WI and PC: No 1756 Diplomatic Revolution?

[Helios Ra]

For the What If: What are some possible ramifications of no Diplomatic Revolution, which upended traditional European alliances between France and Prussia and Austria and Britain?

For the Plausibility Check: I have two main trains of thought as to how it would happen:

1. As an earlier POD, there was significant conservative opposition in Austria to von Kaunitz's attempts to forge an alliance with France. Perhaps conservatives manage to prevent his appointment to the position of Foreign Minister in '53, or else he is removed from power in the following years.

2. My more developed second scenario is Frederick the Great opting against allying with Great Britain. His decision in OTL to embrace the British in fear of a British-financed Russian invasion alienated the French and made them much more receptive to the Austrians (1756). The subsequent canceling of promised subsidies to Russia by Great Britain drove Russia into the anti-Prussian camp and thus surrounded Prussia by enemies. Prussia, fearing war, promptly invaded Saxony and launched the European theater of the Seven Years' War, which it barely survived.
So in this ATL, the Westminster Convention is rejected or never happens, and the Franco-Prussian alliance is maintained. France and Great Britain were already moving towards large-scale conflict, so I suspect Prussia, and therefore Austria and Prussia, would quickly be drawn into the war. The devastation of OTL's Seven Years' War would be limited as there would be only two major fronts (Silesia and East Prussia), rather than four (Silesia, East Prussia, Pomerania, and Hanover). I expect Sweden would either stay neutral or enter on France's side as in OTL, and that Hanover would fall to Franco-Prussian forces faster than in OTL.

I openly admit that I really don't know if my thoughts are plausible, so I humbly ask for the advice and criticism of the AH.Com community.

[Shawn Endresen]

Your second scenario is detailed enough that I think you could develop it pretty well; I'd rephrase the question as one of taking Russia out of the equation, though. If Russia remains disorganized and inward-looking longer, Prussia has no reason to be distrustful of France, and the Franco-Prussian alliance can hold. Britain is reactive rather than active in continental affairs - so long as the Franco-Prussian alliance holds, Britain will keep backing Austria.

Eventually, Russia will come to take its place on the European stage, which will make the diplomatic revolution likely, if nothing else significant has changed. But that can be delayed by any number of problems or irrational Tsars.

[Grey Wolf]

Originally Posted by Helios Ra

For the What If: What are some possible ramifications of no Diplomatic Revolution, which upended traditional European alliances between France and Prussia and Austria and Britain?

For the Plausibility Check: I have two main trains of thought as to how it would happen:

1. As an earlier POD, there was significant conservative opposition in Austria to von Kaunitz's attempts to forge an alliance with France. Perhaps conservatives manage to prevent his appointment to the position of Foreign Minister in '53, or else he is removed from power in the following years.

2. My more developed second scenario is Frederick the Great opting against allying with Great Britain. His decision in OTL to embrace the British in fear of a British-financed Russian invasion alienated the French and made them much more receptive to the Austrians (1756). The subsequent canceling of promised subsidies to Russia by Great Britain drove Russia into the anti-Prussian camp and thus surrounded Prussia by enemies. Prussia, fearing war, promptly invaded Saxony and launched the European theater of the Seven Years' War, which it barely survived.
So in this ATL, the Westminster Convention is rejected or never happens, and the Franco-Prussian alliance is maintained. France and Great Britain were already moving towards large-scale conflict, so I suspect Prussia, and therefore Austria and Prussia, would quickly be drawn into the war. The devastation of OTL's Seven Years' War would be limited as there would be only two major fronts (Silesia and East Prussia), rather than four (Silesia, East Prussia, Pomerania, and Hanover). I expect Sweden would either stay neutral or enter on France's side as in OTL, and that Hanover would fall to Franco-Prussian forces faster than in OTL.

I openly admit that I really don't know if my thoughts are plausible, so I humbly ask for the advice and criticism of the AH.Com community.

Are you putting Austria on Britain's side by doing this? That would keep the Austro-Prussian conflict going, except now they'd have the reverse in allies. Whilst Hannover seems more exposed to both France and Prussia now, don't forget that France has to factor in Austrian offensives that it didn't have to worry about OTL

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

[Antipater]

I think at alt Seven Years war sans the Diplomatic revolution would look a lot like the earlier Wars of Spanish and Austrian Sucession. France would promptly invade the Austrian Netherlands, while moving supporting its Prussian allies by sending armies across the Rhine. The Dutch Republic would probably be dragged into the conflict, as they have always intervened when France has threatened the southern Netherlands.

