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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Eurofed

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]

Originally Posted by Checkmate113

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]

Originally Posted by Checkmate113

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Originally Posted by Eurofed

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Originally Posted by Eurofed

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.

Originally Posted by Eurofed

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.

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 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.

Originally Posted by Eurofed

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.

Originally Posted by Eurofed

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

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

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Eurofed

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.

Originally Posted by Snake Featherston

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.

Originally Posted by Snake Featherston

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]

Originally Posted by victoria944

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]

Originally Posted by victoria944

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

I do appreciate this a lot. 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.