A different 1866 peace

[Eurofed]

I can see inner [China, ] outer [Russia ] Manchuria, and maybe Kamchatka [at the north end of the Kurils.
But Japan doesn't have the Population or Troops to take/hold the Okhotsk Coast.
Nor do I see 1890~1900 Italy/Germany/Japan being able to defeat Russia so bad that Russia gives up the Coast.
I know that this is pre Trans-Siberian, and Russia will have trouble sending reinforcements, but the Terrain and Wilderness will prevent any large Japanese movements deep into Siberia.

Uhm, I take notice of your advice as it concerns the size of what Japan would be able to hold with its forces. However please take notice that if we use a Russo-Japanese trigger point, the Franco-Russian-Spanish Entente would face the Quadruple Alliance of Britain, Germany, Italy, and Hungary enlarged to Japan, and if the GW springs from or gets fused with the Spanish-American War, America would be in the Alliance as well. Norway-Sweden may or may not join the Alliance, so does the Ottoman Empire, Serbia and Romania may or may not join the Entente.

Anyway, Korea, Inner Manchuria, Outer Manchuria, Sakhalin, Kurili, maybe Kamchatka. Ok, seems a rather good booty anyway. What about Transbaikal ? Do you see Japan successfully cliaming and holding it ?

Given the US [and Britain's] pushing of the open door policy I don't see Japan getting title to Inner Manchuria, but instead a Protectorate of some kind.
However Russia can be forced [war is different] to give title in Fee Sovereign to Outer Manchuria.

Hmm, first and foremost, I'm not convinced at all that in all TLs, America and Britain must necessarily pick the open door as their basic policy towards China. That's rather clichè and IMO unrealistic. They could instead easily strive to get their own sphere of influence in competition with Japan and the other Euro powers. Second, Manchuria is not that close to the core of the Chinasphere, and I can see America, Britain, Germany, and Italy recognizing a Japanese claim on Inner Manchuria if this what it takes to keep Japan off their own spheres of influence in China proper and their colonies in south east Asia. In 1890s-1900s, the sovreignty of China took very very little respect from the Western powers.

?Does Italy control Monaco now?
?What will happen to Andorra? San Mariano? in this [?cold war?] world.

Monaco and San Marino become Italian vassals, just like San Marino was an Italian vassal and Monaco a French one IOTL. Andorra remains a Franco-Spanish vassal as IOTL.

?How will this [?Cold War?] Effect the Building of the European Railroad Net? 1870~1900? This 30 Years OTL saw most of the rails and tunnels in Europe built.
I don't see the same level of international cooperation ITTL.

This is a rather good point. I guess that just like OTL Cold War, this could put a curb on the development of the railroad links between the blocks, even if some phases of detente and economic pragmatism could see some inter-bloc links built. However, we must also remember that within the blocks, there is going to be abundant development of the railroad net, and the neutrals may work as inter-bloc trade and infrastracture hubs. The Alliance block includes Britain, Germany, Italy, Hungary, Turkey, and Bosnia. Switzerland, Netherlands, Portugal, Greece, Bulgaria, and Norway-Sweden are neutrals but ideologically or geopolitically more or less leaning towards the alliance at various degrees. Belgium strives to be a true neutral (Switzerland does as well, but ideologically it is strongly OC). The Entente block includes France-Spain and Russia, with Serbia and Romania sympathetic neutrals. So in practice the cold war means that in comparison to OTL, we would see less direct links between France and Germany/Italy, which would rather be re-routed through neutrals, and less direct links between Russia and Germany/Hungary.

Whe will need a Map, both pre GW, and Post GW.

My map-making skills are poor, I can only edit existing maps with Paint, but I've asked Helios-Ra, who has made a very good work with the maps of my other TL, to make a map for this TL as well, ca. 1876, and I waiting for him to deliver. We may make other maps as other major territories changes occur in the TL. Before the GW, there is necessarily going to be at least the Euro colonial carving up of the world, with the Scramble for Africa, the division of China, and so on. So I guess yes, one map in ca. 1876, after the decade and half of wars redraws the map of Europe, North Africa, and the Americas, then at least one pre-GW, when the colonial expansion is done, and one afterwards.

 

[Eurofed]

Since the map of Helios-Ra seems to be rather slow in the coming , I've tried to come up with one of my own.

This represents the world in 1876. Some details may be inexact: e.g. I have not bothered to represent subsaharian Africa, since the scramble for Arica is still in its aborning stages, nor the internal divisions of the British Raj, and the pattern of US states is anachronistic since several of them would still be territories in 1876, and there is no guarantee that the same exact OTL framework of state boundaries would be still be used ITTL. This is probably fairly close to the mark, however, given the relatively late PoD in comparison to the settlement of the West.

I gladly expect and welcome opinions and suggestions, before I repost the map in the official TL thread.

I've also drawn tentative world maps before and after the GW, for my reference. Let me state that it looks like the Scramble for Africa is going to turn out rather different, and China is going to be screwed even worse than OTL, with all those great powers greedy for their slice of Mandarin flesh.

 

[Eurofed]

I've been able to create a somewhat more accurate mosaic map of 1876 Europe. Mosaic maps are not so beautiful as the others, but are also easier to draw for authors with poor map-making skills.

 

[vultan]

I've been able to create a somewhat more accurate mosaic map of 1876 Europe. Mosaic maps are not so beautiful as the others, but are also easier to draw for authors with poor map-making skills.

Germany is SO close to having some Med shoreline. Can you spare them that much?

 

[Eurofed]

Germany is SO close to having some Med shoreline. Can you spare them that much?