Hard to predict the final outcome. Russia would probably end up joining Austria, barring some unforeseen palace coup, and therefore would invade East Prussia much like IOTL. I think that would make a Swedish entrance into the Seven Year's War more likely, as France was a great influence in the Swedish Court. Not sure if the Hats maintained any credibility after the last Russo-Swedish War, but I imagine they would be eager for another go.

Not sure about the ultimate outcome, but with the Dutch joining the British, the colonial war will probably go even more badly for the French. Unless they are occupying, and are willing to trade the Austrian Netherlands or Hanover, they will have a hard time getting any of them back.

[Helios Ra]

Originally Posted by Shawn Endresen

Your second scenario is detailed enough that I think you could develop it pretty well; I'd rephrase the question as one of taking Russia out of the equation, though. If Russia remains disorganized and inward-looking longer, Prussia has no reason to be distrustful of France, and the Franco-Prussian alliance can hold. Britain is reactive rather than active in continental affairs - so long as the Franco-Prussian alliance holds, Britain will keep backing Austria.

Eventually, Russia will come to take its place on the European stage, which will make the diplomatic revolution likely, if nothing else significant has changed. But that can be delayed by any number of problems or irrational Tsars.

Most of this I agree with, but I don't really see how greater Russian involvement in European affairs will trigger a diplomatic revolution. Britain was working towards assisting Russia against Prussia before the revolution, if Russia and Great Britain are reasonably friendly to each other there's no reason for an Anglo-Prussian alliance, unless Russia's new Prussophile Tsar retains power, in which case a completely different alliance system would emerge.
So actually, I suppose you are right, depending on who leads Russia.

Originally Posted by Grey Wolf

Are you putting Austria on Britain's side by doing this? That would keep the Austro-Prussian conflict going, except now they'd have the reverse in allies. Whilst Hannover seems more exposed to both France and Prussia now, don't forget that France has to factor in Austrian offensives that it didn't have to worry about OTL

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

Austria was already on Britain's side, the trouble was that factions in Austria were noting how unreliable Britain was as an ally and that perhaps dynastic rivalry with the Bourbons should be set aside.
You're right about France having to be wary of Austria, but unless Italian states get involved, I believe only the Austrian Netherlands are any threat. However, I don't know enough to really speak intelligently about this.

Originally Posted by Antipater

I think at alt Seven Years war sans the Diplomatic revolution would look a lot like the earlier Wars of Spanish and Austrian Sucession. France would promptly invade the Austrian Netherlands, while moving supporting its Prussian allies by sending armies across the Rhine. The Dutch Republic would probably be dragged into the conflict, as they have always intervened when France has threatened the southern Netherlands.

I'm fairly unfamiliar with the local history, but quick research shows that France initiated hostilities in the War of Austrian Succession, so avoiding Dutch intervention seems fairly simple.

Hard to predict the final outcome. Russia would probably end up joining Austria, barring some unforeseen palace coup, and therefore would invade East Prussia much like IOTL. I think that would make a Swedish entrance into the Seven Year's War more likely, as France was a great influence in the Swedish Court. Not sure if the Hats maintained any credibility after the last Russo-Swedish War, but I imagine they would be eager for another go.

Sure. I believe the Hats controlled the Riksdag (spelling?) during the War. Now that I think about it, if they were willing to work with Russia against Prussia for Pomerania, than I suppose its plausible they'd work with Prussia for Old Finland.

Not sure about the ultimate outcome, but with the Dutch joining the British, the colonial war will probably go even more badly for the French. Unless they are occupying, and are willing to trade the Austrian Netherlands or Hanover, they will have a hard time getting any of them back.

If the Dutch became entangled, certainly. I suppose the war effort in the Caribbean and India would end faster with Dutch support.

[Helios Ra]

I'm just going to bump this one first and last time.

[Vitruvius]

Ok I'll bite. I think it seems plausible enough. I wouldn't discount the possibility of Dutch entry into the war. There is a strongly Anglophile circle in and around the Regency so if the French make a push into the Austrian Netherlands that may be enough to tip the balance towards entering the war. I'm not sure that the Dutch would militarily help much but logistically they could be useful as they secure the lower Rhine and help with communications and supply lines to the Austrian Netherlands and northern Germany.

I also wonder about the position of Sardinia-Savoy. It remained neutral OTL but then there was no fighting in Italy OTL because everyone was on the same side in Italy, all the other princes there being either Bourbons or Habsburgs. But with Austria and France on opposing sides Italy could be a battle ground and the help of Savoy would be critical. British subsidies could induce them to aid Austria but as for territorial compensation they'd have to go after Bourbon lands as Austria has little left to give. So if France offers to help them take Milan Savoy could enter on the French side.

