1866: Russia marches with Prussia and Italy

[Aphrodite]

When the Austrians mobilize for the War,, the Russians mobilize their forces in Poland and send the following message to the various German Princes:

"Due to the Hapsburg support for Polish rebels against the Divinely ordained crown*, the Russian Empire is forced to march with Prussia and Italy upon this Dynasty of the gutter. We mean no harm upon any German dynasty and guarantee the territorial and political integrity of any German power that marches with us. The fate of any who oppose us will be determined by force of arms"


*Admittedly a convenient pretext

The agreed division of the spoils: Italy gets what it wants, Prussia anything within the Holy Roman Empire and Russia all outside of it

Prussia is willing to make token concessions to the minor German states but not much.

So how do the minor German states respond and does anyone (France, Britain or the Ottomans) try to interfere.

Is there any hope for the Austrians?

Edited to add: The Prussians and Russians are willing to offer France Belgium for neutrality.

 

[thezerech]

I'm not sure Bismarck would be willing to grant Russia everything outside of Austria and Bohemia. France and the UK would immediatly declare war. The Turks might even be coaxed into joining on the Austrian side, understanding that if Russia gains that territory it would probably mean the eventual end of the Ottoman Empire. Frankly I'm not sure Bismack would accept this, which is to say he might offer the Austrians his IOTL terms, or a lighter version, for an alliance against Russia.

 

[Maoistic]

A coalesced invasion like this would commence an earlier WWI because it would cause the British and the French to intervene.

 

[Grammar Kaiser]

Assuming this doesn't unite Germany against Russia, and an alt-WWI does play out; who would win?

 

[Aphrodite]

I'm not sure Bismarck would be willing to grant Russia everything outside of Austria and Bohemia. France and the UK would immediatly declare war. The Turks might even be coaxed into joining on the Austrian side, understanding that if Russia gains that territory it would probably mean the eventual end of the Ottoman Empire. Frankly I'm not sure Bismack would accept this, which is to say he might offer the Austrians his IOTL terms, or a lighter version, for an alliance against Russia.

Assuming this doesn't unite Germany against Russia, and an alt-WWI does play out; who would win?

Perhaps but are the British and French on the same side? The French and British stay neutral OTL and don't know the agreement between Russia and Prussia. They have no idea what the territorial changes they intend to impose.

The British might fear the rise of Russia but they also aren't likely to be happy with major French gains in the West either. OTl, The British stay neutral in the Franco-Prussian War as well.

Very few German states sided with Prussia during the war and they were mostly minor anyway. The important ones would be Hesse-Darmstadt, ruled by the Tsar's brother in law Saxony and Bavaria. Hanover gets overrun too quickly to matter OTL but if the Hanoverians bow to reality and side with Prussia, that matters

Nor sure how strong Bismarck's position is. War is upon them and the decision is up to the Tsar's uncle who was more teritorial minded than Bismarck. Prussia is not Germany and her position is weak in regards to France and Austria

I do agree that the Ottomans are likely to join the war but can they intervene effectively? The French are also stuck in Mexico

I edited to include that the Prussians and Russians are willing to offer France Belgium for neutrality. Do you think that is enough?

 

[Maoistic]

Perhaps but are the British and French on the same side? The French and British stay neutral OTL and don't know the agreement between Russia and Prussia. They have no idea what the territorial changes they intend to impose.

As soon as news of a Russian-Prussian-Italian alliance came out, the British and the French would immediately coalesce to stop it, just like they did various times against the Ottomans.

The British might fear the rise of Russia but they also aren't likely to be happy with major French gains in the West either. OTl, The British stay neutral in the Franco-Prussian War as well.

Very few German states sided with Prussia during the war and they were mostly minor anyway. The important ones would be Hesse-Darmstadt, ruled by the Tsar's brother in law Saxony and Bavaria. Hanover gets overrun too quickly to matter OTL but if the Hanoverians bow to reality and side with Prussia, that matters

The Franco-Prussian War did not involve such a major coalition like this to invade and conquer entirely another territory, much less one like 1860s Austria. The Franco-Prussian War was really just a border dispute.

Prussia is not Germany and her position is weak in regards to France and Austria

It definitely wasn't weak since just 5 years after this the Prussians overthrew Napoleon III.

I do agree that the Ottomans are likely to join the war but can they intervene effectively? The French are also stuck in Mexico

Pretty sure the French war in Mexico was nothing major and the French would immediately pulled back from it to fight a Russian coalition.

I edited to include that the Prussians and Russians are willing to offer France Belgium for neutrality. Do you think that is enough?

Belgium was independent and possessed a significant colonial empire in Africa, France trying to conquer it would very taxing. Nor did France expressed an interest for Belgium as far as I know, so it wouldn't make any difference. The French and British would still coalesce to defeat the Russian coalition, with the Ottomans probably intervening as well to try and defend its Balkan territories.

