want some freedom, but it also doesn't wnt to left alone in a world where Italy, Russias Balkan friends and therefore Russia herself have demands on her. Hungaries independence rests on it being her only option.

Since the French revolution, leaders of the powers of Europe have had a new dimension complicating their policy and actions, and haunting their minds. Mass rebellion, dont underplay this. Mass rebellion united under the banner of Nationalism caused the victorious Napoleon III to halt in Italy, and offer the Austrians moderate terms. July 1859.

" The reasons for this breakdown on the part of the emperor in the midst of his apparent triumph were many. Neither Magenta nor Solferino had been decisive battles. Further, his idea of a federation was menaced by the revolutionary movement which seemed likely to drive out all the princes of central Italy, and to involve him in an unwelcome dispute with the French clerical party. "

There is also the "the spectre of communism" haunting Europe,

" All the powers of old Europe have entered into a holy alliance to exorcise this spectre.... ".

Do not underestimate the power of these factors, Kings, Emperors, Republicans, Monarchists, Liberal and Conservative ministers, all are relatively united by their fear of mass rebellion. They are forced to tread much more carefully, lest they stir up forces that will overwhelm them. Remember that they're not going to jump at any chance for war, the Napoleonic period has taught them that modern war is much more unpredictable, they are all very frightened men. Napoleon III's oscillations are a fine example of a leader being buffeted by the various growing forces and tensions. If Austria defeats Prussia in 1866 she is likely to not make any great revolutionary changes. To get to big Germany, there is one key obstacle to overcome, Austria in her form of 1866. Austria cant become part of a united Germany along with Galicia and the Italian territories. Bohemia Moravia is less of a problem as by this point i think prague is still predominanently German, and the whole two states are German enough to not be a major problem. ( Maybe concessions to Czech speakers - whatever ? ) And Hungary has to some how demand full independence. Russia has to somehow want Galicia, and European affairs have to be inclined to allow her to have it. Likewise Italy has to attain the Austro Italian territories. So Austria has to be dismembered or crumble.

One possible scenario for German unity is that Bismarck does not get his war of 1866, allowing the Bavarian led plans for Federal reform to take more center stage. This may need Italy to have previously more fully attained its goals vis a vis Austria. Austria then can demobilize on the Italian front, so Bismarck is robbed of his excuse for accusing Austria of insincerity in the disarmament talks, no war in 1866, and the Federal reform talks are back on track. Austrian involvement in this large confederation heightens the movement for Hungarian independence. So no war of 1866, and France attacks - maybe 1867 - due to fear that the German Confederation is advancing too rapidly in a Federalist direction. This could allow a scenario where Austria fights with France, so allowing rebellion in the German Austrian areas. Know we can get increased fears and aspirations of Hungarians, so we get a more robust Nationalistic uprising in Hungary which breaks away. Problem does Russia invade Hungary, possibly unlikely as Russia is much weaker and more disorganised than in 1848. However she siezes Galicia - shes on Prussias side - to pre-empt a Polish uprising. Italy takes her chance and attacks Austria. The Prussian led German coalition of armies defeats France. It doesnt have to be complete like 1870, so we have no annexation of Alsace-Lorraine. Austria has collapsed, been partly dismembered. France asks for peace - Maybe Napoleon III is killed on the battlefield. Left behind as the dust settles, is an independent Hungary, Russia is occupying Galicia, Italy is occupying trieste and Trento. The German Confederation holds a conference on Federal integration - includes Austria -, know we dont end up with states like Bavaria clinging on to their own army. Unification is deeper as Prussia is less dominant.

Another scenario is to butterfly Bismarck away, replacing him with a nationalist, who - lets say we still get the 1866 war - doesn't demand that Austria be excluded from Germany, and does not annexe any territory or states to Prussia, this is difficult due to the glory and power hungary Prussian Monarchy and Junkers. However moving on, this peace without annexation and Austria not been excluded allow for a larger Confederation, including all the South German states and Austria, with Prussia dominant but not overwheling. This again placates the fears of the South German states. As above France invades, and Austria betrays the Confederaation with results similar to the above scenario.

Yet another is to have a power base develop in the West independent of Prussia and Austria, problem is it will need Westphalia, and Prussia has it. Which takes us back to how the Napoleonic wars end. Maybe we can have a scenario where Napoleon can negotiate some concessions, so that Prussia does not get any Rhine territories allowing for the construction of a 3rd power based in the West, and independent of Prussia and Austria. If Austria can come out out of the Napoleonic period having had to cede Hungarian independence, then this nicely balances Prussias reduced power. This makes it easier to have an alliance of smaller German states able to fend off Austria and Prussia.This however would need major changes to the end of the Napoleonic wars.

Finally, theres the General War of 1870 i've seen on this site. This is interesting also. Austria attacks Prussia in 1870, and again we get an independent Hungary ........ There are two problems i have with this scenario, one is that Austria wont attack Prussia unless france is more aggressive or victorious. So maybe France lunges quickly into the Rhineland so drawing Austria in off the fence. The other is Italy, Austria is less likely to budge if Italy is a danger to her rear.
As an addition if Prussia is defeated by France, any attempt on Austrias part to exploit this will likely increase animosity to her from those holding German Nationalistic sentiments.

[Grey Wolf]

Whilst not disagreeing, one thing to consider is that our understanding of Austria's relations with Hungary are coloured by reality, which sounds obvious but what it does threaten to blind us to is that it is not the only way that Austria and Hungary could have been separated but remained together. It is feasible to have a fully independent Austria-cum-Germany and a fully independent Hungary united under a single ruler. Relations between them could be determined by permanent treaty, and both Budapest and Vienna would not be carrying out foreign policy against each other, rather alongside each other.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

[Snake Featherston]

Neither Austria nor Prussia would want it.

[Snake Featherston]

It would not strictly happen that year for various reasons, but a good Italian performance in 1866 (Italian victory at Custoza, no battle of Lissa), with the Prussians doing just as well as OTL, has very good chances to start an event chain that collapses the Habsburg empire in a few years and causes the formation of Grossdeutchsland.

Here we go again-Austria-Hungary was not a house of cards that would collapse after a single military or political defeat. Were this so then the 1914 defeats at the hands of Tsarism would lead to your Grossdeutschland. Were this so particularly the 1916 defeats would have destroyed the Empire. Austria-Hungary does not exist to make Germany bigger. :mad:

In all likelihood, Austria is too weak in 1866 to unify Germany, even with a victory.


And with the obvious problems that Prussia would never accept a Catholic unification of Germany.



Indeed. French intervention would undo everything if Prussia or Austria get too daring in 1866. The obstacle it represents needs to be removed with a different war.


Which is unlikely to be the case, and in any event the Habsburg Empire was extraordinarily resilient given the number of disasters it suffered. It no more exists for Germany to grow at its expense than Russia does.



That is the reason why an Italian victory (which is rather easy as a PoD, it just requires a couple changes in the Italian high command, the quality of the army as a whole was good) is the most feasible way to do it. It provides extra success that is additional to and independen from the Prussian one.

ROFLMAO. It requires a lot more than a single change or two. Italy doesn't have what it takes to fight a Great Power of Austria's level, WWI hammered that into the Italians over and over and over and over again and that was with an army with modern equipment and major numerical advantages, which is not going to be the case in 1866. :rolleyes:

Another reason why it is better if a total Prusso-Italian victory in 1866 destabilizes Austria so much that the Habsurg empire collapses on its own in a few years. At that point, the opposition of France has been removed the usual way, on the battlefields of Sedan. Russia can be won over to a partition of Austria with the pespective of losing Austrian competition in the Balkans and a piece of the Habsburg booty (Galicia and Bukovina).

Yes, if the Victorian Great Powers decide to throw Victorianism in the Garbage Dump of HistoryTM and risk a general European war and the resulting political turmoil that would come from it. The Habsburgs survived the disasters of WWI up to 1918, so a bigger victory in 1866, the age of limited warfare, is never going to topple the regime just so Germany looks prettier on a map.

Yep. Basic event chain: Prussian victory at Sadowa and Italian victory at Custoza. Prussia gets OTL stuff, Saxony, Austrian Silesia, and northern-central Sudetenland; Italy gets Veneto, Trento, South Tyrol, Gorizia-Gradisca, and Dalmatia; Austria is thoroughly humiliated and destabilized. The NGF is created. The Ausgleich fails or proves ineffective. The Italo-Prussian alliance is confirmed. France goes to war with it over Luxemburg and Rome in 1867-68, and gets its butt on a plate. The German Empire is created. Germany gets Elsass-Lotharingen and Luxemburg. Italy gets Nice, Savoy, and Corsica. There is a surge of Pan-German sentiment among Austrian Germans, while the Hungarians get ever more restive. The Hasburg empire collapses and is partitioned between Germany (Austria proper, Bohemia-Moravia, Slovenia), Italy (Istria), Hungary (lands of St. Stephen, Croatia), and Russia (Galicia, Bukovina).

