1864: Denmark - you will never walk alone

[Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy]

WI the British and the Swedish had decided to aid Denmark militarily in the Schleswig-Holstein war?

 

[Max Sinister]

Prussia and A-H together would still be stronger, I'd say. Unless another power (France, Russia?) will stand on Denmark's side, they'll win sooner or later.

 

[Tyr]

There isn't much Sweden and Britain could do being on the other side of the sea...

Though I agree- Russia joining would be a major help putting Prussia on a two front war.

 

[DoleScum]

Prussia and A-H together would still be stronger, I'd say. Unless another power (France, Russia?) will stand on Denmark's side, they'll win sooner or later.

1. It's unlikely that AH would side with Prussia. The Austrians were extremely keen to discourage Prussian expansionism within Germany. More than likely Austria and Bavaria would have stood on the sidelines as uncooperative neutrals.
2. If Britain was determined to go to war with Prussia over Schelswig-Holstein then France would have been a natural ally. Franco-British relations were relatively healthy during the 1860s (prior to the colonial wrangling that occurred post 1870) and Napoleon III would jump at the chance for an elaborate foreign policy venture of European soil, and to end France's diplomatic isolation.
Britain could also probably rely on Sweden and a significant number of north German states who were worried about the threat to their sovereignty posed by Prussia.
This alliance could have captured the Prussian Rhineland quite easily and used this to force Bismarck to withdraw from Denmark.
3. Militarily i'm not so sure how this would go down, Does the Prussian army have needle guns in 1864? I thought they were not introduced until immediately prior to the Austro-Prussian war? Certainly the British army was also more experienced in this period, having fought the Crimea and the India Mutiny recently. So possibly the Prussians are mowed down by superior British fire power?
4. Russia would probably sit this one out. At best she might move troops into Asia as a way of worrying Britain and drawing British resources away from Europe but that's about it.

 

[Anaxagoras]

1. It's unlikely that AH would side with Prussia.

They did IOTL.

 

[DoleScum]

They did IOTL.

Did they!? Over Schelswig? Are you sure.....?

I thought Austria oppossed every move towards German unification prior to the Austro-Prussian war.

 

[Max Sinister]

Yes, they fought the war of 1864 together. Check wikipedia, or any history book.

 

[DoleScum]

Yes, they fought the war of 1864 together. Check wikipedia, or any history book.

I stand corrected.

Would Austria go so far as to declare war on Britain though?

 

[Max Sinister]

I thought Britain would declare war first...

 

[DoleScum]

I thought Britain would declare war first...

Hmmm, possibly... although declaring war on Prussia and AH runs the risk of drawing in Russia as a co-beligerant, or at least seriously p-ing the Russians off to the extent that they start moving troops towards India and Persia, which would have serious implications for Britian's ability to fight in Europe.

I doubt Britain would've actually declared war first, unless she'd already secured France as an ally and possibly roped in some German states to provide the British with a base to operate from in Germany.

 

[Archdevil]

I doubt Britain would've actually declared war first, unless she'd already secured France as an ally and possibly roped in some German states to provide the British with a base to operate from in Germany.

Hanover, maybe?
About France, this is before the Entente of 1905, but not that long after the Crimean War in which they fought together.

 

[carlton_bach]

I think the question is when do they declare war. If Britain makes it clear well beforehand they won't stand for this, Bismarck is likely to quietly back down and seek a compromise solution. Britain is not an enemy you want to have, not if you are looking to woo the North German states, and not if you care to have a free hand in Europe rather than being hindered at every turn.

If Britain rushed in as an afterhought, the Prussians would probably make a big deal of going 'against all enemies', grab Denmark, and negotiate a peace much as they did OTL, except that Denmark would probably keep a bit more territory. A-H will be committed already, I don't see how they can get out with their honour intact. That might cost them a few more bits of Italy. Not leaving happy memories in Vienna, once it turns out you gambled and lost Venetia and your Mediterranean trade (and fleet!) in order to acquire, of all places, Holstein, which you didn't want, can't defend, and hold by the grace of your archnemesis.

I do not think Britain would outright fight, or could defeat, Prussia. But its influence, money, and naval power can make the war very uncomfortable and lose Berlin influence with the allies having the squeeze put on them. Now, if Austria is the first to urge negotiations, Bismarck could pretend it's all the cowardly Austrians' fault...