 

[raharris1973]

I agree Bismarck and the Prussians are not going to like Russian territorial aims expressed like this - a Russia that extends to the Adriatic coast of Croatia is just too much for any of the West European powers to accept.

The PoD is interesting though. Russia mobilizing and threatening Austria. Does it cause Austria to settle the war earlier, or does war happen anyway, with the addition of Austro-Russian fighting in Galicia? Bismarck can have more equanimity about smaller Russian territorial gains, like the Tarnopol district, eastern Galicia or possibly all Galicia.

I wonder if Russian participation on Prussia's side would make France and Britain sympathize more with Austria?

 

[Maoistic]

Assuming this doesn't unite Germany against Russia, and an alt-WWI does play out; who would win?

My money is on the Anglo-French coalition, which would include the navies and armies of Britain, France, Austria and possibly Denmark and Sweden as well if the British convince them to join them.

 

[Aphrodite]

As soon as news of a Russian-Prussian-Italian alliance came out, the British and the French would immediately coalesce to stop it, just like they did various times against the Ottomans.

Why? They allowed the Italian Prussian alliance to defeat Austria. Yes, the addition of Russia means Austrian defeat is certain but is the destruction of Prussia in the interest of Britain?

The Franco-Prussian War did not involve such a major coalition like this to invade and conquer entirely another territory, much less one like 1860s Austria. The Franco-Prussian War was really just a border dispute.

that may be but t was one that total disrupted the balance of power in favor of Prussia just like here. Britain chose not to interfere

It definitely wasn't weak since just 5 years after this the Prussians overthrew Napoleon III.

Prussia in 1866 is much weaker than it is in 1870. In 1866, it faces a coalition of Austria and most of the German Princes unlike 1870 when the Russians keep Austria neutral and the German princes are behind them. If Russia joins Austria, the Prussians are goners. They should be willing to pay the price to prevent that

Belgium was independent and possessed a significant colonial empire in Africa, France trying to conquer it would very taxing. Nor did France expressed an interest for Belgium as far as I know, so it wouldn't make any difference. The French and British would still coalesce to defeat the Russian coalition, with the Ottomans probably intervening as well to try and defend its Balkan territories.

France sought compensation in Luxembourg and the Palatinate. Belgium isn't something to sneeze at. The Congo Free State doesn't exist but Belgium would be a nice thing for France- especially with its many French speakers. Again, given how much Prussia gains, Napoleon III doesn't ask for much

French strength in Mexico is about 40,000 men

Assuming this doesn't unite Germany against Russia, and an alt-WWI does play out; who would win?

Well, Germany is pretty united against Prussia and loses. I think its just as likely the smaller states abandon Austria. while in 1866, they preferred Austria to Prussia in 1870 they preferred Prussia to France

@raharris1973

If you think the terms are too harsh, what do you think the Russo-Prussians can get away with?

To state the obvious: These terms are only going to be imposed after the Austrians have been destroyed. This is a real possibility at Sadowa if the Russians are there and the Saxons dessert. Before then, the terms are going to be unknown and only vague comments about nothing final would be made.

In any intervention it is Prussia and not Russia that will feel the brunt. The Anglo-French spent two years and only managed to take Sevestapol. If France intervenes, it will be against Prussia Why would the British be thrilled with the French taking control over Northern Germany?[/Quote]

 

[longsword14]

How shit was the Russian Army in those days ?

 

[Gwachiko]

How shit was the Russian Army in those days ?

Not as shit as in 1853.

 

[Rheinbund]

In any intervention it is Prussia and not Russia that will feel the brunt. The Anglo-French spent two years and only managed to take Sevestapol. If France intervenes, it will be against Prussia Why would the British be thrilled with the French taking control over Northern Germany?

Don't forget that Napoleon III want to kept friendly relation with the Brittish and these latter knew this. So In my opinion Napoleon III would not ask too much to not make them wary.

 

[Aphrodite]

Don't forget that Napoleon III want to kept friendly relation with the Brittish and these latter knew this. So In my opinion Napoleon III would not ask too much to not make them wary.

I agree France isn't likely to seek much and doesn't want to alienate Britain. The North German Confederation would prove fatal to Napoleon and he won't like the large gains that Prussia and Russia are making. Ultimately though, France is more concerned with Prussia and if she interferes she is going into Prussia not Russia for the simple reason that she can

A French invasion of Germany is problematic in itself. The minor German states aren't going to like the French and the British aren't going to take kindly to it as well. This timeline preserves a lot for France as well- Hanover, Hesse-Kessal, Nassau, Frankfort for example. These are important as they divide Prussia Preservation of the South German States is also in France's interests.