Wishful thinking and German Gods of War as usual, here I see. If the defeats of WWI took four years to do this, 1866, in an era when the Great Powers were unwilling to countenance Russia taking over Ottoman territory to this level requires so much of a personality transplant that it belongs in the ASB forum.

[victoria944]

Whilst not disagreeing, one thing to consider is that our understanding of Austria's relations with Hungary are coloured by reality, which sounds obvious but what it does threaten to blind us to is that it is not the only way that Austria and Hungary could have been separated but remained together. It is feasible to have a fully independent Austria-cum-Germany and a fully independent Hungary united under a single ruler. Relations between them could be determined by permanent treaty, and both Budapest and Vienna would not be carrying out foreign policy against each other, rather alongside each other.


All history is coloured by reality, not just the Austrian bit :p

A fully independent Austria which is part of a unified Germany makes no sense, - contradiction - especialy when it and a fully independent Hungary are making up another state - another contradiction.
This is history not coloured by reality :rolleyes:


Here we go again-Austria-Hungary was not a house of cards that would collapse after a single military or political defeat. Were this so then the 1914 defeats at the hands of Tsarism would lead to your Grossdeutschland. Were this so particularly the 1916 defeats would have destroyed the Empire. Austria-Hungary does not exist to make Germany bigger.
Hang on, had Austria not concede the Dual Monarchy then what would have happened. The example of WW1 is out of context as
Austria had already conceded the Dual Monarchy, so heading off rebellion. The fact that it held together through most of WW1 is a poor example, as Austria was fighting to prevent breaking up into Nationalities, it was forced to fight because it was inherently the weakest of all the major European powers. It fought Serbia to save itself from disintegrating, none of the other powers went to war for such a reason.
the very fact it had to concede the Dual Monarchy is proof towards a scenario where Austria collapses into it's Nationalities.


In all likelihood, Austria is too weak in 1866 to unify Germany, even with a victory.
Indeed. French intervention would undo everything if Prussia or Austria get too daring in 1866.

And with the obvious problems that Prussia would never accept a Catholic unification of Germany.

There are a number of ways Germany might be united. French intervention may wreck some plans and undo some deeds, but it would likely fan the flames of German nationalism and possibly take the ball away from Bismarck, Prussia and Austria. French intervention could well be part of a catalyst that provides for deeper German Unification rather than unification hanging on the Austro-Prussian squabble. likewise the religious question would be irrelevant in circumstances where nationalism was more inflamed. Or where Bavaria and other states are able to
push ahead with federal negotiations.



ROFLMAO. It requires a lot more than a single change or two. Italy doesn't have what it takes to fight a Great Power of Austria's level, WWI hammered that into the Italians over and over and over and over again and that was with an army with modern equipment and major numerical advantages, which is not going to be the case in 1866.


I absolutely agree here, the Italians have real deep structural problems that go through all the ranks. At Custoza the whole officer corps were riddled with ineptitude and disobedience. That is not going to bechanged by a few changes at the top. When they should have advanced they were uncoordinated and hesitant, and when they broke there was no officer corps to rally them.


The situation in the late 1860s could have gotten out of control, Austria wanted a second war with Prussia, France could well have
intervened at some point. Prussia might have been repelled from the Rhineland if Napoleon III had acted quickly enough in 1870.
If Austria attacked there would be consequences, what those consequences would be we cant be sure.
Lets for a moment that Bismarck doesn't get his war in 1866, and there is no Austrian defeat, will Hungary still be stirred to threaten rebellion. What if the war of 1866 is put off till 1867, if Hungarian rebellion happens in the midst of Austrian defeat,
on the other hand if the war of 1866 never happens maybe the Austrians deal with the Hungarians far more forcefully.

You mean Austria is a part of the German Empire and Part of the Dual Monarchy, but not independent. Well this was the stickng point for the nationalists, Austria could not belong to both, the problem was resolved by Bismarck excluding Austria from Germany, had this not happened it would have remained a problem, i dont see Hungary being happy to be related - by marriage to Austria - to Germany, a state that shared a border and a history of conflict with France.

[Eurofed]

I absolutely agree here, the Italians have real deep structural problems that go through all the ranks. At Custoza the whole officer corps were riddled with ineptitude and disobedience. That is not going to be changed by a few changes at the top. When they should have advanced they were uncoordinated and hesitant, and when they broke there was no officer corps to rally them.


This was simply not the reality of the issue. Custoza (and Lissa) was lost because of a few key flaws in the high command, which created the command problems you quote, and evidence shows that with some different strategic decisions, Italians could have easily won, and the army at large performed adequately. I also need to remember that Garibaldi's militias defeated the Austrians, as did the Sardinian-Piedmontese army in 1859.

One is of course entitled to his own opinion about what changes does it take to change the outcome of a battle, but I have to remark the bit above, and moreso the agreement with the bit you quote, but the author of that is beyond the pale and in my ignore list already, seems to skirt a bit too close to invoking the nasty bigot stereotype of the necessary military ineptitude of Italians no matter the circumstances, which is extremely offensive and unjustifiable. Although quality levels may of course and did often significantly differ, it is pretty much very difficult to find an entire professional officer corps in history that it was wholly "riddled with incompentence and disobedience". Let's not press further this argument, and if necessary agree to disagree at once.

[victoria944]

Apologies, no offence meant to anyone. What you say is true, in both World Wars and earlier there were Italain units that equited themselves very well when led properly, this so at Vittorio Veneto. It is abhorent for anyone to suggest where Italian forces were not able to effective, that this was due to any inherent defect in them because of being Italian. That is racism, and i abhor it. Italy had not had the time to build an experienced officer corps, and political instability and corruption go hand in hand.
To produce an officer corps that has something to fight for you need political stability, and Italian politics were never that. The istory of Italy left it open to coruption. I didnt mean to condemn the whole of the Italian officer corps, but there ranks were not dominated by people who felt they were fighting for something important. It's hard to be loyal and risk your life for a ruling elite who might suddenly be bought off by offer of some perks by another state. The vulnerability of Italian morale to the orruption in Italys politics was no more or less than that of any other army.

[Eurofed]

This i think is too quick and too much like wishful thinking, the Three Emperors do not want Austria to collapse into it's various nationalisms.


The League of Three Emperors does not exist yet and in all likelihood never will in this scenario.


How does the Ausgleich fail ?. Why ?. A factor here is Hungary may want some freedom, but it also doesn't wnt to left alone in a world where Italy, Russias Balkan friends and therefore Russia herself have demands on her. Hungaries independence rests on it being her only option.


But in the 1860s Russia is not yet fostering Pan-Slavism as a proxy, much less so against the Habsburg. As it concerns Italy, its demands are on territories that do not belong to Hungary. The Ausgleich may fail because IOTL it was a close enough thing with OTL levels of defeat in 1866; a worse defeat would more severely discredit the Habsburg and push the Hungarians to make more radical demands.


Since the French revolution, leaders of the powers of Europe have had a new dimension complicating their policy and actions, and haunting their minds. Mass rebellion, dont underplay this. Mass rebellion united under the banner of Nationalism caused the victorious Napoleon III to halt in Italy, and offer the Austrians moderate terms. July 1859.

" The reasons for this breakdown on the part of the emperor in the midst of his apparent triumph were many. Neither Magenta nor Solferino had been decisive battles. Further, his idea of a federation was menaced by the revolutionary movement which seemed likely to drive out all the princes of central Italy, and to involve him in an unwelcome dispute with the French clerical party. "


There is a kernel of truth in what you say, although the point you make is only really valid as it concerns Napoleon's strategy in 1859 and 1866. In both cases, he was gambling on a moderate and partial victory of Prussians and Sardinians, and German and Italian nationalism, that would destabilize Habsburg supremacy to substitute it with French influence, but the actual size of their victory ruined his plans.

We may also agree that a victorious Prussians and Italians in 1866 would not necessarily wish a total collapse of Austria, since they are not yet in the position to manage it to their full advantage. This is why I argue that if Grossdeutchsland happens because of their total victory in 1866, it is because that event starts a political event chain that brings down the empire by its own domestic frailties.