The decision of Savoy will probably determine the outcome of any campaign in Italy though the actual disposition of territories will probably be left to diplomatic horse trading at a peace conference. Its also worth noting that whatever happens the peninsula will be worse off. The minor states, namely Parma, Modena and Tuscany, desperately needed peace after half a century of fighting and used the period (in which most were neutral or at least not the site of actual fighting) to finally recover from the ravages of war.

[Antipater]

About the alt Seven Years war without the Diplomatic Revolution: War was already inevitable between England and France by around 1755 at the latest due to the escalating conflict in the New World over the Ohio River Valley. Once war begins between those two nations, it is likely, though not certain that war will break out between Austria and Prussia, whether or not Prussia decides to launch a preemptive attack on Saxony. But Fredrick would be likely to launch such an attack once he felt that his enemies were likely to move against him.

If England is still allied with Austria, and on a clear path to war with France, Fredrick can be reasonably certain that Austria will take advantage of any British declaration of war on France to try and recclaim Silesia. The British Establishment (Newcastle, Pitt) really were not enthusiastic about helping Austria regain Silesia, but if war had already been declared, they would have been obliged to help if they were still allied.

France probably invades Minorca, as IOTL, and then moves on to attack Hanover, which would fall quite quickly if not supported by the Prussians. This would allow their Prussian ally to focus exclusively on Austria.

GB would probably respond to this instituting a tight blockade of France and Prussia, while subsidizing Austria, and trying to incite the Italian States to make war on France. Pitt would probably try to limit British intervention on the Continent to "Descents" unless France decides to invade the the Austrian Netherlands.

I think such a move on France's part would be likely for three reasons. 1) Prussia is only going to need minimal support in confronting Austria and the lesser German states, at least initially. 2) César Gabriel de Choiseul, who acted as Louis XV's de facto Prime Minister thought that France needed to invade GB to win the war, the Austrian Netherlands would provide some of those ports. 3) Force GB to fight on the continent where the French have a chance of defeating them in battle, instead of taking over the world outside of Europe while France is nearly helpless to intervene.

Any French invasion of the Austrian Netherlands would almost certainly cause the Dutch to enter the war, however unwillingly. The Dutch Republic was very much in decline economically and militarily by this time, but they would still fight because they felt that France dominating the southern Netherlands would be an existential threat to their independence.

French Diplomacy would also attempt to bring in Sweden against Russia in order to aid Prussia indirectly. Though Sweden does have disputes with Prussia over Swedish Pomerania, France was a very great influence on the Swedish court, their influence would probably be decisive. Russia will stick with Austria as an ally at least for as long as Elizabeth is Empress. Not sure how that war will turn out. France has a lot less liquid capital to lend out to its Prussian ally, it would probably send regiments instead. This will make it more difficult for Frederick the Great to create as large an army he did IOTL. It is possible that he is overwhelmed, and forced to sue for peace, surrendering Silesia.

Spain only gets involved in the war if it continues until 1761, they very well might miss out on it ITTL. This would not be an entirely bad thing for France, Spain could float them a few extra loans, and not force them to divert critical troops into an ill conceived invasion of Portugal.

Conclusion: GB and Prussia do worse in this alt Seven Years war. GB because it is dragged into fighting on the continent, which will divert resources from the colonial war. France may manage to hold on in Canada, while its allies and clients will probably be defeated in the New World and India. If France holds Hanover, and vital fortress cities like Namur, Mons, Tournai and Limburg, they can probably get a white peace outside of North America and India.

At best, Prussia maintains its conquest of Silesia by defeating all comers, and emerges as France's junior partner on the Continent. Worst case scenario it faces dismemberment by Austria and Russia, which France will have difficulty reversing in negotiations. Austria would rather have Silesia than the Netherlands, it is that simple. If Prussia goes down, the only way for France to rescue it diplomatically would be through leveraging significant conquests across the Rhine, like Munich and Prague.

Spain is probably the big winner here if they can stay out of the war. France will be deeply in their debt, and their army and navy will not have been humiliated. They will also be allowed to hold onto Florida, not that it was a very lucrative colony.

Not all bad for GB either. Without France almost entirely driven out of the New World, the American Revolution will probably be delayed indefinitely.

Thoughts?

[Antipater]

Originally Posted by Vitruvius

Ok I'll bite. I think it seems plausible enough. I wouldn't discount the possibility of Dutch entry into the war. There is a strongly Anglophile circle in and around the Regency so if the French make a push into the Austrian Netherlands that may be enough to tip the balance towards entering the war. I'm not sure that the Dutch would militarily help much but logistically they could be useful as they secure the lower Rhine and help with communications and supply lines to the Austrian Netherlands and northern Germany.

