Napoleon's Victory [LONG]
- Thread starter Zach
- Start date
Postwar Europe: 1905-1940
LINK to a map of Europe. I didn't want to post it as an image because it is too large and will make the reader scroll back and forth.
Overview
Europe in 1905 lay a smoldering ruin, the product of destruction and devastation wrought upon it by the angry armies of its nations. The armies were going home with the Congress of Copenhagen’s conclusion but the rubble of countless villages remained to be picked up. The weary world leaders looked forward to a new era, a postwar era. Many hoped that the postwar era would truly be postwar, that humans have fought their last and greatest battle. Indeed, the war had wrecked huge swaths of earth as well as taking away over sixteen million lives, many of who were not even combatants. This is not even mentioning the millions more physically and psychologically damaged veterans and civilians who had seen the war firsthand. The Great War had vastly altered two continents and forever changed the international balance of power. It had huge repercussions for both Europe and the world, big and small, important and negligible.
France once again emerged from a giant conflagration as the world’s supreme power. Its victory in 1904 was even greater than its 1813 victory in the sense that Berlin and Vienna lay under the French boot while London was never officially taken. But the war was costly to the people of France. The country sustained one of the highest percentage of casualties of any country in the war; 3.7% of the nation’s 1900 population perished in the conflict, compared to the highest – Saxony – with 8.4%. Despite over two million French casualties, the great nation became the undisputed leader of Europe once more: Prussia and Austria were partly occupied by France, Russia was embroiled in a civil war and Britain was once again defeated. Admittedly, Britain was not defeated to the extent of 1813 but its people were high displeased in its government. They were so opposed to war that there were serious movements in Parliament to actually disband the Royal Navy. France’s predominant position on the continent once again gave it superpower status with the United States a rough, entirely neutral, equal. Britain also had great power status as its home islands and overseas empire remained relatively unscathed. Still, many ships of its navy were scuttled or handed over to the victorious powers, so Britain was greatly weakened in the postwar years.
The immediate postwar years were focused on reconstruction. Germany in particular was subject to many rebuilding efforts, as the war had raged over the entire country. Not since the Thirty Years War was the country so damaged; civilian casualties were high for the various German states and countless villages lay in ruin. Many of the Continental Alliance were focused on restoring their economies and for the most part, Germany was left alone to rebuild itself. France was the exception to the majority of other Allied countries and gave substantial aid to the newly formed German Union – created by the Allied German states under Westphalian leadership. As Europe began to get back on its feet, it first had to deal with the external threat of first a Communist Russia and then a ravanchist Zavstra Russia.
Regarding the international order, the balance of power remained nearly the same as the prewar world. France was nominally the sole superpower in 1899 despite the rise of Russia and Britain. With their defeat, France was once again the major power of the world with an extensive overseas empire that, although damaged in the Far East, still constituted large swaths of Africa, South America and Southeast Asia. Across the Atlantic, the United States under increasingly progressive administrations was making its presence felt on the international scene but they were newcomers and the world held the highest esteem for France who had fought two wars to create and retain this position.
Until the early 1940s, the world experienced a Second Pax Gallicana of the sort that dominated the nineteenth century. At the same time, Europe, and even the world more or less, experienced increasing polarization between a liberalizing west and an extremist east.
Liberalism of France and Britain
The immediate postwar years in France were also the last years of Napoleon III’s reign. He had lead France through its imperial glory and through terrible times. During the war, he was forced to use draconian measures that violated civil liberties because there were so many movements against the war and even against the Bonapartes. The power of the secret police increased during the war, leaders of various seditious groups were arrested and dozens of meetings and rallies that called for the overthrow of the Bonapartes were brutally crushed. The ultimate victory of France in the conflict soothed many of the hard feelings for many extremists. In June, 1905 Napoleon III granted a general amnesty for all political prisoners in Paris and many major cities were ordered to do likewise in the coming months. After the war, the venerable Napoleon III was hailed as a steady and principled leader; a man who calmly lead an alliance through defeat and victory through criticism and treasonous elements.
Napoleon’s policy for the postwar world was initially moderate and cooperative. However, he was staunchly anti-communist and feared the growth of “that poison”, Equalitarian Russia. Indeed, during the Congress of Copenhagen he was a moderate advocate of sending Allied soldiers to Russia to fight alongside the Czarist troops, but their rapid defeat and the general unpopularity of the idea led him to back down. Regarding Germany, Napoleon was apprehensive about a united Germany. Many in France proper viewed it as nearly inevitable especially with the creation of the German Union. The Westphalian King Jerome II, a Bonaparte relative of Napoleon III, was in close correspondence with the old Emperor and assured the French monarch that a united Germany would forever be allied with France. Economically, Napoleon III scaled back the Continental System, in place for decades, after the Great War. It was part of his overall policy to create more cooperation among European powers, which he believed was necessary to avoid another large-scale war.
Napoleon III died on October 11th, 1911 at the age of 78. He was succeeded by his son who was crowned Napoleon IV at the age of 56. Napoleon IV was very much like his father: a patriot and moderate, a military man who had served as a corps commander on the Italian and German fronts. He was a gifted and inspiring orator who early in his reign made use of new radio and cinema technology. Despite his fairly old age when he ascended the throne, Napoleon IV was in excellent health and his ascension was welcome among the people of France and the international community.