There is also the "the spectre of communism" haunting Europe,

" All the powers of old Europe have entered into a holy alliance to exorcise this spectre.... ".


Both 1860s Prussian and Piedmontese monarchists have established an alliance of convenience with the moderate liberal-nationalist wing of the German and Italian unification movement. With all their conservative prejudices, neither Bismarck nor the Italian government are going to mistake German, Italian, or Hungarian nationalists with the ilk of Marx and Bakunin.


Finally, theres the General War of 1870 i've seen on this site. This is interesting also. Austria attacks Prussia in 1870, and again we get an independent Hungary ........ There are two problems i have with this scenario, one is that Austria wont attack Prussia unless france is more aggressive or victorious. So maybe France lunges quickly into the Rhineland so drawing Austria in off the fence. The other is Italy, Austria is less likely to budge if Italy is a danger to her rear.


The GW1870 scenario, which I made, is indeed reliant on two key assumptions: Austria makes a fatal overestimation of the military power of France, so they assume that with Napoleon III doing all the heavy lifting, they can get an easy war of revenge on Prussia and Italy; also they feel so threatened by a Prusso-Italian victory in 1866, the subsequent power surge of their enemies, and their own domestic instability that they have a cornered rat reaction and deem a revanche war necessary to save the empire. Not necessarily happening by any means, but plausible enough with the right political butterflies.


As an addition if Prussia is defeated by France, any attempt on Austrias part to exploit this will likely increase animosity to her from those holding German Nationalistic sentiments.

If they feel threatened enough, they may deem this an acceptable price.

I woud point out that the GW1870 scenario is necessarily based on the PoD of Italy doing well in 1866.

[Eurofed]

Apologies, no offence meant to anyone. What you say is true, in both World Wars and earlier there were Italain units that equited themselves very well when led properly, this so at Vittorio Veneto. It is abhorent for anyone to suggest where Italian forces were not able to effective, that this was due to any inherent defect in them because of being Italian. That is racism, and i abhor it. Italy had not had the time to build an experienced officer corps, and political instability and corruption go hand in hand.


I do appreciate this a lot. :D Sorry for the outburst, but as far as I'm concerned this nasty anti-Italian racist stereotype of inevitable military ineptitude no matter the circumstances (much like other similar ones based on OTL WWII butterflies, such as the stereotype of the French as coward "surrender monkeys") gets far too much tolerance on this board.

[Snake Featherston]

Hang on, had Austria not concede the Dual Monarchy then what would have happened.


Thing is it did concede that and the same pattern would recur in this scenario but moreso. Contrary to the fervent wish of militaristic Wehrmacht fanboys the Habsburg dynasty was pretty flexible at preserving power. There is a reason they lasted into the 20th Century starting in the 13th.


The example of WW1 is out of context as
Austria had already conceded the Dual Monarchy, so heading off rebellion. The fact that it held together through most of WW1 is a poor example, as Austria was fighting to prevent breaking up into Nationalities, it was forced to fight because it was inherently the weakest of all the major European powers. It fought Serbia to save itself from disintegrating, none of the other powers went to war for such a reason.


And the last "Austrian" general to surrender was an ethnic Croat. Your point? Austria-Hungary wasn't the only society that chose war for similar reasons, so did Imperial Russia and the Ottoman Empire.


the very fact it had to concede the Dual Monarchy is proof towards a scenario where Austria collapses into it's Nationalities.


Nope. It's proof that the Habsburgs were smart and had a political system more sophisticated than a glorified Klingon system. There's a reason the Habsburg absolutist state lasted for centuries where Hohenzollern Germany lasted only from 1870-1918. Slavish worship of armies kills states. Focus on pragmatic politics preserves them.


There are a number of ways Germany might be united. French intervention may wreck some plans and undo some deeds, but it would likely fan the flames of German nationalism and possibly take the ball away from Bismarck, Prussia and Austria. French intervention could well be part of a catalyst that provides for deeper German Unification rather than unification hanging on the Austro-Prussian squabble. likewise the religious question would be irrelevant in circumstances where nationalism was more inflamed. Or where Bavaria and other states are able to
push ahead with federal negotiations.


Nothing at all guarantees German unification.


I absolutely agree here, the Italians have real deep structural problems that go through all the ranks. At Custoza the whole officer corps were riddled with ineptitude and disobedience. That is not going to bechanged by a few changes at the top. When they should have advanced they were uncoordinated and hesitant, and when they broke there was no officer corps to rally them.


And Austria's system was far more efficient than that, no?


The situation in the late 1860s could have gotten out of control, Austria wanted a second war with Prussia, France could well have
intervened at some point. Prussia might have been repelled from the Rhineland if Napoleon III had acted quickly enough in 1870.
If Austria attacked there would be consequences, what those consequences would be we cant be sure.


A general war in Europe? For a starting point chaos and social dislocation.


Lets for a moment that Bismarck doesn't get his war in 1866, and there is no Austrian defeat, will Hungary still be stirred to threaten rebellion. What if the war of 1866 is put off till 1867, if Hungarian rebellion happens in the midst of Austrian defeat,
on the other hand if the war of 1866 never happens maybe the Austrians deal with the Hungarians far more forcefully.


Or maybe there's a solution found to the nationality problem more akin to the USSR's idea of "national" SSRs subject to a central metropole? But that requires politics more subtle than "I have a rocket launcher, you have a bowie knife, I win, you lose."


You mean Austria is a part of the German Empire and Part of the Dual Monarchy, but not independent. Well this was the stickng point for the nationalists, Austria could not belong to both, the problem was resolved by Bismarck excluding Austria from Germany, had this not happened it would have remained a problem, i dont see Hungary being happy to be related - by marriage to Austria - to Germany, a state that shared a border and a history of conflict with France.

I *can* see the Magyar nobles fearing their own nationalists more than they do the Habsburg state and preferring the devil they know to the one they don't.

[victoria944]

Absolutely agree, it beholds any who accusses any group of people as cowards in war, to see how they would behave, i have thankfully never had to, and i hope the day will come when nobody has to.

i came across a saying, i cant find it again, the gist of it being how sensible and natural it was for men to run away when badly led. That of course exposes the danger of gossip, because most Italian soldiers, most of the time never ran away. Asin WW1.

In ref to the 3 emperors, i wasnt referring to the league buyt to Austria prussia russia in short hand.

[Snake Featherston]

This was simply not the reality of the issue. Custoza (and Lissa) was lost because of a few key flaws in the high command, which created the command problems you quote, and evidence shows that with some different strategic decisions, Italians could have easily won, and the army at large performed adequately. I also need to remember that Garibaldi's militias defeated the Austrians, as did the Sardinian-Piedmontese army in 1859.


I think you mean Napoleon III defeated the Austrians. The Italians were masters of politics, not Klingon politics, that was why Prussia had as much loathing as Russia, though even the Tsars were more sophisticated than an army with a state. Not that more sophisticated than idolatry of armies requires much.


One is of course entitled to his own opinion about what changes does it take to change the outcome of a battle, but I have to remark the bit above, and moreso the agreement with the bit you quote, but the author of that is beyond the pale and in my ignore list already, seems to skirt a bit too close to invoking the nasty bigot stereotype of the necessary military ineptitude of Italians no matter the circumstances, which is extremely offensive and unjustifiable. Although quality levels may of course and did often significantly differ, it is pretty much very difficult to find an entire professional officer corps in history that it was wholly "riddled with incompentence and disobedience". Let's not press further this argument, and if necessary agree to disagree at once.

Italians, to be sure, were in the right hands very, very good. They were punching out of their league in almost all the wars they fought. The valor that leads an army to ten failed attacks on the Isonzo is very real, if self-defeating.


But in the 1860s Russia is not yet fostering Pan-Slavism as a proxy, much less so against the Habsburg. As it concerns Italy, its demands are on territories that do not belong to Hungary. The Ausgleich may fail because IOTL it was a close enough thing with OTL levels of defeat in 1866; a worse defeat would more severely discredit the Habsburg and push the Hungarians to make more radical demands.


In the calculus of "Franz Josef v. umpty-dozen liberal nationalists challenging we nobles" Franz Josef will always be the lesser evil.




There is a kernel of truth in what you say, although the point you make is only really valid as it concerns Napoleon's strategy in 1859 and 1866. In both cases, he was gambling on a moderate and partial victory of Prussians and Sardinians, and German and Italian nationalism, that would destabilize Habsburg supremacy to substitute it with French influence, but the actual size of their victory ruined his plans.