I suggested the Prussians offer Belgium- its always easy to sell something you don't own and it would help France a lot. But given the large gains Prussia is making, perhaps they would offer more on the West side of the Rhineth

we have to remember that a Prussian victory isn't a sure thing here without Russia. Prussia could lose a lot in a defeat. If Russia were to say join Austria, then the Prussians are doomed.

 

[Thomas1195]

If Russia were to say join Austria, then the Prussians are doomed.

?

In the first post, you said that Russia joins Prussia and Italy.

 

[Aphrodite]

?

In the first post, you said that Russia joins Prussia and Italy.

That is our POD. The Russians could have joined Austria instead. Prussia's bargaining position isn't very strong. She's facing war with Austria, war with the German Princes, a France that is wary. Really, diplomatically, the only option is Russia. Russia can sell her services elsewhere so the price can be high especially as any side she joins wins

 

[LordKalvan]

Why? They allowed the Italian Prussian alliance to defeat Austria. Yes, the addition of Russia means Austrian defeat is certain but is the destruction of Prussia in the interest of Britain?

The destruction of Austria was something Palmerston would have found enormously difficult to swallow.
Bismarck certainly knew better than to play a game of Russian roulette, which would have potentially united all of the powers against them. The main point however is that he did not need Russia to win the war: the reinsurance treaty was just that, a guarantee that Russia would growl if France had made a move to join the war. A French intervention was anyway very unlikely, both with the disorganization of the French army, the cue of the Mexican adventure and the half-promises that he had made to Louis Napoleon about the possibilities of compensations for France.
Most of anything else he trusted the logistics that Moltke had put together to ensure that the war would not last more than 8 weeks: this was the guarantee that no other power would have stepped in.

Incidentally, Belgium was already under the guarantee of the Powers and its neutrality was assured: offer it to France would have been like waving a red flag in front of the British.

 

[LordKalvan]

That is our POD. The Russians could have joined Austria instead. Prussia's bargaining position isn't very strong. She's facing war with Austria, war with the German Princes, a France that is wary. Really, diplomatically, the only option is Russia. Russia can sell her services elsewhere so the price can be high especially as any side she joins wins

But the point is that Bismarck knew very well that Russia would never side with Austria.
Beside the still recent wound of the war of Crimea, when the Poles revolted in 1863 Austria too a detached attitude and never supported Russia, while Prussia made a point to fully support Russia and ensured that the border would be kept close (Saxony, for example, allowed Poles through after the repression).
In 1865 Gorchakoff went to Paris and London, and was treated like a pariah since the public opinion was strongly pro-Poles and anti-Russia: then he went to Berlin and was made much of by Bismarck and the king. It was in that atmosphere that Bismarck became sure there would not be a Russian involvment. 4 years later, during the Franco-Prussian war, the Russian attitude was even more supportive at the beginning (they would mobilize if Austria decided to go for a return match) but became colder after the string of Prussian victories: they had seen what the Prussian army could do in 1866, and how big Prussia had become between the direct annexations and the German states corralled into the new North German Confederation. The possibility that Prussia could annex also a large swath of Northern France made them nervous, considering that also the south German states were by now firmly on the Prussian bandwagon. Russia considered calling a conference of the Powers to mediate the Franco-German dispute (which Bismarck did not want at all) and both Austria and Italy were in favor of that approach (it sounds strange to find Austria and Italy in agreement). The British were colder at the idea, they did not want to get involved, and ultimately Russia too decided not to pursue anymore a diplomatic solution.

 

[Aphrodite]

The destruction of Austria was something Palmerston would have found enormously difficult to swallow.
Bismarck certainly knew better than to play a game of Russian roulette, which would have potentially united all of the powers against them. The main point however is that he did not need Russia to win the war: the reinsurance treaty was just that, a guarantee that Russia would growl if France had made a move to join the war. A French intervention was anyway very unlikely, both with the disorganization of the French army, the cue of the Mexican adventure and the half-promises that he had made to Louis Napoleon about the possibilities of compensations for France.
Most of anything else he trusted the logistics that Moltke had put together to ensure that the war would not last more than 8 weeks: this was the guarantee that no other power would have stepped in.

Incidentally, Belgium was already under the guarantee of the Powers and its neutrality was assured: offer it to France would have been like waving a red flag in front of the British.

1. Agree that French intervention is unlikely A nice token offer is really all they need to give here. In the end, the French get nothing

2. Reinsurance treaty comes much later. The Russians aren't making any promises here

3. This is not Bismarck's call. This is the King's call. Moltke thought he could win a short war but not a long one. The Prussians do win but they aren't assured of that beforehand. Whichever side Russia joins wins unless someone else interferes. The King can make a deal with his nephew and take down the Austrians or his nephew might take the no and make an offer to the Austrians.