Nearly immediately, Napoleon IV became much more a liberal than many in the court expected. As he later defended, he was “only sailing in the wind the country was blowing in”. Just a few months as emperor, Napoleon IV repealed many of the draconian laws passed during the war by his father, dramatically decreased the funding for the secret police, poured more taxes into social welfare programs, especially veterans, and most importantly disbanded the Continental System. Although his father had already laid the foundations for this bold move, Napoleon IV officially did away with the Continental System in 1913. It was a different system at the time of its 1913 disbandment than it was from its 1807 creation. Indeed the name Continental System was probably the largest similarity. It was created as an embargo on Great Britain but by the 1830s, which saw the rapid industrial growth in French-dominated Europe, it was no longer necessary. As such, French economics in the nineteenth century was dominated between two factions between those who favored the dated mercantilist policies including high tariffs and self-sufficiency and those who favored free market economics and more international trade. During the postwar era under Napoleon III, France moved toward a free market economy. The ascension of Napoleon IV officially brought France into the free market world, along with embattled Britain and the burgeoning North American states. International trade during the 1910s onward grew at tremendous rates and the global economy skyrocketed.
Great Britain experienced similar reforms following the Great War. However, the reforms were different for a number of circumstances. For one, Britain had lost the war. Its rise back to great power status throughout the nineteenth century was abruptly cut short by its Great War defeat. Also, the monarchy was viewed as the root of the problem. Specifically, the poor, saber-rattling policies of Charles IV. Unlike in France where talk of overthrowing the monarchy was decidedly hushed and near blasphemous in most of the country, there were open discussions in Parliament about abolishing the monarchy in the rough postwar years. Although Britain was making a fine economic comeback from the war despite reparations, British pride sought to find a scapegoat and the public lambasted Charles’ policies. He had few supporters and the popularity of the monarchy declined to dismal heights from 1906-1910. Charles’ younger brother and heir to the throne, Prince George, was often seen in the streets attempting to assuage the public and reassure the press of monarchical intentions. He became the most popular man in the royal family and when Charles died in 1910, after nearly two years in total seclusion, the ascension of George VI was greeted with great enthusiasm. He became known as the “People’s King” and agreed to a vast curbing of monarchical power. Britain was already on track to do this under other nineteenth century monarchs but the reign of Charles IV and the war brought about a resurgence of royal power. This all ended in 1910.
Throughout the Great War, a predominantly Conservative Party cabinet led the British government with Prime Minister William Godley at its head. Godley’s government passed a number of temporary laws that made Britain into a state run by the military. As the war turned sour, the laws became more draconian. It was no surprise that the Conservatives were defeated in the polls in 1905, sweeping the Liberals into power for the first time in over a decade. The new government of Britain, led by Prime Minister David Huxley, was often at odds with Charles IV and it was really not until his death in 1910 that the Liberal agenda was fully implemented. These included a total repeal of the authoritarian Wartime Laws, a conciliatory foreign policy, a furthering of free market economics and agreement to the Congress of Copenhagen.
Probably one of the more far-reaching policies of the Liberal government, and overall liberalizing policies of Britain as a whole, concerned its empire. The empire was divided into different types of colonies. The first type was not a colony, but a dominion, meaning it had independent rule but was still loyal to the crown of Great Britain. For example, despite the independence of the Dominions of Canada, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand they still entered the Great War as members of the Sixth Coalition because Great Britain itself had done so. The other type of colony was a colony in the more traditional type. That is, other overseas holdings of the British Empire were controlled by colonial governments answerable directly to London and not at all independent. However, the 1910s saw a consolidation of the empire.
The Cape Town Agreement of 1914 was the first step in the consolidation of the British Empire. This agreement was signed among representatives from all Dominions and Great Britain declaring that all nations would be equal in the eyes of the monarch and that all areas would have the same national law. The Cape Town Agreement was a success in increasing the status of the dominions to be equal to that of Great Britain and was widely hailed by the public in the dominions. It was followed the next year by the London Agreement that agreed to the creation of an Imperial Parliament, comprised of members from all Dominion countries. The Imperial Parliament first met in 1919 in London, and would meet again every two years. The Imperial Parliament expanded membership to other colonies by promoting them to Dominion status. In doing so, the British Empire became a Union of Dominions rather than a central mother country hoarding over various lesser colonies. In 1924, India was promoted to Dominion status and sent representatives to the Imperial Parliament in 1925. They were followed by Nigeria in 1926, East and Central Africa in 1927, and various other colonies until the Sandwich Islands became the last colony to join the Imperial Parliament as a Dominion member in 1933.
The purpose of these acts and promotions of colonies was part of a far-sighted plan to retain British control of overseas territories. Each colony now enjoyed large degrees of autonomy (although in African holdings, white rule was hugely dominant and the first black African member of the Imperial Parliament was not elected until the 1950s). The benefits of being in the British Empire remained, such as beneficial trade agreements with other dominions. Overall, the empire became far more federalized with power being shared between the imperial capital in London and also various Dominion capitals. The Imperial Parliament met in a different city every two years, usually rotating between Ottawa, Cape Town, Sydney and Delhi. It was comprised of a proportional number of representatives from each dominion based on the number of eligible voters in each dominion (meaning white, land-owning men). As such, delegations from various Dominions varied in size and often seemed unproportional. For example, India had a small delegation despite being the most populous of the Dominions. Nevertheless, the creation of the Imperial Parliament and a far more federalized imperial system assuaged many hostile to British rule in the colonies and lead to a more peaceful and democratic existence.
