A brutal German unification

[anarchjoe]

OK so my ability at prose isn't very good so this TL will be in skeleton format with a few pictures added
1870 Napoleon III decides to leave the job of the Franco prussian war to his generals, instead of taking it on himself
1871 France wins the Franco Prussian war In the resulting peace treaty France annexes Luxembourg and territory roughly up to Trier and Saarbruken as a result southern German states don't join the North German confederation due to Austrian pressure
1872 Bismark manages to keep the North German confederation together
Austria attempts to assert it's dominance over the north german speaking states, Britain, concerned about potential French/ Austrian dominance warns Austria not to proceed and threatens war, instead Austria backs down
Austria creates the South German confederation which is dominated by Bavaria
1873-1905 France creates alliances in an attempt to encircle the north German confederation but Britain decides due to perceived French aggression ,to create a counterbalance against France at the outbreak of war the alliances are as follows:
1889 Napoleon III dies Napoleon IV takes over
Britain North German confederation Russia, Italy Sweden vs France, Austria Hungary, Spain, Ottoman Empire South German confederation.
1901-1903 war between Britain and the boers ends in a stalemate due to adequate French supplies reaching them. As a result the Boers ally with France.
1902 A small fire on a U.S ship based in Havana is put out before it causes any major damage
1903 French come up with a plan to invade Britain then knock out the North German confederation, resulting in a quick war this becomes known as plan phoque or in English seal
1904 referendum in Norway to secede from Sweden fails narrowly
1905 February-April Border clashes in Africa between France and Britain over uncolonised areas

[Mikestone8]

Why should the French generals be any more likely to win? Moltke was head and shoulders above any of them.

[ThomasTheviking]

The French-Preussian War of 1870-71 wasn't won because of Napoleon III incompetence....but rather of the entire French Armed Forces being of poor quality, and the German of significantly higher.

Even though prose is not your quality, you will need to give us some more details, to make this really interesting.

[Last of the Stuarts]

The British policy of having a navy bigger than the next two nations in size should scubber Operation Seal until there are reliable aircraft. There is no way the French would destroy the entire British Navy, plus the Prussia navy if they were about.

[SavoyTruffle]

Originally Posted by ThomasTheviking

The French-Preussian War of 1870-71 wasn't won because of Napoleon III incompetence....but rather of the entire French Armed Forces being of poor quality, and the German of significantly higher.

Even though prose is not your quality, you will need to give us some more details, to make this really interesting.

Exactly. The Prussian buildup of its army was part of Bismarck's plan, of course; on the other hand Nappy III whilst a pretty decent leader had the misfortune to have Bismarck as his contemporary.

[wolf_brother]

Originally Posted by SavoyTruffle

Exactly. The Prussian buildup of its army was part of Bismarck's plan, of course; on the other hand Nappy III whilst a pretty decent leader had the misfortune to have Bismarck as his contemporary.

Louis-Napoléon had actually withdrawn from almost all governmental affairs by that point, leaving the real power to the Senate, as he hoped to rule as a constitutional monarch after seeing its effectiveness in Britain. The issue was neither Bonaparte or Bismarck, it was the fickle French Senate that constantly voted down and reduced military budgets. To get rid of that you'll have to change exactly how the Second Empire came into existence, and significantly weaken both the a) reactionary Legitimists that saw Louis-Napoléon only as a stepping stone to a 'proper' monarchy and b) the radical socialists that had initially supported Louis-Napoléon as a strong-armed populist and felt betrayed by his turn away from republicanism in favor of the empire. No house can stand divided, and French society in the 19th century was very much so divided until the Third Republic ('a republic divides us the least') and the national unifying rallying cry of revanche.

[ThomasTheviking]

Originally Posted by wolf_brother

Louis-Napoléon had actually withdrawn from almost all governmental affairs by that point, leaving the real power to the Senate, as he hoped to rule as a constitutional monarch after seeing its effectiveness in Britain. The issue was neither Bonaparte or Bismarck, it was the fickle French Senate that constantly voted down and reduced military budgets. To get rid of that you'll have to change exactly how the Second Empire came into existence, and significantly weaken both the a) reactionary Legitimists that saw Louis-Napoléon only as a stepping stone to a 'proper' monarchy and b) the radical socialists that had initially supported Louis-Napoléon as a strong-armed populist and felt betrayed by his turn away from republicanism in favor of the empire. No house can stand divided, and French society in the 19th century was very much so divided until the Third Republic ('a republic divides us the least') and the national unifying rallying cry of revanche.