I also wonder about the position of Sardinia-Savoy. It remained neutral OTL but then there was no fighting in Italy OTL because everyone was on the same side in Italy, all the other princes there being either Bourbons or Habsburgs. But with Austria and France on opposing sides Italy could be a battle ground and the help of Savoy would be critical. British subsidies could induce them to aid Austria but as for territorial compensation they'd have to go after Bourbon lands as Austria has little left to give. So if France offers to help them take Milan Savoy could enter on the French side.

The decision of Savoy will probably determine the outcome of any campaign in Italy though the actual disposition of territories will probably be left to diplomatic horse trading at a peace conference. Its also worth noting that whatever happens the peninsula will be worse off. The minor states, namely Parma, Modena and Tuscany, desperately needed peace after half a century of fighting and used the period (in which most were neutral or at least not the site of actual fighting) to finally recover from the ravages of war.

I think you are spot on with your analysis of what would happen in Northern Italy. It would be a redux of the War of Spanish Succession and Austrian Succession, with Savoy being the key player in the region.

Though I am not sure the effects would be all bad. It could lead to some political unification in Northern Italy as a few of the minor duchies stand a chance of being absorbed into larger political entities. If forced into war, Venice and Genoa MIGHT be able to arrest their seemingly endless decline through political reforms inspired by their poor performance.

As for the Dutch, I think they would only benefit from getting involved on the side of GB, unless things really go to hell for them. The Dutch fleet was a shadow of its former self, as was its army. The Provinces had many political issues, but a war should at least convince them to invest more in their woefully under-financed army and navy.

[Vitruvius]

Originally Posted by Antipater

I think you are spot on with your analysis of what would happen in Northern Italy. It would be a redux of the War of Spanish Succession and Austrian Succession, with Savoy being the key player in the region.

Though I am not sure the effects would be all bad. It could lead to some political unification in Northern Italy as a few of the minor duchies stand a chance of being absorbed into larger political entities. If forced into war, Venice and Genoa MIGHT be able to arrest their seemingly endless decline through political reforms inspired by their poor performance.

Thank you. However, I'm not sure about the Republics. Their ossified political structure, especially in Venice, was bent on neutrality and notoriously hard to change. I'm not sure they'd get involved as they hadn't before. Rather I was thinking of the duchies I mentioned, most of which were bankrupt by the end of the War of Austrian Succession. All three had remarkably effective rulers in the 1760-80s that managed to reform their administrations and begin a general recovery. That's endangered if they're dragged into a war yet again. Though as you mentioned consolidation may help.

I think the big variables seem to be Sardinia-Savoy, Russia and to a lesser extent Spain. If they stay neutral a limited war seems to favor Britain-Austria if only slightly. And then a balanced peace that sees Britain gaining less than OTL but Austria gaining potentially more. Any of those three variables could play King maker, probably in the order I listed. Sardinia seems a tough nut to crack. France can offer Milan but Austria has little to offer. If they counter with, say Parma or Sicily, that drags in Spain as Parma's Duke and Sicily's King are the Spanish King's brothers. The smart move may be for Austria to give up Milan in favor of Savoyard help towards the goal of recovering Silesia since this threatens France's southern flank, drawing forces out of Germany, but keeps Spain neutral. But sacrificing their influence in Italy may be a bridge too far.

I think that Savoy entering on France's side would doom Austria and by extension Britain. If they can take Milan easily they can then threaten Austria's southern flank combined with the French in southern Germany and the Prussians in the north it could knock Austria out rather quickly. I suppose that's the one scenario where Venice of Genoa may get involved as Britain could use them as a beach head against Savoy. Italy highlights the importance of Russia which could keep Prussia occupied if the Savoyards threaten Austria. Basically the different permutations of Savoy, Russia and the two main allied blocks can result in very different outcomes to the war.

[stevep]

Helios Ra

Some other points to consider.

a) If the French attack the Austrian Netherlands then the Dutch will almost certainly fight. I also know that after 1715 and I think it's still the case, they [the Dutch] occupied a number of fortresses in the province specifically to help defend against new French attacks.

b) In a war with France Austria probably also has a problem with Bavaria, a traditional French ally.

c) On the other hand, if Sweden starts aiding Prussia then not only do they have to consider a Finnish front against Russia but possible reaction by Denmark-Norway.

d) In terms of Savoy Britain can always try money, lots of it. Or could the allies offer a deal that sees Genoa annexed, which would greatly improve Savoyard access to the sea and its Sardinian possessions. This makes for interesting questions about the status of Corsica, in continued revolt against Genoan rule.

e) Hanover may fall as it did OTL and without the need to defend Prussia's western flank Britain may not re-enter the region as it did OTL but if not forces and resources will be committed elsewhere. Without a counter in NW Germany France can add a lot of pressure on Austria, even without Bavaria. Could be a very difficult time for the Hapsburg's but they might come through OK as France projecting power that far into Germany in this period could be difficult, going by prior experience and Russian strength along with British funds if not direct help.