France attempted to do a similar process to its remaining Far Eastern colony. After selling the Philippines to Japan after the Great War, Napoleon III and later Napoleon IV realized the importance of Indochina, as it was the remaining French outpost in the Far East. Indeed, millions of the francs gained from the sale of the Philippines were spent on Indochinese infrastructure and development. Railroads, ports, hospitals, schools and thousands of miles of paved roads were created in the backwards corner of Asia. Imitating the success of British federalism, the French gave nominal independence to Indochina in 1925, renaming it the Empire of Indochina. However, the Emperor of France remained the Emperor of Indochina with the local, though ancient, monarchy of the House of Nguyen being little more than puppets of the French. The ancient monarchy in a way became a second monarchy in Indochina, with there being the local Emperor in Saigon and the far-off Emperor in Paris.
Overall, the postwar period was marked by a growing sense of liberalism between the two powers. The near simultaneous ascension of Napoleon IV and George VI even brought about a similar timetable in the liberal agenda. France and Britain became far closer throughout the 1910s to 1930s. The first meeting between the two monarchs was the first of its kind and the two men shared an amiable relationship. Although the Bonapartes remained unpopular to the British, Napoleon IV was not nearly as despised as his father, grandfather and great-grandfather. There were large attempts to bring about a permanent peace between the two former bitter enemies. The Channel Accords were signed between the two men with the hearty approval of both the British and French public on April 1, 1930. The countries promised to not attack each other out of sheer belligerancy nor to support an ally that did the same. Realistically speaking, the British had no official allies, as the new Prussian and Russian regimes had long ago denounced the British as appeasers to the French. Britain no longer looked outward but inward, toward self-improvement and a lasting empire. France, on the other hand, remained highly involved in foreign affairs and soon had to deal with a resurgent Prussia and Russia.
German Unification
The new German flag took elements from its component states: blue from Bavaria and Westphalia, green from Saxony, red from Baden, black from Wurttemburg, and yellow from Mecklenburg. The Imperial French eagle was stuck upon the flag to symbolize the new country's close ties to France.
The new German flag took elements from its component states: blue from Bavaria and Westphalia, green from Saxony, red from Baden, black from Wurttemburg, and yellow from Mecklenburg. The Imperial French eagle was stuck upon the flag to symbolize the new country's close ties to France.
After the Great War, the numerous German states were by far the most damaged of any European countries. Together, they bore the brunt of the fighting, even though most of the times the armies that did the actual fighting were not German, but French, Russian, British or Austrian. To the minor German states, even the Prussians were a foreign army. Thus, following the Great War, the German states on the Allied side banded together to form the German Union. The creation of this Union was out of reluctance by Napoleon III at the Congress of Copenhagen and it was, for the most part, an economic alliance. Each German state - Westphalia, Bavaria, Saxony, Mecklenburg, Baden and Württemberg - adopted a common currency, the Deutschemark. Tariffs between the German states were dropped and economically speaking, so did the borders of each country. Neither Prussia nor Austria were invited to be a part of the German Union. They were not consulted at the Congress, nor was their membership even discussed in official Union conferences from 1906 to 1910. In 1907, a common treasury was created for the German Union, which effectively ended economic independence for each state. This was most beneficial to Westphalia, the largest and wealthiest of the states. The common treasury was created to help shoulder the burden of large war debts and the Germans effectively paid off all debt by 1910 independently of French aid.
Political unification was discussed for many years but of course included Prussia and Austria. The two countries were currently negligible regarding German unification in the eyes of the rest of Germany. Also, the German states felt a certain degree of camaraderie. They fought as allies during the war, had similar uniforms, carried the same equipment, fought the same battles and the veterans of the Great War drew benefits from the collective Union treasury. There is no doubt that the idea of political unification was highly popular among the people, especially among the large numbers of veterans. These young and middle-aged men were quickly becoming the key force in German politics. Demonstrations were constantly being held in favor of unification, although many disagreed as to what sort of unification would occur.
There were three types of ideas of unification that gained the most support. The first was an economic alliance (which had already been done) but included each German state remaining autonomous with its own foreign policy (although the foreign policies for the German states were thoroughly limited due to the close proximity of the French superpower). The second idea called for a total political and economic unification under Westphalian leadership. This idea made most sense since Westphalia was already the undisputed leader of Germany. The last idea for unification was to unify politically and economically with an elected monarch, chosen every few years in a complicated process. In short, it would be a modern Holy Roman Empire but with closer ties and less states. The last idea was the least popular while the second idea gained most traction, especially among the Westphalian public. Bavaria was somewhat opposed to it, being a close-second in terms of population and size, but many Germans could not see a Bavarian leading a united Germany simply because a Bonaparte in Paris would prefer a Bonaparte in Kassel.
That is indeed what happened. The first convention to discuss political unification convened in Kassel in 1907 after two successful years of the German Union's existence. The Kassel Convention was a spirited, enthusiastic affair that was compounded by thousands of supporters waiting outside. There was a real sense that Germany would indeed be united at the convention. However, the various representatives were not committed to forging an entirely new Germany and the only real thing the Kassel Convention accomplished was to set a date for another convention, in two years, in order to see the development of the German Union. The Second Kassel Convention in 1909 was even more successful than the first. The 480 delegates argued in an optimistic manner on which sort of unification should occur. Debates flowed between great orators and finally, on July 6th 1909 the delegates overwhelmingly supported Schellert's Plan. Max Schellert was a Westphalian leader who has proposed that Germany be united under Westphalian leadership. The plan passed with 340 for it and 140 against it.