Yes, because Cavour was intelligent enough to use more than brute force as a lever of power. The Prusso-Germans were not.



We may also agree that a victorious Prussians and Italians in 1866 would not necessarily wish a total collapse of Austria, since they are not yet in the position to manage it to their full advantage. This is why I argue that if Grossdeutchsland happens because of their total victory in 1866, it is because that event starts a political event chain that brings down the empire by its own domestic frailties.


If the Empire is as fragile as you say it is, then reality will inconvenience them. But this requires a recognition that intention and reality are two different things, first....



Both 1860s Prussian and Piedmontese monarchists have established an alliance of convenience with the moderate liberal-nationalist wing of the German and Italian unification movement. With all their conservative prejudices, neither Bismarck nor the Italian government are going to mistake German, Italian, or Hungarian nationalists with the ilk of Marx and Bakunin.


Even though they did IOTL. OK.



The GW1870 scenario, which I made, is indeed reliant on two key assumptions: Austria makes a fatal overestimation of the military power of France, so they assume that with Napoleon III doing all the heavy lifting, they can get an easy war of revenge on Prussia and Italy; also they feel so threatened by a Prusso-Italian victory in 1866, the subsequent power surge of their enemies, and their own domestic instability that they have a cornered rat reaction and deem a revanche war necessary to save the empire. Not necessarily happening by any means, but plausible enough with the right political butterflies.


It also relies on a fundamental incomprehension of logistics and what a general European war means. We've had this argument before and a prolonged coalition war was avoided by the European powers for a reason.



If they feel threatened enough, they may deem this an acceptable price.

I woud point out that the GW1870 scenario is necessarily based on the PoD of Italy doing well in 1866.

Demanding and getting are two different things.

I do appreciate this a lot. :D Sorry for the outburst, but as far as I'm concerned this nasty anti-Italian racist stereotype of inevitable military ineptitude no matter the circumstances (much like other similar ones based on OTL WWII butterflies, such as the stereotype of the French as coward "surrender monkeys") gets far too much tolerance on this board.

I agree. Again, the Italians fought heroically and valiantly in both World Wars. They also were punching well out of their league. But then again, aren't you one of the ones that pushes stereotypes of the USSR as equally troubling as those on a regular basis, particularly to justify wank of the preferred non-Nazi Nazis?

[Elfwine]

Thing is it did concede that and the same pattern would recur in this scenario but moreso. Contrary to the fervent wish of militaristic Wehrmacht fanboys the Habsburg dynasty was pretty flexible at preserving power. There is a reason they lasted into the 20th Century starting in the 13th.

As someone who sides with Snake on the issue of the Habsburgs, the following are my comments to follow up his:

Read The Prince. Then study the Austrian Habsburg responses to the various issues they faced in their fading days.

I don't know if any of them actually picked up a copy, but...


And the last "Austrian" general to surrender was an ethnic Croat. Your point? Austria-Hungary wasn't the only society that chose war for similar reasons, so did Imperial Russia and the Ottoman Empire.
And this with Croatian loyalty to Austria-Hungary weaker than in the past by the point of WWI, thanks to the Hungarians.


Nope. It's proof that the Habsburgs were smart and had a political system more sophisticated than a glorified Klingon system. There's a reason the Habsburg absolutist state lasted for centuries where Hohenzollern Germany lasted only from 1870-1918. Slavish worship of armies kills states. Focus on pragmatic politics preserves them.
And while making a compromise might indicate it had issues that it had to deal with, it managed to deal with them.


Or maybe there's a solution found to the nationality problem more akin to the USSR's idea of "national" SSRs subject to a central metropole? But that requires politics more subtle than "I have a rocket launcher, you have a bowie knife, I win, you lose."
Unfortunately for the dreams of the Prussophiles who want a Greater Germany where Austria is neatly absorbed/incorporated/included, the Habsburg state was very good at those politics, even as it became increasingly bad at the unsubtle form.


I wouldn't say Austria couldn't break up. But you'd need a lot of pressure and bad decisions. And the kind of bad decisions people are suggesting where the Austrians blindly pursue a Short Victorious War after losing worse than OTL already so that they lose still further...

That's not what the Habsburgs are going to do. Franz Joseph was not a genius, he could make mistakes with the best of them. But that's not the kind of mistake he's going to make, and unlike Prussia, his prejudices, not the army's, determine the state's prejudices.

[Snake Featherston]

As someone who sides with Snake on the issue of the Habsburgs: Read The Prince. Then study the Austrian Habsburg responses to the various issues they faced in their fading days.

I don't know if any of them actually picked up a copy, but...


This is not to say they ultimately succeeded, but what did in the Empire was the prolonged famine due to the blockade during the war plus military defeat plus Allied encouragement of separatist movements plus the famine pushing Austro-Hungarian tensions past the breaking point. Military defeat, even a catastrophic one, would no more have destroyed A-H than the complete occupation and conquest of Serbia and Romania and the attempt to reduce the latter to economic servility did to them. Famine without foreign invasion is not necessarily fatal either. It was many factors, none of which can happen in the 1860s unless we're talking a very long war.


And this with Croatian loyalty to the King-Emperor weaker than in the past.


And not coincidentally against the Italians. A pity that von Boroevic is so little-known. He was A-H's Brusilov. :(


And while making a compromise might indicate it had issues that it had to deal with, it managed to deal with them.


Indeed. It's the Otto von Bismarck method of political, not military, solutions to political problems and ones that are very subtle and very effective indeed.


Unfortunately for the dreams of the Prussophiles, Austria was very good at those politics, even as it became increasingly bad at the unsubtle form.


Yup. As it was while their armies did poorly in WWI, Italy's did worse, and Romania's did worst of them all. This is held to reflect on neither state that ultimately wound up on the winning side.


I wouldn't say Austria couldn't break up. But you'd need a lot of pressure and bad decisions. And the kind of bad decisions people are suggesting where the Austrians blindly pursue a Short Victorious War after losing worse than OTL already so that they lose still further...


Which is possible if someone like Ferdinand were still on the throne but that requires a POD in the 1840s, not in the 1860s. Franz Josef is the poster boy for Magnificent Bastard.


That's not what the Habsburgs are going to do. Franz Joseph was not a genius, he could make mistakes with the best of them. But that's not the kind of mistake he's going to make, and unlike Prussia, his prejudices, not the army's, determine the state's prejudices.

And his prejudices ultimately *did* leave him one of Europe's longest-reigning monarchs and one of the few to hold a multi-national empire successfully together on the basis of his mere person. He somehow dies early, that'd be a big help. If he's in charge the pipe dream of super-Klingon Germany will never happen.

[TyranicusMaximus]

Absolutely agree, it beholds any who accusses any group of people as cowards in war, to see how they would behave, i have thankfully never had to, and i hope the day will come when nobody has to.

i came across a saying, i cant find it again, the gist of it being how sensible and natural it was for men to run away when badly led. That of course exposes the danger of gossip, because most Italian soldiers, most of the time never ran away. Asin WW1.

In ref to the 3 emperors, i wasnt referring to the league buyt to Austria prussia russia in short hand.

John Keegan talked about that. Basically his theory is that soldiers tended to fight as furiously as demanded as long as they felt they would accomplish something.

Italian troops had to put up with Cadorna's horrible leadership, and put up with it for a long time until it became clear that no amount of sacrifice would achieve the goals that the Italian leadership wanted.

"Fixing" the Italian military doesn't really require military changes, it requires societal changes, changes that aren't impossible, or even unlikely, but changes that aren't terribly obvious to the Italian elite.

[Elfwine]

This is not to say they ultimately succeeded, but what did in the Empire was the prolonged famine due to the blockade during the war plus military defeat plus Allied encouragement of separatist movements plus the famine pushing Austro-Hungarian tensions past the breaking point. Military defeat, even a catastrophic one, would no more have destroyed A-H than the complete occupation and conquest of Serbia and Romania and the attempt to reduce the latter to economic servility did to them. Famine without foreign invasion is not necessarily fatal either. It was many factors, none of which can happen in the 1860s unless we're talking a very long war.


Yeah. You might be able to achieve something where AH is significantly more troubled from within, in the sense that the state is forced to spend even more effort than OTL stabilizing things, which costs it when such a war breaks out, but that's not at all the same thing.


And not coincidentally against the Italians. A pity that von Boroevic is so little-known. He was A-H's Brusilov. :(


Do tell.


Indeed. It's the Otto von Bismarck method of political, not military, solutions to political problems and ones that are very subtle and very effective indeed.