Thankyou for the additional info.....Would still claim though, that German leadership was also a significant factor.

[wolf_brother]

Originally Posted by ThomasTheviking

Thankyou for the additional info.....Would still claim though, that German leadership was also a significant factor.

Only in the sense that they happened to be in the right place at the right time.

[historyfool]

The advantage of the Germans was not only the (great) quality of its highest leadership but also the structures behind them especially the Generalstab, which had prepared plans for mobilising supplying and moving the armies (none of which was the case on the french side). Making plans for wars with aggressive and mighty neighbors is something every army with a bit of common sense should do. And moving units without theit equipment is simply stupid. The only advantage the french had were the infantry weapons. The Germans had better artillery, better training, better leadership, could move faster and had more reserves. A change of leadership on either side might change the butcher bill and the peace treaty in favour of the french, but the circumstances make it unlikly that such a small change will more than delay the outcome. The quality of the opponents is just to big

[ThomasTheviking]

Regarding leadership you (Historyfool and wolfbrother) are both right, but IMHO also wrong. History have many examples of how an army can be transformed (for better or worse), by having the right leadership at the right time. Just seeing the quality of an army by viewing its' mechanics and structure, would not be complete without taking into context the quality of the highest leadership.

[Nassirisimo]

I will point out that the French army had much better rifles, that outranged the Prussian guns by a significant margin. But this was largely negated by Prussian tactics that put more emphisis on their superior artillery.

[historyfool]

Originally Posted by ThomasTheviking

Regarding leadership you (Historyfool and wolfbrother) are both right, but IMHO also wrong. History have many examples of how an army can be transformed (for better or worse), by having the right leadership at the right time. Just seeing the quality of an army by viewing its' mechanics and structure, would not be complete without taking into context the quality of the highest leadership.

The leadership of the army is one of the important factors for its success, I only wanted to make clear, that a simple leadership change shortly before the war will not change the outcome of it. The whole concept of the Prussian army at this time was vastly superior to the French model. Up to the mid of the 20th century history was often viewed as made by great man, but this works only too a certain extent. It were the structures, plans and doctrines which lost the war for France. The right man at the right time could have changed them, but even with full support in political circles he would have needed time to implement the necessary reforms. Any POD (aside of some really stupid mistakes by the Germans like bringing other Great Powers into the War on the other side) after the war starts is way too late to avoid a German victory. They were not only more willing too move their armies fast, they were also more capable to do it, because the German structures were more flexible and at the same time better suited to the planning of the war. The French fielded at the beginning of the war 400-500 000 professional soldiers at the start of the war and really badly (if at all) trained and equipped reserves of a somewhat lower strength. The German regulars numbered around 300 000 but mobilised during the war 1.1 million reserves with at least decent training and equipment. With this numbers alone the French would really be hard pressed to turn the war.

[ThomasTheviking]

Originally Posted by historyfool

The leadership of the army is one of the important factors for its success, I only wanted to make clear, that a simple leadership change shortly before the war will not change the outcome of it. The whole concept of the Prussian army at this time was vastly superior to the French model. Up to the mid of the 20th century history was often viewed as made by great man, but this works only too a certain extent. It were the structures, plans and doctrines which lost the war for France. The right man at the right time could have changed them, but even with full support in political circles he would have needed time to implement the necessary reforms. Any POD (aside of some really stupid mistakes by the Germans like bringing other Great Powers into the War on the other side) after the war starts is way too late to avoid a German victory. They were not only more willing too move their armies fast, they were also more capable to do it, because the German structures were more flexible and at the same time better suited to the planning of the war. The French fielded at the beginning of the war 400-500 000 professional soldiers at the start of the war and really badly (if at all) trained and equipped reserves of a somewhat lower strength. The German regulars numbered around 300 000 but mobilised during the war 1.1 million reserves with at least decent training and equipment. With this numbers alone the French would really be hard pressed to turn the war.

I actually think that we agree....but just put emphazis on different matters. I agree totally that a new "Napoleon" entering the French side a just prior to the start of the war, would not have made much of a difference in the final outcome....but might have in other scenarios.