Although each German state was nominally independent, the power of a Napoleon in Paris was evident in German affairs. On a number of occasions, a Napoleon had intervened in German affairs with impunity. After all, the first Napoleon had created Westphalia and his son and grandson viewed the German kingdom - with a cousin on the throne - as little more than a province of France itself. However, toward the end of Napoleon III's life, he viewed the unification of Germany as an inevitable event and was pleased that his relative, King Jerome II, would lead it. "Better a Bonaparte than anyone else to lead them" he said. In a meeting with Jerome, Napoleon agreed to bless the creation of a unified Germany as long as that Germany drop all claims on northwestern Germany (which had been under French control for decades) and that the unified Germany would remain allies with France through thick and thin. Jerome agreed and the old Napoleon III gave his blessing to a unified Germany.
The Third Kassel Convention convened in February 1910 to discuss the process of unification and the future of the government of Germany. Like previous conventions, this was a wild and enthusiastic affair. The convention lasted a full month full of ideas, counter-ideas, good ideas, bad ideas, unsuccessful ideas and successful ideas. The latter group - successful ideas - agreed to the following:
The creation of the Empire of Germany, a league of equal German states comprised of Westphalia, Saxony, Bavaria, Baden, Württemberg, Würzburg, Mecklenburg and Sigmaringen. The imperial crown of Germany would belong to the Bonapartes of Westphalia who would simultaneously be kings of Westphalia. The other monarchies of the German states would exist, though the imperial crown would of course be placed higher. There would be a single German Army, the policies of the German Union to be continued and a single German foreign policy. The coronation of Jerome II of Westphalia as Emperor Jerome I of Germany would occur a year from the Third Kassel Convention, on February 28th, 1911.
Thus, the German Empire was created and a single unified German state was formed. It was an insult to Prussia, who had long wished to unite Germany under its leadership and a slap in the face to Austria, who also wished to have influence in Germany. Instead, it was the French who would retain influence in Germany. However, the Germans were quick to separate themselves from the hegemony of France and establish themselves as an independent nation, and just as an equal ally and strong trading partner to France. Germany entered a new, prosperous age in 1911, with a united nation backed behind a strong, young leader.
Ottoman Secularism and Extremism
In effect, the Ottoman Empire was the catalyst of the Great War. If the Ottoman Sultan did not force the passing of laws which angered Russia, there may very well have not been a world war. And that war was indeed tough on the centuries-old Islamic empire. For a time, it seemed as if the crushing numbers of the Russian army would swamp the Ottomans all the way to Constantinople, meeting up with an amphibious force that had landed near the capital. The war was rough upon the Ottomans yet they survived and were among the victorious powers.
The postwar Ottoman Empire continued, however, on its steady decline despite victory. It increasingly became the "sick man of Europe" and relied on foreign, namely French, financial backing in order to not spiral into bankruptcy. Later on, oil production would increase from its Mesopotamian provinces, bringing in some much needed income. Abd-ul-Mejid III, the powerful and pro-Turk Sultan who had ruled during the war, died in 1917. Between the end of the war and his death, he pursued heavy-handed and iron-fisted policies often at the expense of many Slavic groups in his European territories. Indeed during the war he advocated killing Slavic nationalists more than the Austrians, perhaps because the Austrians preferred to do the same. Although a modern and powerful ruler, Abd-ul Mejid III was extremely authoritarian, relying on the secret policy and a system of informers in order to remain strong. He was also a devout Muslim and as a result very conservative when it came to religious affairs. In a way, the Ottoman Empire was theocratic and persecution of various Christians in Armenia and in Europe occurred. These occurrences were kept very quiet as the Ottomans did not wish to displease their Christian allies. In order to create a facade of religious tolerance, they opened the Holy Land for Christian and Jewish settlement in specific zones and with a cap on the number of legal migrants. The program was not particularly popular among Christians and Jews but it did help create a positive view of the Ottomans in the postwar world.
His equally conservative and authoritarian son, Mehmet VII, succeeded Abd-ul-Mejid III. Some considered him even more authoritarian than his father because of his more public anti-Armenian statements and policies. This brought about the strong condemnation from France that indirectly lead to a palace coup in 1919.
The palace coup was brought about by a number of officers displeased of Mehmet VII. They were supporters of Mustafa, Mehmet's brother, who was a far more progressively minded individual and a proponent of secularism. These officers viewed the strong Islamist policies of Abd-ul-Mejid III and Mehmet VII as harmful toward the Ottoman Empire both domestically and abroad. As the most powerful Muslim nation in the world, the Ottomans should lead by example, not through fear, the movement reasoned. The Ottoman subjects feared the empire and the progressive movement were adamant that the subjects of the sultan should not. With these reforms in mind - as well as military reforms, religious reforms, financial reforms, constitutionalism and a nationalist agenda - the "Secular Movement", as they became known as, launched their coup on October 19th, 1919. One notable platform this group did not advocate was equality for national minorities. This was largely covered up by their avocation of religious equality but regarding ethnic minorities, the Secular Movement was still hugely authoritarian and conservative.
The coup brought about a new phase in the Ottoman Empire. Mustafa became Mustafa V and Mehmet VII was sent into lonely exile far in eastern Anatolia. Mustafa V immediately set about reforming the Ottoman Empire in a progressive manner, including the consolidation of various provinces. He even set about setting about religious equality and downplaying the role of Islam in government. This led to an unsuccessful 1920 counter-coup led by students of theology but this only consolidated Mustafa's position. Mustafa's rule was a somewhat enlightened time for the Ottoman Empire. Its industries expanded and modernized, its military set on track for modernization and secularity became the theme of the time.