Unfortunately, there seems to be a very nasty tendency for


Yup. As it was while their armies did poorly in WWI, Italy's did worse, and Romania's did worst of them all. This is held to reflect on neither state that ultimately wound up on the winning side.


Meaning?


Which is possible if someone like Ferdinand were still on the throne but that requires a POD in the 1840s, not in the 1860s. Franz Josef is the poster boy for Magnificent Bastard.


A surprising thought, but probably appropriate. He was a Habsburg.


And his prejudices ultimately *did* leave him one of Europe's longest-reigning monarchs and one of the few to hold a multi-national empire successfully together on the basis of his mere person. He somehow dies early, that'd be a big help. If he's in charge the pipe dream of super-Klingon Germany will never happen.

I know there's no wholly positive outcome possible with a POD this late, but I still think that's a pretty broadly positive one compared to OTL. No super-Klingon Germany, that is.

"Fixing" the Italian military doesn't really require military changes, it requires societal changes, changes that aren't impossible, or even unlikely, but changes that aren't terribly obvious to the Italian elite.

I don't know if I'd go that far in an optimistic direction, but its hard to say. Italy is in a bad position to make those changes.

[TyranicusMaximus]

I don't know if I'd go that far in an optimistic direction, but its hard to say. Italy is in a bad position to make those changes.

Well, increased literacy would help, I don't know if that's the easiest change, but illiteracy plagued the Russians, and I imagine it affected Italy as well. Perhaps this 1866 POD could lead them in the right direction.

[Snake Featherston]

Yeah. You might be able to achieve something where AH is significantly more troubled from within, in the sense that the state is forced to spend even more effort than OTL stabilizing things, which costs it when such a war breaks out, but that's not at all the same thing.


And at a bare minimum there needs to be a different ruler. Franz Josef reigned from the reign of Tsar Nicholas I to the era of the first use of tanks and strategic bombing. If he were to somehow die earlier his successors would have a lot more problems. F-J was a very smart man, and his prejudices much less damaging to the state he ruled than say, Wilhelm II's.


Do tell.


He was the one who won almost all the Battles of the Isonzo......:D


Meaning?


Nobody assumes that losing all of the battles along the Isonzo plus Caporetto makes Italy ripe for the pickings of whichever stronger power wants it to be (again). Austria-Hungary is primarily used to sketch bigger whatever-powers-you-want. It was more complicated than that.


A surprising thought, but probably appropriate. He was a Habsburg.


So was Ferdinand....;)


I know there's no wholly positive outcome possible with a POD this late, but I still think that's a pretty broadly positive one compared to OTL. No super-Klingon Germany, that is.


To hear some people tell it, the only real Germany is one ruled by immortal Hindenberg and Ludendorffs who create a militarized autocracy that machine-guns people on a whim to create super-Germany and united Europe speaking German. No liberal Germans, certainly no Communist or enduring Weimar Germany, the only real German is a soldier or a Nazi. :rolleyes:

[Elfwine]

Well, increased literacy would help, I don't know if that's the easiest change, but illiteracy plagued the Russians, and I imagine it affected Italy as well. Perhaps this 1866 POD could lead them in the right direction.

Agreed. But how do you fix that?

Italy is in something of a position where in order to solve its problems it has to solve still others to be in a position to solve them, which will take an enormous amount of effort.

And at a bare minimum there needs to be a different ruler. Franz Josef reigned from the reign of Tsar Nicholas I to the era of the first use of tanks and strategic bombing. If he were to somehow die earlier his successors would have a lot more problems. F-J was a very smart man, and his prejudices much less damaging to the state he ruled than say, Wilhelm II's.


Amen.


He was the one who won almost all the Battles of the Isonzo......:D
That has a good sound to it.


Nobody assumes that losing all of the battles along the Isonzo plus Caporetto makes Italy ripe for the pickings of whichever stronger power wants it to be (again). Austria-Hungary is primarily used to sketch bigger whatever-powers-you-want. It was more complicated than that.
I blame the Prusso-German fans who think that AH being a military 98 weakling obviously means it was a weak state.


So was Ferdinand....;)
Yes, but you know what I mean. The Austrian line in general was pretty good.


To hear some people tell it, the only real Germany is one ruled by immortal Hindenberg and Ludendorffs who create a militarized autocracy that machine-guns people on a whim to create super-Germany and united Europe speaking German. No liberal Germans, certainly no Communist or enduring Weimar Germany, the only real German is a soldier or a Nazi. :rolleyes:There's probably a reason for wanting that as one's ideal Germany, but saying it would be rude. :D

What puzzles me the most is that OTL shows exactly how such a Germany is going to fare and why, but people think that there are PODs that make up for the fact that this kind of thing doesn't work, never has worked, and never will work.

Every single attempt at this kind of state has crashed and burned, for reasons that repeat themselves.

But looking at history as a guide is apparently OTL determinism...

[Snake Featherston]

I blame the Prusso-German fans who think that AH being a military 98 weakling obviously means it was a weak state.


Where when Prussia collapsed it was overnight. Austria-Hungary took months for its finale to play out. Even in death the two were different.


Yes, but you know what I mean. The Austrian line in general was pretty good.


True. At least more than just Klingons writ large.


There's probably a reason for wanting that as one's ideal Germany, but saying it would be rude. :D

What puzzles me the most is that OTL shows exactly how such a Germany is going to fare and why, but people think that there are PODs that make up for the fact that this kind of thing doesn't work, never has worked, and never will work.

That's probably because most of them forget there were ever any other Germans who had any different view of Germany. Wilhelm II and Hitler monopolize attention, East Germany, the enduring totalitarian Germany, is overlooked, and liberal-democratic Sigel-Stresemann Germany never shows up whatsoever save in a few really good TLs. The militarized murderous dicks exclude the nicer, saner, more morally good Germans. Instead people want to bend reality itself to aid Wilhelm, Hitler, or even the GDR. :(

[Elfwine]

Where when Prussia collapsed it was overnight. Austria-Hungary took months for its finale to play out. Even in death the two were different.


Deep roots take a long time to be reached by the frost.


True. At least more than just Klingons writ large.


In this context, that's definitely a good thing.


That's probably because most of them forget there were ever any other Germans who had any different view of Germany. Wilhelm II and Hitler monopolize attention, East Germany, the enduring totalitarian Germany, is overlooked, and liberal-democratic Sigel-Stresemann Germany never shows up whatsoever save in a few really good TLs. The militarized murderous dicks exclude the nicer, saner, more morally good Germans. Instead people want to bend reality itself to aid Wilhelm, Hitler, or even the GDR. :(

Seems like an exercise in some kind of perverse sadism (for want of a better term). Why can't "Germany does better!" mean for instance a pre-2000 cure for AIDS by Germans? :(

[Sumeragi]

We would need a very big catastrophe for the Hapsburg for this to work. That family was just too nimble to take down during the time period discussed, short of the 1848 Pan-Germanic movement succeeding.

[Eurofed]

We would need a very big catastrophe for the Hapsburg for this to work. That family was just too nimble to take down during the time period discussed, short of the 1848 Pan-Germanic movement succeeding.

Well, people are of course entitled to their own opinions about the resilence and the savy of Habsburg. However, given that 1848 demonstrably was a near-fatal existential challenge for them that they only survived thanks to foreign help (and no, Alexander II is not going to do it again in the 1860s), I keep wondering why the pro-Habsburg crowd remains so adamantly sure that a serious screw-up of theirs starting from a total defeat in 1866 cannot cause the same kind of domestic reactions as in 1848.

The 1860s were demonstrably the "second wave" of European nationalism after the first one of 1848 (leaving aside 1830 for simplicity), as Germans, Italians, and Poles showed. What makes them so sure that the Habsburg state was really that more solid in the 1860s than in 1848 ?

As an interesting aside, if nothing else, even if this PoD somehow does not bring down the Habsburg in the 1860s-1870s, it still has very good chances to change the European alliance system to a German-Russian-Italian-Balkan minors Triple Alliance vs. a Franco-Austrian-British-Ottoman Entente. That would be a *WWI which the CP would have very good chances to win, barring an early US intervention for the Entente. And that would surely be the end of the Habsburg construct and the birth of the Hohenzollern Grossdeutchsland. Here is the very big catastrophe if you want one.