 

[arctic warrior]

Problem was Denmark was on it's own.
Bismarck had secured Russia's friendship during the Polish uprising of 1863, so the Zar didn't as in 1849 press Prussia out of Denmark.
Austria-Hungary wouldn't pull itself out, too much were at stake - it's leading the German states. Especially after a British declaration of war, that would certainly lose it Germany.
Queen Victoria was married to a German so she was pro-German even if the cabinet and public opinion were in favor of supporting Denmark. And Denmark had no need for naval support: it blokaded the German ports and defeated the only Austrian squadron sent against it off Heligoland.
Sweden had sent a brigade to Denmark during the first Sleswig war, and a number of Swedes volunteered for service in the Danish army.

So Bismarck had his back secured, Austria had to follow suit, Britain was out of the game, Sweden hailed Scandinavian brotherhood but didn't want to get involved. France of course would have been more than happy to intervene, but not on it's own. And Prussia had the Dreyse needle-rifle as standard infantry issue at this time.
Denmark politicians and diplomats were not up to the task in 1864. The language issue after 1850 had been a major obstacle to negotiate a settlement peacefully. The Danes insisted on danish laguage and the Germans on german! All of Sleswig had to remain in the Kingdom even in spite of half, give or take, was german. Holstein was a german Duchy with the King of Denmark being Duke and also had to answer to a German League call for military assistance, supplying the 3. brigade of the League division of the north, the to other brigades supplied by Hannover and Saxony. This division was moved into Holstein in 1864.
At the first conference during the war, Bismarck actually offered Denmark a partition of Sleswig, but stubbornly Denmark refused!
In the end it was to be the outcome - Denmark got out of German affairs without too much blodshed and got its part of Sleswig back in 1920.

Denmark didn't at the time have anything of interest to anybody. And Bismarck knew how to pave his way.
So maybe if Victoria had been married to somebody non-German... But did Britain have the ground forces to send to Denmark? Perhaps a British lead could drag France into the fray and with it the french army... The Prussian Rhineland would be the obvious strategic target of the French and that would distract the Prussians.
But in order to really work you would have to counter Bismarck before the invasion/execution, as it was termed by the German League. And then hopefully you could have a Prussian - Austrian war in 1864 instead! But that would draw Denmark partly into the war as a German League nation, and regarding OTL as a Austrian ally. But that would not be in the interest of Denmark, in the long run. Problem for Denmark was that it really didn't know how to get rid of Holstein and keep Sleswig in the Kingdom, which would be the ideal situation for Denmark.
It would have been bad situation for Denmark being dragged into a German war, possibly on the losing side, and then facing a victoriuos Prussia leading the German States.
Then you have two options for Denmark. A new war with Prussia over Sleswig-Holstein with Prussia taking all or Denmark being held hostage by Bismarck through Holstein! Of course he wouldn't allow a negotiated settlement of Sleswig. I doubt if this would be a better situation for Denmark than OTL. Denmark would still be robbed of allies, Prussia would be far stronger and it's counterweigh in Germany, Austria would be out.
Then Denmark would participate in the Franco-German war on the German side. And what would happen in 1914???

 

[Redbeard]

A simple "We are not amused" from London probably would have had Bismarck back down, but British diplomacy was much hindered by the Danes insisting on breaking the 1852 London treaty about S-H.

The Prussian and A-H Armies indeed were much superior to the British, Swedish and Danish, but the Prussians and Austrians could not deploy all their forces to Denmark. First they would have to cover a lot of other fronts, not at least vs. France and Italy, and next there simply wasn't room in Denmark to operate with huge forces. Or Jutland more specifically, as the Danish navy alone could keep the Germans from crossing to the Danish Islands. The OTL Prussian/Austrian army operating in the 1864 war vs. Denmark would certainly not be impossible to defeat by the Danish army aided by a say 50.000 man British-Swedish Expeditionary Force.

With British support an occupying German army in Jutland will any time risk being attacked in its flank by forces landed on the east coast. The war will probably draw out, which is most costly to the north German provinces dependent on overseas trade.

All in all Bismarck's reputation and thereby his schemes for German unity are seriously endangered. But most important will still be if he later can decisively defeat Austria and France.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard

 

[bill_bruno]

British Army inconsequential

Bismarck was once asked would we would do if the British army landed in Germany and he responded that he'd have the Prussian police arrest them. He would certainly not back down over S-H because of British displeasure. Why would Italy intervene over Denmark? Possibly a stronger British stand could've brought the French in, but then the rest of the German Confederation would've had to back the Austro-Prussians. The presence of Swedish and UK detachments in Denmark might've slowed down the result but they couldn't have changed it. At most you might have a wider war but I'm not sure the British would chance that because the results would be either Prussian or French aggrandizement.