The new government of the Ottoman Empire seemed to be a paradox. It was progressive and modern and advocated secularism but were adamantly anti-Slavic. While the new regime advocated religious tolerance, it spat upon the Christians in its European territories. Then again, European Muslims were viewed as lesser than Turks merely because they were from Europe. Nearly the entire Balkan region in the 1920s experienced a crackdown. The tougher, new laws were very much based on racial profiling and it can be said that the Turkish overlords were extremely racist against the white Slavic peoples of Ottoman Europe. Many fled to nearby Greece, Romania, Austria and Russia but millions more were forced to stay put. In a secret and ambitious program, tens of thousands of Turkish settlers were moved to various points in the Balkans to help dilute the concentration of white Slavs. It was a poor idea simply because there were millions upon millions of white Slavs and far less Turks. The majority of these Balkan Slavs were poor, peasants, oppressed for years who viewed the new Ottoman regime with a mixture of hopefulness and apprehension.
Beginning in the 1930s, the general mood among these people was more apprehension than hopefulness. The Ottoman government had passed even more stringent laws because of recent rumblings from Zavstra Russia and its leader, Anton Morchenko. Morchenko was a Slavic nationalist and in many speeches he condemned the Ottoman Empire for keeping so many Slavs under its feel and on more than one occasion threatened the Ottoman Empire with hostile acts. This was despite the restrictions placed upon the Russians from the Copenhagen Congress. As a result, the Ottomans placed an even stronger hand on its European provinces than it had in decades past.
There were a few secret nationalist groups in the Balkans but the ranks had thinned during the Great War by both Ottoman and Austrian crackdowns. Following the war, the Turks had arrested so many leaders and members of these groups that many secret societies were crippled for years. Indeed, in the 1910s and 1920s it seemed as if the government would leave the Slavs alone and for a time, it appeared as if freedom would be granted to these groups. And religious freedom was indeed granted, albeit somewhat nominally. It was not until the early 1930s that the dormant underground, nationalist groups once again gained traction with specific backing from the Russians. Although Morchenko’s government had tried to reach out to the Ottoman Slavs in the 1910s, they were generally disinterested because they feared more brutal crackdowns. They also viewed Russia as a weak and broken state. By the 1930s, Russia was once again powerful on the world stage and the Slavs in Ottoman Europe once again looked to the largest Slavic country for leadership against the Ottoman oppressors. The three largest underground groups in the Ottoman Europe were decidedly ethnically based. They were the Serbian National Society, the Free Army of Bulgaria, and the Albanian Freedom Movement. These groups swelled in numbers in the 1930s despite being strictly against the law. In 1936, a fourth group, the Pan-Slavic Society was formed and though it initially attracted few members, it had the potential to be appeal to a broad variety of groups.
Overall, the Ottoman Empire was a country of paradoxes in the postwar period. It grew more progressive yet more heavy-handed in its treatment of its European provinces. It grew wealthier and far more secular yet still oppressed millions of Slavs simply because the Ottomans wanted to keep a hold on in Europe. Russia was vehemently anti-Ottoman in its policies. Once again, France stood to prop up the aging empire against external forces. In 1934 it re-affirmed its military alliance with the Ottomans and Britain, fearing the growing power of Zavstra Russia, signed a defensive agreement in Constantinople. Oddly enough, certain circumstances would make it possible for Britain and France to become military allies.
Austro-Hungarian Moderation
Emperor of Austria, King of Hungary and King of Czechia Rudolf I in a 1928 portrait.
Emperor of Austria, King of Hungary and King of Czechia Rudolf I in a 1928 portrait.
Austria-Hungary, center of the ancient Habsburg monarchy, member of six losing coalitions of France, and multinational empire, issued a bold foreign policy change in 1906. In the Perpetual Neutrality Act of 1906, signed enthusiastically into law by Franz Josef I, Austria-Hungary declared itself “forever neutral in foreign affairs…no entanglements in foreign alliances any longer…neutrality shall be a policy the Austrian and Hungarian foreign ministries embrace…except in cases of self-defense and in retaining national integrity, the Empire shall be perpetually neutral.” It was a bold law, the likes of which had not yet been seen in Europe. It was, nevertheless, highly popular among nearly all subjects of the empire. After all, the Austrians felt as if they were dragged and tricked by false promises to enter the war. All they had to show for it was large amounts of war debt and an occupied capital. They were humiliated yet again and many in the government had felt that enough was enough. Hence, the law was passed.
Back in 1890, the Emperor Franz Josef I made a large concession to his Magyar subjects by creating a Dual Monarchy. He was both King of Hungary and Emperor of Austria, meaning each territory operated under separate domestic departments by united under a single ruler. When the Dual Monarchy was created, other nationalities demanded more governmental equality. The largest nationalities were the Czechs. After the war, Austria’s Poles had been added onto a larger Poland making the Czechs and Slovaks the largest nationalities left in the empire. Franz Josef repeatedly refused to change the status quo, as he feared upheavals if too much change occurred. After all, under his watch Austria had become Austria-Hungary and then lost a world war. He was a highly traditional and conservative man. Although not totally opposed to the idea of changes, he was simply too convinced of anymore change in his lifetime. When he died in 1916 at the age of 86, he was succeeded by his son Rudolf, who was already fairly old at 58 at the time of ascension. He was a reformer and set about laying down policies to appease the Czechs.