We may all agree that a full victory of the 1848 liberal-national revolutions would have been much, much preferable to the 1859-1919 path, and a Greater Germany united under the Frankfurt constitution much bette to whatever the Hohenzollern or the Habsburg might concoct. However, I am also persuaded that the Kaiserreich suffers from a lot of bad press. Despite Entente propaganda, it was no more aggressive and brutal than the other European powers, and despite its undeniable (but often overblown) flaws, it had kickass science, laws, administration, and it pionereed the welfare state and social democracy. More to the point, the Habsburg state was in no way a superior alternative. It was in many ways an inferior copy with pretty much the same defects, plus some of its own.

[Snake Featherston]

Well, people are of course entitled to their own opinions about the resilence and the savy of Habsburg. However, given that 1848 demonstrably was a near-fatal existential challenge for them that they only survived thanks to foreign help (and no, Alexander II is not going to do it again in the 1860s), I keep wondering why the pro-Habsburg crowd remains so adamantly sure that a serious screw-up of theirs starting from a total defeat in 1866 cannot cause the same kind of domestic reactions as in 1848.


Because Franz Josef fixed most of the issues of 1848 which started out with the mentally retarded Ferdinand in charge? Nobody's denying this is possible. We're just wondering why the only real Germans seem to be the militarized Khorne-worshipers and never any other alternative. Germany, if it exists, must be a militarized autocracy. There can never be a "real" Germany that is not. Your idea of "Greater Germany" reflects the simplistic view of power politics of General Ursus in the second Planet of the Apes movie that naked merciless force cures all. That's not a lasting foundation for anything, particularly Greater Germany, to a thousand times Greater Germany at this point in time.


The 1860s were demonstrably the "second wave" of European nationalism after the first one of 1848 (leaving aside 1830 for simplicity), as Germans, Italians, and Poles showed. What makes them so sure that the Habsburg state was really that more solid in the 1860s than in 1848 ?


That it survived the shock of defeat in 1866? As in objective, observable, OTL reality?


As an interesting aside, if nothing else, even if this PoD somehow does not bring down the Habsburg in the 1860s-1870s, it still has very good chances to change the European alliance system to a German-Russian-Italian-Balkan minors Triple Alliance vs. a Franco-Austrian-British-Ottoman Entente. That would be a *WWI which the CP would have very good chances to win, barring an early US intervention for the Entente. And that would surely be the end of the bloody Habsburg construct and the birth of the Hohenzollern Grossdeutchsland. Here is the very big catastrophe if you want one.

Hell no it does not.

[Sumeragi]

Since Snake Featherston took care of most issues.....

We may all agree that a full victory of the 1848 liberal-national revolutions would have been much, much preferable to the 1859-1919 path, and a Greater Germany united under the Frankfurt constitution much bette to whatever the Hohenzollern or the Habsburg might concoct.
I would say we're taking a big assumption that a Greater Germany under Paulskirchenverfassung with Frederick Wiliiam IV as emperor would be better than OTL.

However, I am also persuaded that the Kaiserreich suffers from a lot of bad press. Despite Entente propaganda, it was no more aggressive and brutal than the other European powers, and despite its undeniable (but often overblown) flaws, it had kickass science, laws, administration, and it pionereed the welfare state and social democracy.
I agree.

More to the point, the Habsburg state was in no way a superior alternative. It was in many ways an inferior copy with pretty much the same defects, plus some of its own.
No one seems to be saying that the Hapsburgs would be the better alternative. Rather, the "pro"-Hapsburg faction believes that too much credit is given to Prussia and too little to Austria.

[Elfwine]

A state with a truly bloated bureaucracy (one in seventeen of its citizens being civil servants running things from schools to railroads) vs. an army with a state.

Whether you pick Austria or you pick Prussia, you cannot say their defects were similar.

Austria-Hungary was a multinational empire struggling to act the part of a great power with the resources of a second rate one, Prussia-Germany was a first rate power with ambitions larger than even its resources, and a bad tendency to believe in the army as creator of policies rather than merely an implementer of them.

[Snake Featherston]

No one seems to be saying that the Hapsburgs would be the better alternative. Rather, the "pro"-Hapsburg faction believes that too much credit is given to Prussia and too little to Austria.

More accurately that all of the Habsburg monarchy's weaknesses are exaggerated while absolutely none of Prussia's even rate a handwave.

A state with a truly bloated bureaucracy (one in seventeen of its citizens being civil servants running things from schools to railroads) vs. an army with a state.

Whether you pick Austria or you pick Prussia, you cannot say their defects were similar.

Austria-Hungary was a multinational empire struggling to act the part of a great power with the resources of a second rate one, Prussia-Germany was a first rate power with ambitions larger than even its resources, and a bad tendency to believe in the army as creator of policies rather than merely an implementer of them.

At another level in Austria-Hungary, too, the monarchy ruled the war effort, even when A-H was a de facto German colony. The generals always controlled Germany's. Meaning that the Habsburgs were also better absolutists than the Prussians, if the only real Germans are absolutist inbred militarists or ultra-crazy fascists........

[Eurofed]

Since Snake Featherston took care of most issues.....


<shrug> Elfwine and SF on ignore list.


I would say we're taking a big assumption that a Greater Germany under Paulskirchenverfassung with Frederick Wiliiam IV as emperor would be better than OTL.


That may be a quite interesting topic, but what real harm the man (assuming he gets to be emperor ITTL) could and would do when constrained by such a system, till the 1857 stroke ? I'm skeptical.

[Elfwine]

More accurately that all of the Habsburg monarchy's weaknesses are exaggerated while absolutely none of Prussia's even rate a handwave.


The worst part of that (underlined) is that the state's weaknesses worried the heck out of Bismarck, for instance. And when the Iron Chancellor is worried about his own creation, given his far from modest ego, you know there are problems that could easily be even worse than OTL.


At another level in Austria-Hungary, too, the monarchy ruled the war effort, even when A-H was a de facto German colony. The generals always controlled Germany's. Meaning that the Habsburgs were also better absolutists than the Prussians, if the only real Germans are absolutist inbred militarists or ultra-crazy fascists........

This says much about A-H as a basically working empire, however obviously overstrained.

I think that's the problem. Austria-Hungary's weaknesses are obvious and noisy - meaning that it looks weaker than it really was.

Meanwhile, Prussia-Germany is immensely powerful, and the fact its own weaknesses are problematic is masked because the powerful can hide them behind the armies.

Why this is still true - as in, people still miss the weaknesses because of the armies - is not a good thing when it comes to understanding history.

[Snake Featherston]

The worst part of that (underlined) is that the state's weaknesses worried the heck out of Bismarck, for instance. And when the Iron Chancellor is worried about his own creation, given his far from modest ego, you know there are problems that could easily be even worse than OTL.


Indeed.


This says much about A-H as a basically working empire, however obviously overstrained.

I think that's the problem. Austria-Hungary's weaknesses are obvious and noisy - meaning that it looks weaker than it really was.

Meanwhile, Prussia-Germany is immensely powerful, and the fact its own weaknesses are problematic is masked because the powerful can hide them behind the armies.

Why this is still true - as in, people still miss the weaknesses because of the armies - is not a good thing when it comes to understanding history.

Which is again ironic given that civilian rule in Germany completely collapsed in 1916 and was going through all of 1915. What a pity, given that the "superior" German Empire couldn't even preserve its own political system in the shock of the general war it guaranteed.

[TyranicusMaximus]

<shrug> Elfwine and SF on ignore list.

The fate of anyone who doesn't share Eurofed's militaristic, power-obsessed, view of the world, amirite?

[Sumeragi]

<shrug> Elfwine and SF on ignore list.
*Shrug*

Well, your loss then.


That may be a quite interesting topic, but what real harm the man (assuming he gets to be emperor ITTL) could and would do when constrained by such a system, till the 1857 stroke ? I'm skeptical.
I said big assumption because I'm not sure how the conservative Friedrich Wilhelm would make or break the Frankfurt Constitution after becoming emperor. Things can go either way, and as such we can't just assume things would be better.

[Eurofed]

Well, your loss then.


I think the ignore list is an excellent compromise between the chilling effects of moderation and the exhausting free-for-all of eternal flamewars.


I said big assumption because I'm not sure how the conservative Friedrich Wilhelm would make or break the Frankfurt Constitution after becoming emperor. Things can go either way, and as such we can't just assume things would be better.

But would he be in a position to break it once he lets himself be merged in that system ? Would he get the will and ability to do so ? Would he keep the power base, after such a victory of liberalism ?

[victoria944]

Originally Posted by Eurofed
That is the reason why an Italian victory (which is rather easy as a PoD, it just requires a couple changes in the Italian high command, the
quality of the army as a whole was good) is the most feasible way to do it. It provides extra success that is additional to and independent
from the Prussian one.