4. True, Belgium neutrality is part of the country's creation. The treaty gives the parties the right but not the duty to protect it. Making the offer is typical, crass politics. Napoleon might take it or not, the British aren't likely to do anything without a continental power

5. Which brings us back to Austria. Obviously, they aren't going to announce such war aims and will spring them only after they have won a complete victory. given the disparity of forces and how things played out OTL, that is likely to happen very quickly

6. The British might not like it but how do they intervene? The Crimean War had acheived little against Russia and the French aren't going to be helping. If France objects, its objecting to the growth of Prussia far more. Prussia is also easy to get to and the French would, if they intervene, intervene against the Prussians not the Russians. This isn't in British interests. The last thing the British need is the French pressing deep into Germany In 1914, the British care far more about the balance of power of Western rather than Eastern Europe

Really, to fight Russia, the British would need the Prussians. There is the possibility but any expansion of Prussian power is going to start sending off alarm bells in Paris

 

[Aphrodite]

But the point is that Bismarck knew very well that Russia would never side with Austria.
Beside the still recent wound of the war of Crimea, when the Poles revolted in 1863 Austria too a detached attitude and never supported Russia, while Prussia made a point to fully support Russia and ensured that the border would be kept close (Saxony, for example, allowed Poles through after the repression).
In 1865 Gorchakoff went to Paris and London, and was treated like a pariah since the public opinion was strongly pro-Poles and anti-Russia: then he went to Berlin and was made much of by Bismarck and the king. It was in that atmosphere that Bismarck became sure there would not be a Russian involvment. 4 years later, during the Franco-Prussian war, the Russian attitude was even more supportive at the beginning (they would mobilize if Austria decided to go for a return match) but became colder after the string of Prussian victories: they had seen what the Prussian army could do in 1866, and how big Prussia had become between the direct annexations and the German states corralled into the new North German Confederation. The possibility that Prussia could annex also a large swath of Northern France made them nervous, considering that also the south German states were by now firmly on the Prussian bandwagon. Russia considered calling a conference of the Powers to mediate the Franco-German dispute (which Bismarck did not want at all) and both Austria and Italy were in favor of that approach (it sounds strange to find Austria and Italy in agreement). The British were colder at the idea, they did not want to get involved, and ultimately Russia too decided not to pursue anymore a diplomatic solution.

Except the war involved more than just Austria and Prussia. Prussia's war aims fall on the minor German states and Russia's willingness to tolerate the annexations of Hanover, Nassau, Hesse-Kassel and the rest are not assured. Deposing an divinely installed monarch isn't something Europe took easily If France and Russia sent a note demanding the restoration of the territorial status quo, the Prussians could easily have ended up with nothing Popular opinion in France may have been anti-Russian but the Russians had respectable relations with the French government. When it comes to self preservation much can be set aside

Russia erred in letting Prussia grow unmolested. Here we have a more adventuresome monarch. But if Prussia wants anything in 1866, then she has to be sure of Russia. Given the territories that she claimed, that isn't a given

 

[LordKalvan]

Russia erred in letting Prussia grow unmolested. Here we have a more adventuresome monarch. But if Prussia wants anything in 1866, then she has to be sure of Russia. Given the territories that she claimed, that isn't a given

I might reply that Germany did not declare war on the minor German states, it was the other way around under the auspices of the Austrian controlled German confederation. However the truth is that Bismarck, Moltke and the General Staff knew very well that the minor German states would have declared war, and their opinion of their armed forces was so low that the army of the west was certainly not the best of the troops that Prussia put on the field, and - on the paper - they were significantly inferior in number to the combined forces that the other states could put in the field. Moltke took a calculated risk, as he admits in his memories, and the results were even better than his expectations (the army of the west main task was to avoid that the hostile German forces would move towards Bavaria and Austria). OTOH the Prussian armies had a meticulously detailed plan and a timetable, the other German armies had nothing of the kind, and even if the regiments that each one of them should have provided for the Confederation army were supposed to have trained together and carried out joint field exercises (they never did, and even there muskets were of different manufacturing and caliber, which added another complication to an already difficult position).

All this is however not completely relevant to the issue of Russia (even if everyone, including the Russians, knew that these regiments were badly trained and more suitable for a comic opera than for a war). The point is that in 1866 (or even in 1870) no one in Russia could believe that Prussia could conjure a German empire out of a cylinder, and what is more important is that no one would believe that it could work given the persistent unfriendliness between western and southern Germans on one side and Prussians on the other.
OTOH Gorchakoff knew very well that Russia had no friends in Europe outside of Prussia, that Austria had betrayed them in 1854, conveniently forgetting that Russia had saved them in Hungary in 1849, and that the czar was firmly convinced that the Austrian betrayal had accelerated the death of his father. It would take a time traveler from say 1920 or so to explain to the czar that the only way to save imperial Russia is to ally with a despised neighbor to jump on a trusted ally and friend, who had proven its worth as late as in 1863.