The Czech-dominated areas of Bohemia and Moravia were home to the industrious and prosperous Czechs. They had fought loyally for the empire during the Great War and were key industrial regions of the country. For many years they resented the Austrian domination of their land and were further slighted when the Hungarians gained equal status to the Germans in 1890. However, when Rudolf came to the Austro-Hungarian thrones, they viewed the matter of equality as just a matter of time.
And indeed, the Czech leaders were correct on this assumption. In 1918, a Triple Monarchy was created with the Kingdom of Czechia. It would have a similar status to Hungary: independent representative legislature to handle domestic affairs with loyalty to the King of Czechia, and Emperor of Austria. Thus, Austria-Hungary became Austria-Hungary-Czechia, or the Triple Monarchy. This move was a bold move by Rudolf aimed at preserving the Habsburg empire from crumbling from within. He defended himself by pointing out that Russia, in its civil war, had to deal with numerous rebellious nationalities because they were all oppressed in the eyes of the Czar. It would be better to have the nationalities within the empire achieve autonomy yet still remain loyal to the Emperor, he figured. It was time, after all, for German domination of non-German areas of the area to end.
Austria soon became a moderate force in European affairs. To its north and east lay the extremely right-wing states of Russia and Prussia while to the west were the more liberal-leaning Britain and France. Austria, with its Perpetual Neutrality policy, began to look inward. Under the reigns of Rudolf and his successor Franz Karl II, Austria made the miraculous transformation from a traditional, conservative European power to a moderate, progressive state. Its federal form of government was copied from nearby Imperial Germany but it proved a highly effective way of governing. Germans, Hungarians and Czechs enjoyed equal rights by 1918 and in the 1920s and 1930s, other nationalities achieved the same goals. During the Great War, Austria was still opposed to a Slavic nation but Austria’s reduced borders had left considerably less Slavs under Habsburg control than in prior decades. Under the progressive era (which became known as Rudolfization to describe the leader who initiated and effectively led the moderate reforms from 1916 to about the 1940s) Austria took bold new steps to increase its economy, minimize the amount of aggression in its foreign policy, and increase social welfare for all of its citizens regardless of nationality.
I love it
Both Britain and Austria lose, and become better nations for it all. I especially like the Switzerland-like Austria.
A qestion about the Imperial Parliament: how will it handle all the potential future voters of India in more liberal future without becoming an Indian empire?
Second question: What is Russia's stance in regard to Poland? (or have I missed something)
Great timeline and can't wait for the next update
Both Britain and Austria lose, and become better nations for it all. I especially like the Switzerland-like Austria
.A qestion about the Imperial Parliament: how will it handle all the potential future voters of India in more liberal future without becoming an Indian empire?
Second question: What is Russia's stance in regard to Poland? (or have I missed something)
Great timeline and can't wait for the next update
I think India would be granted independence by the other members just to keep it from becoming the majority shareholder.
Ah Austria, it is achieving its destiny as a true multinational empire under the protection of Europas greatest dynasty. All hail the Habsburgs!
As for the Ottomans, right now I am hoping that Morchenko kicks their asses right out of the Balkans. Shame for mistreating the Slavs like that, I hope that Empire collapses after the next war.
HOLD IT! I just took a look at the map again. Has the upstart German Empire dared to take possession of the imperial city!?
Ah Austria, it is achieving its destiny as a true multinational empire under the protection of Europas greatest dynasty. All hail the Habsburgs!
As for the Ottomans, right now I am hoping that Morchenko kicks their asses right out of the Balkans. Shame for mistreating the Slavs like that, I hope that Empire collapses after the next war.
HOLD IT! I just took a look at the map again. Has the upstart German Empire dared to take possession of the imperial city!?
Well, well, you have outdone yourself on this one Zach... Simply marvelous, I hope you keep the magic going.
Just one thing, and I say this because I've seen confusion over it before:
On the German flag, that spot where gold is touching white, I don't think that can happen on a flag. At least not on a flag held by a country that has knowledge of heraldry rules from Western Europe. I don't know if that works here, just putting it out there...
Can't wait to see Morchenko throw Russia in to screw up this wonderful new Europe...
Just one thing, and I say this because I've seen confusion over it before:
On the German flag, that spot where gold is touching white, I don't think that can happen on a flag. At least not on a flag held by a country that has knowledge of heraldry rules from Western Europe. I don't know if that works here, just putting it out there...
Can't wait to see Morchenko throw Russia in to screw up this wonderful new Europe...
Well, well, you have outdone yourself on this one Zach... Simply marvelous, I hope you keep the magic going.
Just one thing, and I say this because I've seen confusion over it before:
On the German flag, that spot where gold is touching white, I don't think that can happen on a flag. At least not on a flag held by a country that has knowledge of heraldry rules from Western Europe. I don't know if that works here, just putting it out there...
Can't wait to see Morchenko throw Russia in to screw up this wonderful new Europe...
Heraldy rules are pretty much there to be broken, for all the flags that actually follow them.
Thanks for the compliments
Next, I should be writing about the Prussians, Russians and the rest of Europe like Poland, Romania. Should be interesting, I hope.