In retrospect i think this is realistic, and i'm sorry i seemed to dismiss it. However i would say this. The figure who is changed at the top, will
need to be a real strong, firebrand - an Ironside - . He will have to have the moral authority through strength of personality, - a war hero ? -
and official authority from the prime minister/ minister of war/ king , to carry out sweeping changes. He needs to be able to sack swathes
of officers and replace them with better material, he needs to be able to enforce a tough and comprehensive retraining of the new officer
corps. He might be assisted by a Prussian or French military mission. This may need to be bought about by a disaster fed limited
revolution.

Originally Posted by Snake Featherston
Here we go again-Austria-Hungary was not a house of cards that would collapse after a single military or political defeat. Were this so then the 1914 defeats at the hands of Tsarism would lead to your Grossdeutschland. Were this so particularly the 1916 defeats would have destroyed the Empire. Austria-Hungary does not exist to make Germany bigger.

I dont know how you persist with missing the blindingly obvious contradiction in your own argument. You keep talking about Austria-Hungary being tough and resilient. And i'm talking about a situation where Austria might collapse. See the difference, Austria wasn't resilient enough to hold down the Hungarians. In 1848 she needed Russian assistance, what might have happened had she not had that assistance. Consider the number of her nationals, Czechs and others who went over to the enemy in WW1. In1866 after the Prussian victory at koniggratz there was widespread though muted discontent across the Austrian Empire. So Austria caved in to the Hungarians. The fact that your talking about Austria Hungary is proof enough that Austria could have collapsed in the late 1860's. I think the Italian victory scenario is plausible, it might have caused Italian areas to revolt, what then.

Originally Posted by Snake Featherston
Thing is it did concede that and the same pattern would recur in this scenario but moreso. Contrary to the fervent wish of militaristic Wehrmacht fanboys the Habsburg dynasty was pretty flexible at preserving power

I hope this is not some insult aimed at me, if it is, it's purile, immature and pathetic. That someone is a Whermact fanboy simply because they explore the possibility of Austria collapsing in the 1860's is a snidey and spiteful response, it makes we wonder what you are doing here.

Also AH was the only state that went to war to save itself from collapse, what a tradegy that Europe was drawn into the slaughter of WW1 for the sake of an empire that belonged in historys dustbin. All the other powers were drawn in not for survival but due to commitments. There was no danger that large swathes of the civil popualtion of France, Italy, Germany or Prussia were going to break away and form independent states. Austria-Hungary was held together by military force, if Germany had stood back AH would have been doomed. Not so for any other power. All the other powers had a reasonable chance of survival without any other power backing them. Your claims of AH resilience are devoid of reality. They were dependent on German backing and that allowed them to punch well above their weight. Without the German alliance AH would have had to surrender to Serb demands. They wouldn't have stood a cat in hells chance on their own. How you could argue otherwise is beyond me. A challenge, describe how in an Austro-Russian war ( without Germany behind AH ) Austria triumphs, and i will explain how Austria is beaten and then falls apart like a rickety old shack in storm. :p

Originally Posted by Eurofed
But in the 1860s Russia is not yet fostering Pan-Slavism as a proxy, much less so against the Habsburg. As it concerns Italy, its demands are on territories that do not belong to Hungary. The Ausgleich may fail because IOTL it was a close enough thing with OTL levels of defeat in 1866; a worse defeat would more severely discredit the Habsburg and push the Hungarians to make more radical demands.

The First Pan-Slav Congress, was held in Prague, 1848. Serbia had been in existance for decades. As soon as she gained independence
she began seeking expansion and unity of all the Southern Slavs not under Serbian rule. This placed Serbia at odds with Austria, RussiaRussia had for many decades had the entrance from the Black Sea to the Med as a goal, thus it's gaze was on the Balkans. Russia actively campaigned against The Ottomans for Serb independence and was active in Serb affairs during the late Napoleonic period. Decades of pro Serb activity by Russia led to the idea of Russia - champion of the Slavs, it didn't arise out of the blue, but was observable after decades of Russian involvement in the Balkans.
See Russia's Balkan Entanglements, 1806-1914 By Barbara Jelavich.

The collapse/dismemberment of Austria might take a year or a decade, or longer. It's pointless arguing about it without a concrete agreed scenario. Yes every historical event is part of many chains, with chains linked to chains. Each event is also a product of social forces often ignored by historians who dont wish to illustrate the influence of the masses. In 1867 conservative Austria conceded something unthinkable just a decade before, power sharing with the Hungarians. Why use Russian troops in 1848 and then concede independence less than 20 years later. They were frightened that the use of force against the Hungarians might start a fire that could become a conflageration. The forces of Revolution were always threatening to simmer, consider the growth of unions, Feminism, Socialist organisations, Darwinism...... Its an age of potential revolution across all spheres and the leaders of the powers and their advisors know it or face peril.

The GW1870 is agood scenario for the dismemberment of Austria. But we have to get past some obstacles.
Austria wont attack Prussia unless France is more active in the offensive, a small victory over the Prussians in the Rhineland might be enough. Austria knows she may well face Prussia and Russia, possibly Italy as well. So she needs the French to fire the starting gun.
As discussed in previous threads, Austria turns down Napoleon's offer of alliance because Italy wont join. Austria doesnt want to be fighting 3 powerful states. Italy cant countenance alliance with France while Rome is occupied by the French. We need a scenario where the Rome problem is not an issue for France and Italy.

Another scenario for Austrian collapse is the Austro-Prussian wr is delayed till 1867 and the Austrians use brutality to bring the Hungarians into line.

[Elfwine]

There's a difference between exploring the possibility that Austria ("Habsburgia" isn't a state, so I'm going to use it as shorthand for the Habsburg Empire by whatever proper name it had for purposes of this post) might collapse, and the distressing tendency some people* have to assume that Austria would wither and die with a slight push. That tendency tends to be strongest in the people who are big fans of Prussia's Mighty Military for some reason.

With or without German backing, Austria-Hungary was stronger than Serbia alone (versus Russia is another story, but taking on Russia hasn't been an easy fight in two centuries by that point). Its history - up to and including WWI - proves that it was a resilient, enduring state - under a lot of pressure and slowly buckling, but better off than its usually given credit for.

Austria without Russian help in '48 would have done something else. It was not a state completely without resources or able leadership.

Maybe it would have failed. Or maybe it would have succeeded.

It choosing to make a compromise with the Hungarians is not the same thing as being a fragile, pathetic state on the verge of collapse. And if the Italian areas revolt, so what? It has an army. It has reasonably able leadership on top (politically). It has faced revolts before and dealt with them.

If it wasn't resilient enough to deal with the Hungarians, there wouldn't be anything for the Russians to assist. If it was so fragile it would collapse in a stiff breeze in 1866, it wouldn't have lasted another half century.

And the idea that Austria-Hungary was held together by military force is...a bit much. The preferred solution was, to quote from The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers: "...to smother [particularist grievances] with committees, with new jobs, tax concessions, additional railway branch lines, and so on." The closest you get to military force as a solution is stationing Italian regiments in Hungary and vice-versa, for instance. But that's most definitely not the same thing as pure martial law.

* And yes, you most definitely seem to be one of them. Whether you're a Wehrmacht fan or not I don't know.

[Reichenfaust]

Unification in 1848, followed by an immediate war against Austria, with the separating of Hungary into the Greater German Empire, and the Hungarian Empire/Federation that controls the original areas of the Hapsburg Empire.

[victoria944]

There's a difference between exploring the possibility that Austria ("Habsburgia" isn't a state, so I'm going to use it as shorthand for the Habsburg Empire by whatever proper name it had for purposes of this post) might collapse, and the distressing tendency some people* have to assume that Austria would wither and die with a slight push. That tendency tends to be strongest in the people who are big fans of Prussia's Mighty Military for some reason.

With or without German backing, Austria-Hungary was stronger than Serbia alone (versus Russia is another story, but taking on Russia hasn't been an easy fight in two centuries by that point). Its history - up to and including WWI - proves that it was a resilient, enduring state - under a lot of pressure and slowly buckling, but better off than its usually given credit for.

Austria without Russian help in '48 would have done something else. It was not a state completely without resources or able leadership.

Maybe it would have failed. Or maybe it would have succeeded.

It choosing to make a compromise with the Hungarians is not the same thing as being a fragile, pathetic state on the verge of collapse. And if the Italian areas revolt, so what? It has an army. It has reasonably able leadership on top (politically). It has faced revolts before and dealt with them.