 

[Susano]

There is a slight problem with that.

The war only started BECAUSE it was clear GB would do nothing. Denmark annexed Schleswig, and thus broke the London Agreements of 1849 (48?), of which the UK was one guarantee power. So, Denmark isolated itself by breaking a trety, and was thus an easy prey for Austria and Prussia.
Had Denmark not done so, then there would also have been no war.

So it seems very unlikely to me that such a scenario could happen.

 

[Tyr]

Bismarck was once asked would we would do if the British army landed in Germany and he responded that he'd have the Prussian police arrest them. He would certainly not back down over S-H because of British displeasure. Why would Italy intervene over Denmark? Possibly a stronger British stand could've brought the French in, but then the rest of the German Confederation would've had to back the Austro-Prussians. The presence of Swedish and UK detachments in Denmark might've slowed down the result but they couldn't have changed it. At most you might have a wider war but I'm not sure the British would chance that because the results would be either Prussian or French aggrandizement.

That was Wilhem not long before WW1.
Prussia was not up to those standards yet and Britain was much more powerful.

 

[Wendell]

I stand corrected.

Would Austria go so far as to declare war on Britain though?

Maybe, if Austria had something to gain...Suppose France (and/or Russia) backed Prussia as well?

 

[bill_bruno]

UK insufficient

That was Wilhem not long before WW1.
Prussia was not up to those standards yet and Britain was much more powerful.

No, it was Bismarck in the 1860s (see http://www.worldpolicy.org/journal/articles/wpj05-2/hendrickson.html

AJP Taylor, in The Struggle for Mastery in Europe, observed "Apart from thenavy, the British themsevles could only provide an army of some 20,000 men. It was the essence of their policy that they could always count on a continental ally..." (p. 146)

Eric van Eyck, in Bismarck and the German Empire, observed that "In the Cabinet, Palmerston was defeated by a majority led by Gladstone, who asserted that England simply was not ready for war. In that argument he was, no doubt right. England did not have an army with which it could opposed to mighty military Powers single-handed" (p. 92)

In the Crimea, the size of the expeditionary force that Britain could initially muster was only 30,000. The total initial Austro-Prussian force was 61,000 plus Prussia added another 20,000. The Brits could've caused delays but they couldn't have affected the outcome.

 

[arctic warrior]

There is a slight problem with that.

The war only started BECAUSE it was clear GB would do nothing. Denmark annexed Schleswig, and thus broke the London Agreements of 1849 (48?), of which the UK was one guarantee power. So, Denmark isolated itself by breaking a trety, and was thus an easy prey for Austria and Prussia.
Had Denmark not done so, then there would also have been no war.

So it seems very unlikely to me that such a scenario could happen.

But Bismarck only became Prussian premier in 1862 and there had been problems between Denmark and The German States in 1857-58, 1860, 1861 and in 1862 the British and the Prussians concepted the idea of a partition of Sleswig through a referendum.
No, the war would have come anyway, it was just a matter of time, when somebody in Germany OR Denmark, would find the time ripe.

Sweden actually made proposals regarding an alliance in 1856 and 1863. But Denmark backed out in 1856 and Sweden in 1863.

Denmark didn't annex Sleswig and so violate the London conference of 1851-52 until 1864 when the new constitution was brought into effect on January 1. and Sleswig annexed to the Kingdom of Denmark.
But even if that hadn't taken place war would have been the issue for Bismarck who through his backing had secured the goodwill of Russia, traditionally friendly to Denmark.
It wasn't until that happened that Germany went into action. It had the casus belli in 1858, 1860 and 1861, but Denmark had bowed to German pressure. Only in 1864 did the Germans give Denmark an ultimatum that could not be responded to in a way favorably to the German States.

Only after 1863 was Denmark politically isolated, robbed of Russian goodwill by a cunning politician. Of course Austria wouldn't have chanced the same as Bismarck, as it would have incurred the wrath of Russia. Bismarck was in a unique position to attack Denmark, or anybody else! In order to establish Prussian hegemony over Germany and counter Austria in Germany.

So a war pre-1863 between Germany and Denmark is highly unlikely because Germany would have to watch it's eastern border.

Denmark would need a strong army as ally, France or Russia. Someone able to directly attack German ground. Not a navy, that it already had plenty of, unless it was allied to France, not Italy that had to go through Austrian territory. Sweden would only give 15-20000 additional troops and Prussia would be able to deploy even more.