That is going to definitely be a problem. For now, that is why I have only white members in the Parliament. It would not seem correct to continue to have darker-skinned people continue to be 'oppressed' into the 1970s and beyond. For now, the qualifications of being a MP (or should I say MIP - Member of Imperial parliament) definitely involve being white. This keeps the Indian representation low. Later ITTL there will be reforms to allow a more accurate represenation. It seems inevitable to me, however, that India will become a huge voting bloc. At the same time, they may very well split between Muslim and Hindi groups.
Quite frankly, they are no position to make demands. The French emperor didn't have to give his blessing to the unification. There could have been a huge mess if they had done so without his blessing. ITTL France made Germany, whether it was Westphalia, the German Confederation, German Union or Empire of Germany. Think of this new Germany as a client state or satellite, despite its nationalism and independence.
Next update, I'll discuss this. But basically, it is quite negative. Russia wants to absorb Poland, to keep it short.
Maybe. But I personally just can't see the British letting go of India without any sort of conflict. In OTL, it took a couple world wars and a massive movement by skilled leaders to lead to independence. ITTL, those leaders don't exist and Britain has so far rebounded from its only world war so far pretty well. As I mentioned above, the Imperial Parliament is totally white at this point and India won't become an issue until at least the 1950s and 1960s.
Hmm, no, it has not. Unless you're referring to another imperial city?
I have no idea about any heraldry rules! Does the German flag look okay? It is somewhat colorful in my taste. Maybe they will change their flag in the future.
Next, I should be writing about the Prussians, Russians and the rest of Europe like Poland, Romania. Should be interesting, I hope.
Dreadnaught Jenkins said:
That is going to definitely be a problem. For now, that is why I have only white members in the Parliament. It would not seem correct to continue to have darker-skinned people continue to be 'oppressed' into the 1970s and beyond. For now, the qualifications of being a MP (or should I say MIP - Member of Imperial parliament) definitely involve being white. This keeps the Indian representation low. Later ITTL there will be reforms to allow a more accurate represenation. It seems inevitable to me, however, that India will become a huge voting bloc. At the same time, they may very well split between Muslim and Hindi groups.
Roberto said:
Quite frankly, they are no position to make demands. The French emperor didn't have to give his blessing to the unification. There could have been a huge mess if they had done so without his blessing. ITTL France made Germany, whether it was Westphalia, the German Confederation, German Union or Empire of Germany. Think of this new Germany as a client state or satellite, despite its nationalism and independence.
Roberto said:
Next update, I'll discuss this. But basically, it is quite negative. Russia wants to absorb Poland, to keep it short.
Herr Frage said:
Maybe. But I personally just can't see the British letting go of India without any sort of conflict. In OTL, it took a couple world wars and a massive movement by skilled leaders to lead to independence. ITTL, those leaders don't exist and Britain has so far rebounded from its only world war so far pretty well. As I mentioned above, the Imperial Parliament is totally white at this point and India won't become an issue until at least the 1950s and 1960s.
Herr Frage said:
Hmm, no, it has not. Unless you're referring to another imperial city?
Kriegdämmerung said:
I have no idea about any heraldry rules! Does the German flag look okay? It is somewhat colorful in my taste. Maybe they will change their flag in the future.
MAGNIFICENT!!!! I can't wait to read about the Russians and Prussians! It would be interesting to see how the Prussians could become even more extreme than they were before. Also, I would like to find out what sweeping changes Morchenko would introduce to consolidate his power, show his tyranny and make Russia strong again.
Another thing, how about writting a speech for Morchenko to accompany your next update about Russia? I wrote a speech for the tyrant in my TL, the Baron von Sternberg and I think it really helps build the character and impact of an Alternate Historical personality. I would really like to hear one of his impassioned speeches and how he speaks about Russia, the opressed Slavs, the Jews, the Ottomans and "zavtra".
I can't wait to read about the Russians and Prussians! It would be interesting to see how the Prussians could become even more extreme than they were before. Also, I would like to find out what sweeping changes Morchenko would introduce to consolidate his power, show his tyranny and make Russia strong again.Another thing, how about writting a speech for Morchenko to accompany your next update about Russia? I wrote a speech for the tyrant in my TL, the Baron von Sternberg and I think it really helps build the character and impact of an Alternate Historical personality. I would really like to hear one of his impassioned speeches and how he speaks about Russia, the opressed Slavs, the Jews, the Ottomans and "zavtra".
I really want to do a lot of stuff that is out of the formal tone I've been using. I tried that in previous pages with the book review for the biography of Napoleon III. Stuff like speeches, passages from diaries, books, etc. I also want to dedicate a whole section to culture - literature, art, music, and later radio and film. How do you all feel about that?
.
I would love something like that. Stuff like that really brings a timeline to life
New Prussian Identity
Prussia King Wilhelm II who reigned from 1903-1941
The defeat of Prussia in 1904 affected its leaders and policies deeply. It was a terrible defeat for a nation that prided itself upon its military. Never before had Prussia been so thoroughly defeated; Berlin itself was captured and in the final days of the war, the King William II even had to briefly abdicate the throne to his brother Frederick (who was not in Berlin during its capture) in order for official monarch to avoid capture from the Allies. It was an embarrassing affair and to add to the embarrassment, a chunk of central Prussia was given to Poland in the Congress of Copenhagen, thus splitting Prussia into non-contiguous East and West Prussia. However, the general population knew that the country had been thoroughly defeated and though slighted and embarrassed, accepted the terms and the defeat.