If it wasn't resilient enough to deal with the Hungarians, there wouldn't be anything for the Russians to assist. If it was so fragile it would collapse in a stiff breeze in 1866, it wouldn't have lasted another half century.

And the idea that Austria-Hungary was held together by military force is...a bit much. The preferred solution was, to quote from The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers: "...to smother [particularist grievances] with committees, with new jobs, tax concessions, additional railway branch lines, and so on." The closest you get to military force as a solution is stationing Italian regiments in Hungary and vice-versa, for instance. But that's most definitely not the same thing as pure martial law.

* And yes, you most definitely seem to be one of them. Whether you're a Wehrmacht fan or not I don't know.



Let me say i'm no fan of Prussia, i think it was a tradegy for Europe - incl Germany - that Germany was unified under the dominance of a backward conservative military state. I have made several proposals to look at how Germany might have been unified without Bismarcks wars, via the route of federal reform led by Bavaria and other minor states, no ones interested.
Secondly dont attach morale guilt to ideas, if someone explores a particular historical avenue that doesn't make them pro this or pro that.

Let me tell you i'm for Democracy, you seem to be the one mitigating for dictatorship, people across AH were chomping at the bit for National liberation, authoritarian people like you care nothing for freedom, you avert criticism of this ram shakle dictatorship with assertions about peoples character. I wish AH had fallen apart, i wish liberalism had swept Germany, and Prussia had been assigned to histories dustbin, along with Austria.
You on the other hand are concerned with some petty squabble with Prussia, your concern is not the liberation of peoples from oppression, but revenge against Prussia because they damaged Austria. Then you go off into some abstract deluded dream world, suggesting lets forget the fact that AH would have stood no chance in a war against Russia, and celebrate the fact that she could have crushed Serbia.

Well what a magnificent achievement that would have been. :p :p :p

I wouldn't mind betting that if Germany and Russia had stayed out of it, the Serbians would have given a good account of themselves. As could the Italians, especially if paracitic Austria had not stood in their way of national liberation.

Dont avoid the facts, if not for the fear of military oppression the nationalities of AH would have dismantled the Empire, - 1848 - and you would fight against that, and condemn those would fight for it as "Whermahct Fanboys", your self delusion, and dishonesty of motives are apparent to me. :p

As a final comment Russia would have flattened bully boy Austria, if she had not been hiding behind Germany, shouting come on fight me then.

[victoria944]

Indeed.



Which is again ironic given that civilian rule in Germany completely collapsed in 1916 and was going through all of 1915. What a pity, given that the "superior" German Empire couldn't even preserve its own political system in the shock of the general war it guaranteed.


p.s Snidey comments full of inuendo are tiresome


Once again forgetting, Austria would not have survived beyond September 1914 - witness Galicia - had it not been for Germany.

[Snake Featherston]

p.s Snidey comments full of inuendo are tiresome


Once again forgetting, Austria would not have survived beyond September 1914 - witness Galicia - had it not been for Germany.

That's what a coalition war is, one power bails out another. ;)

[victoria944]

So you agree Austria could only prosecute any war, against anyone by hiding behind germany. :p

[Snake Featherston]

So you agree Austria could only prosecute any war, against anyone by hiding behind germany. :p

No, they did splendidly against the Italians without Germany. :p

[victoria944]

You mean the Austrian army sometimes went out on its own after dark, without Germany holding it's hand. :p

[Snake Featherston]

You mean the Austrian army sometimes went out on its own after dark, without Germany holding it's hand. :p

Nope, I mean Eurofed's preferred Austria-Hungary destroyer of choice attacked in the same place headlong ten times, lost every time, and kept repeating what didn't work. ;):p

[victoria944]

Ok AH can crush Sebia, and stalemate the Italians, what's it gonna do against a major power like Russia, hide in the Carpathian moutains, waiting for Germany to rescue it, hang on that sounds a bit like what actually happened. :p

[victoria944]

As another thought i think it perfectly feasible that Germany and Russia could have signed a treaty after 1870 and subsequently dismembered Austria Hungary. Thus solving the Balkans problem peacefully.

There is a wee chance of war,

France, Britain, Turkey, Austria
V
Germany, Russia, Italy, Sebia, Romania.

Austria, invaded from all sides with much of her nationalities wanting independence might whine, but she is doomed here. Crushed.

On the whole i think Britain would accept it, in her period of splendid isolation. Fait Accompli.

Turkey, What could they hope to gain. Neutral.

France alone, what could she do. Protest in frustration.

Fancy part of Austria, i'll have the wing. :p

So big Germany is accomplished, the Balkans dont drag Europe into WW1.
France is isolated as Russia and Germany have no flash point.
And peace rheins as the forces of revolution gather.

All it would have would taken was the will and the clearsightedness to do it, something Bismarck lacked.

[Elfwine]

Let me say i'm no fan of Prussia, i think it was a tradegy for Europe - incl Germany - that Germany was unified under the dominance of a backward conservative military state. I have made several proposals to look at how Germany might have been unified without Bismarcks wars, via the route of federal reform led by Bavaria and other minor states, no ones interested.
Secondly dont attach morale guilt to ideas, if someone explores a particular historical avenue that doesn't make them pro this or pro that.

It doesn't make them that, but people who are pro Prussia often are the most actively dismissive of Austria. Its not a matter of guilt or innocence, just look at Eurofed's arguments on how Germany was awesome and AH existed to be cut into pieces to bolster states he prefers.


Let me tell you i'm for Democracy, you seem to be the one mitigating for dictatorship, people across AH were chomping at the bit for National liberation, authoritarian people like you care nothing for freedom, you avert criticism of this ram shakle dictatorship with assertions about peoples character.
Dictatorship? No. A working monarchy over a mess of territories in which half fell into worse problems than they ever had under the Habsburgs? Yes.

National liberation for the sake of national independence is about as appealing to me as any other form of anarchism.


I wish AH had fallen apart, i wish liberalism had swept Germany, and Prussia had been assigned to histories dustbin, along with Austria.
You on the other hand are concerned with some petty squabble with Prussia, your concern is not the liberation of peoples from oppression, but revenge against Prussia because they damaged Austria. Then you go off into some abstract deluded dream world, suggesting lets forget the fact that AH would have stood no chance in a war against Russia, and celebrate the fact that she could have crushed Serbia. No, I'm concerned with the fact Austria-Hungary was better for Germany and the world than Prussia. I don't want revenge against Prussia. I'd rather have a reformed Prussia than OTL's, but barring that as an option, I'd rather not destroy it any more than anywhere else in the world. As for AH vs. Russia: My point is that Austria-Hungary is stronger than Serbia - it may not be as strong as it needs to be vs. Serbia & Allies, but that's a different discussion. No one is saying it was a great power at this point.

And being insulting as you're being isn't helping this conversation at all, FYI. You might want to remember your sig.


I wouldn't mind betting that if Germany and Russia had stayed out of it, the Serbians would have given a good account of themselves. As could the Italians, especially if paracitic Austria had not stood in their way of national liberation.

Dont avoid the facts, if not for the fear of military oppression the nationalities of AH would have dismantled the Empire, - 1848 - and you would fight against that, and condemn those would fight for it as "Whermahct Fanboys", your self delusion, and dishonesty of motives are apparent to me. :p If not for the fact AH could deal with the nationalities other than through force, the state wouldn't have lasted another seventy years from '48. Serbia might give a good account for itself, but its the weaker power nonetheless. It would show.

As for what I would fight for against: I'm an Austrophile. And anti-nationalist and very pro-imperial (meaning the united empire). That doesn't make me dishonest, delusional, hostile to freedom, or anything else.

Unfortunately for the world, my preferred scenario (a reformed A-H and Ottoman Empire) never happened.

As another thought i think it perfectly feasible that Germany and Russia could have signed a treaty after 1870 and subsequently dismembered Austria Hungary. Thus solving the Balkans problem peacefully.Other than the fact the Russians did not want to dismantle Austria-Hungary and did not want to see Germany expand.

"On the whole, the flank powers' likelihood of intervening in the affairs of west-central Europe would depend heavily upon what Germany itself did; there was certainly no need to become involved if it could be assumed that the second German Reich was now a satiated power.
...
And when, during the 'war-in-sight' crisis of 1875, indications arose that the German government might be contemplating a preventive war against France, the warnigns from both London and (especially) St. Petersburg convinced Bismarck that there would be strong opposition to any further alterations in the European balance."