A lot will depend on what happens in Prussia and at sea but things could go in plenty of ways.

Steve

[Helios Ra]

Hmm. So basically, Italy, specifically Piedmont, is going to swing towards whoever offers it the best deal. If it's the French, Milan and little Habsburg states are available. If it's the Austrians, then Milan and the Bourbon states are offered, but losing Milan may be too high a price for the help. Additionally, it could force Spain's hand and bring it into the war,
This could be bad for Spain because neutral Spain has the opportunity to make money from loans to France. Would it be possible for French colonies to be put up as collateral for larger loans? Would France be willing to just sell colonies?

Originally Posted by stevep

Helios Ra

Some other points to consider.

a) If the French attack the Austrian Netherlands then the Dutch will almost certainly fight. I also know that after 1715 and I think it's still the case, they [the Dutch] occupied a number of fortresses in the province specifically to help defend against new French attacks.

It has been said that the Dutch military was in poor shape at this time, wouldn't that put them in a particularly bad position between Prussia and France?

b) In a war with France Austria probably also has a problem with Bavaria, a traditional French ally.

Noted with interest. Maximilian III seems to have been a bit pro-Austrian, or at least not fond of conflict. Perhaps his mother would convince him to stay in the Austrian camp.

c) On the other hand, if Sweden starts aiding Prussia then not only do they have to consider a Finnish front against Russia but possible reaction by Denmark-Norway.

I hadn't thought about Denmark in this situation. Hmm.

e) Hanover may fall as it did OTL and without the need to defend Prussia's western flank Britain may not re-enter the region as it did OTL but if not forces and resources will be committed elsewhere. Without a counter in NW Germany France can add a lot of pressure on Austria, even without Bavaria. Could be a very difficult time for the Hapsburg's but they might come through OK as France projecting power that far into Germany in this period could be difficult, going by prior experience and Russian strength along with British funds if not direct help.

In other words, things could go worse for France overseas, but better on the continent, yes?

[stevep]

Originally Posted by Helios Ra

Hmm. So basically, Italy, specifically Piedmont, is going to swing towards whoever offers it the best deal. If it's the French, Milan and little Habsburg states are available. If it's the Austrians, then Milan and the Bourbon states are offered, but losing Milan may be too high a price for the help. Additionally, it could force Spain's hand and bring it into the war,
This could be bad for Spain because neutral Spain has the opportunity to make money from loans to France. Would it be possible for French colonies to be put up as collateral for larger loans? Would France be willing to just sell colonies?

Not sure about Savoy politically at that time. Traditionally I think it was more in the Austria camp but that could change. Partly because it tended to be in the path of French bids to control northern Italy.

I don't quite know what happened in Spain economically prior to it joining the war in 1761 OTL. It proved fairly ineffective OTL in combat but that was after the French fleet had been defeated heavily in 59 and the British had spent a few years developing the powerful war machine that swept just about everything before it in the colonial sphere. If they had joined the war in 58/59 it would definitely be more changing for Britain but how much so I can't say.

It has been said that the Dutch military was in poor shape at this time, wouldn't that put them in a particularly bad position between Prussia and France?

I don't think Prussia would be pushing that far west being busy with Austria, Saxony and I presume Russia. However possibly a minimal Austria presence, the Dutch and whatever German mercenaries Britain can hire plus British and Hanoverian forces would be engaged in holding the line against France.

Noted with interest. Maximilian III seems to have been a bit pro-Austrian, or at least not fond of conflict. Perhaps his mother would convince him to stay in the Austrian camp.

Interesting. I know in earlier conflicts Bavaria had been in the anti-Austria camp and in the Austrian succession war they had managed to replace the Haspburg's briefly as HRE but a personal connection could make a useful difference.

In other words, things could go worse for France overseas, but better on the continent, yes?

Probably overall, although how much different in both cases would be difficult to tell. For instance a markedly earlier Spanish entry into the war could pose problems for Britain, even with Dutch support. While the French having to fight through the border fortresses against the western Germans, British and Dutch could make it markedly more difficult for then than OTL. The Dutch are not the military power they were but their still a decent one and very wealthy, which gives a lot of scope for hiring the plentiful mercenaries.

Steve