The immediate postwar years of Prussia were dominated by reconstruction efforts, moderate inflation, and combating left-wing radicals. The first – reconstruction efforts – were aimed at Western Prussia and in Berlin where the war had raged in 1903-1904. Berlin itself was quite untouched by its surrounding suburbs lay in ruin, the result of aggressive long-range artillery bombardments from ambitious French artillery officers. Inflation was the story of the Prussian economy from 1905 to about 1909 when the final reparations were being paid to the victorious powers. Prussia was very much without significant trading partners during this time, as the Communist governments in Moscow were quick to renounce their former authoritarian allies in Prussia. These were indeed dark days for Prussia, compounded by its own relatively weak Communist Revolution in 1907 that was quickly and brutally crushed by thousands of veterans of the war who were still loyal to their king.
The government of Prussia was oftentimes conflicted as to where they should lead Prussia. There were two main courses of action that the wealthy Junkers were advocates for: revenge and final victory or moderation, acceptance and progression toward a peaceful future. Personally, King William II was for the former despite the loss of the Great War and the huge limitations placed upon Prussia. As early as 1908, he was already advocating the expansion of the Prussian automobile industry with the secret intention of building up a secret corps of armored cars. However, Prussia would be alone in another fight, a sure recipe for failure. The rise of Morchenko in Russia and the subsequent growth in power by followers of the Zavstra ideology changed all that and Prussia was no longer alone in the world.
The unification of western Germany under the Bonaparte king of Westphalia caused depressing shock waves to reverberate throughout Prussia. Indeed, one of the reasons Prussia had involved itself in the Great War was to gather German states to unite, but of course French and German armies got in the way. However, Prussia did get its own puppet king on the throne of Saxony for the duration of the war, though afterwards he was tried and imprisoned in a Saxon court. When Germany united under its own Empire in 1911, Prussia began to veer even more to the right in conjunction with the new emerging right-wing regime in Russia.
A new Prussian identity emerged in the mid 1910s with the support of Morchenko in Russia and the full support and enthusiasm of William II. This new identity manifested itself in common objects such as stamps and currency, which were reprinted in 1915 with new designs. Actually, the old Prussian currency was replaced by a Konigsmark in 1915 to distinguish it from the Mark of Imperial Germany. The Prussians in the 1910s began to embrace a new view of themselves. They saw Prussia as the “old” Germany as opposed to the “new” Germany to the west, which had been Frenchified and run into the ground by the Bonapartes. For some Prussians, including William II, the Empire of Germany was no better than Eastern France. Prussian leaders used, for example, the “new” German weakness by noting that Hamburg as well as northwest Germany was still under French control and probably would be forever since the “new” Germans lacked the strong leadership to challenge Paris. The Prussians viewed themselves as the border Germany where the better Germans settled and now lived. They were the “pure” Germans, untouched by the corrupting influence of republicanism, Bonapartism or French culture in general. The new Prussian ideology was disdainful of Britain and its increasing liberalism, as well as Austria and its Perpetual Neutrality doctrine. They were especially disgusted at its immediate neighbors, Imperial Germany and the Kingdom of Poland, since both countries occupied land the Prussians viewed as rightfully theirs. In addition, Prussia continued to embrace conservative ideals (and even more so than in the prewar era), namely legitimism, family values, traditional hereditary values and blood ties while looking sourly upon Western intellectualism and liberalism.
During the late 1910s and 1920s when it became clear that Morchenko’s regime was making progress in Russia, Prussian philosophers and propagandists introduced a new element to the new Prussian ideology. The Slavic heritage of Prussia began to be stressed. This was done to further distance Prussia from Imperial Germany and France as well as to increase friendlier ties with the growing power of Russia. An Indirect result of this was a spurt in underground neo-pagan rituals based on pre-Christian rituals of Eastern Europeans. In part this was a backlash to the predominately Catholic France, heavily Catholic Germany and Austria. Although not condoned by William II’s government, it gained popularity among the young and patriotic and among many lower-ranking officers.
The new Prussian identity that grew in the 1910s did not have an official name. It was known by many names from “New Ideology for a Greater Prussia” to “Williamism. Eventually, it became known as Frommism based on the writings of Julius Fromm, a new Prussian philosopher and thinker who summed up the ideology of the new Prussian identity in his book Phoenix: The Rise of a New Prussia. The new ideology was nearly universally accepted and embraced by the powerful Junker class, as well as William II who worked hard to implement its domestic policies. As such, Prussia remained a highly stratified, militaristic society. The regular army, though limited in size, became incredibly professional and thousands of young men joined various clubs that taught them soldiers’ basic training, though without live weapons. Participation was voluntary but the culture demanded it so much that nearly all young men joined these clubs. To be accepted to the regular army was considered the greatest honor. Thus, even with the limitations of Copenhagen placed upon it, Prussia militarized for yet another war, a war it planned to win.
Holy crap...
(Wait, hold on)
HOLY CRAP!!!
That was AMAZING! So the Prussians want to be Slavs, do they? That's certainly alternate history for you. Great work, keep it up...
(Wait, hold on)
HOLY CRAP!!!
That was AMAZING! So the Prussians want to be Slavs, do they? That's certainly alternate history for you. Great work, keep it up...
Very good, although it does not seem like it would sell very well outside of Prussia so as to warrant translations but that is besides the point. Will there be any sort of appeasement for Prussia, with it reclaiming any lost territory? Also, what will happen to the Germans in Russia, will they come to Prussia in state sponsored emigrations between Russia and Prussia?