Does Germany truly need that shore line ? I mean, Italy is BFF (and the Mediterranean is its own strategic purview in the partnership) and Hungary is the vassal. Germany already gets eccellent terms for using Italian ports for its merchant shipping and navy (and again, the theater is the RM's main job, not the KM's). Does it truly need that port ? I notice that not even Hitler cared to get a Mediterranean port for the Third Reich, when he rearranged its borders in 1941-42 to something close to TTL Germany. I mean, yes, Germany, could easily get it by annexing Fiume, but it would annoy Hungary (which would lose its own one good port), and, to a lesser degree, Italy (which would see German trade diverted from its own ports). It is quite possible to arrange, but is it worth the trouble ? Germany and Italy already pretty much work as an economic/strategic unity. I honestly dunno.

 

[Eurofed]

Here is the map of 1876 North America (there may be some slight unaccuracies since the map uses OTL modern borders of Mexican states).

 

[Eurofed]

Does Germany truly need that shore line ? I mean, Italy is BFF (and the Mediterranean is its own strategic purview in the partnership) and Hungary is the vassal. Germany already gets eccellent terms for using Italian ports for its merchant shipping and navy (and again, the theater is the RM's main job, not the KM's). Does it truly need that port ? I notice that not even Hitler cared to get a Mediterranean port for the Third Reich, when he rearranged its borders in 1941-42 to something close to TTL Germany. I mean, yes, Germany, could easily get it by annexing Fiume, but it would annoy Hungary (which would lose its own one good port), and, to a lesser degree, Italy (which would see German trade diverted from its own ports). It is quite possible to arrange, but is it worth the trouble ? Germany and Italy already pretty much work as an economic/strategic unity. I honestly dunno.

Having given some further thought to this issue, I have come to the tentative conclusion that giving Germany the Fiume port may be feasible, although they would have probably to give Italy and Hungary significant economic concessions. I'll edit the maps and the TL accordingly. It is not going to be much of a big deal for Germany, however. The overwhelming majority of its trade and strategic interests in the Mediterranean are going to go through Italy.

 

[Eurofed]

As I contemplate the future developments of this TL, I have several of them already fairly defined (at least as reference maps, e.g. the Scramble for Africa, the post-GW territorial settlement), but I'm still uncertain about several others.

I was thinking it would nice and plausible if the Great Powers game would become a three-way one, with the liberal UK-GR-IT-HU bloc being at odds with the reactionary FR-SP-RU one, and the USA being hostile to Britain and France-Spain both out of imperial competition in the Americas and the Pacific, albeit friendly to Germany and Italy. This might blossom into America fighting a parallel war against France-Spain during the GW, and maintaining an ongoing "Cold War" rivalry, with bouts of detente and antagonism, with the British Empire.

Canada and Quebec stand at a crossroads, they could become something much akin to OTL, or they face increasing difficulties as antagonism increase. I've thought that the Yankees and the French could end up supporting different factions of Quebecois nationalists, liberal and reactionary, for their own reasons. I'm not entirely sure if a rebel Quebec could ever succeed into kicking out the British Empire, even with assistance from America and France-Spain, short of foreign intervention. France-Spain is going to get its butt totally kicked in the next big war, yet another Anglo-American war is possible but it becomes unlikely as the alliance ties between Britain and the Italo-German bloc become stronger.

If Quebec successfully secedes, I am getting serious doubts about the viability of rump Canada. The Maritimes could possibly revert to be their own Dominion with British support, like NFL did OTL, but Ontario would be isolated. All the other really important areas would have broken away, would Ontario try to go on with increasing dependency from London (and likely being a burden to the Empire), or would they give up on Imperial loyalism and accept to join America ? If Canada collapses, what would the Maritimes and Alaska-Yukon do ? The Maritimes might either follow Ontario or go the NFL way, but how vital would Alaska-Yukon be as an isolated British Dominion ?

I was thinking that some South American states, such as Mexico, Brazil, perhaps Colombia and Venezuela as well, could become allies and clients of France-Spain, prodded by Popist influence. As it concerns Mexico, as the Spanish-American threater of the Great War unfolds, there might be the Entente equivalent of the Zimmerman Telegram and Mexico might accept. Other states, such as Brazil, Colombia, and Venezuela, could join the Entente as well. Colombua might become a French satellite as France gets engaged in building the Panama Canal (much as America is building the Nicaragua Canal).

As it concerns Mexico, the obvious outcome is that it is crushed by American invasion into a cowed satellite and America annexes the northern half for its trouble, in the second Mexican Cession.

As it concerns Brazil, this most likely brings Argentina in the Allied bloc, and it reaps some territorial gains for Argentina, Uruguay and southern Brazil, at the peace table, as Buenos Aires gets Allied support to kick Brazil butt.

As it concerns Central America and northern South America, well I surely see the USA annexing Nicaragua and Panama to ensure its full control of the Canals, which most likely would bring Costa Rica in the fold as well. But what would victorious America reap from defeated Colombia and Venezuela ? Simple satellite status, or would they push for territorial gains ?

 

[Eurofed]

I've adjusted the border of Romania and tried to make the map UCS-compliant to the best of my knowledge.

 

[Eurofed]

Thanks to the invaluable mapmaking skill of Helios-Ra, "a different 1866" now has a fully shaped 1876 world map, too.

 

[Leistungsfähiger Amerikan]

So when will the timeline be updated? Because this is a very, very interesting one, I and can't wait to see what happens!

 

[Eurofed]

So when will the timeline be updated? Because this is a very, very interesting one, I and can't wait to see what happens!

When I get the creative drive to do it. And up to recently, I was busy doing a major update to my other TL.

 

[Mikestone8]

Well, I have never made the Congress of Vienna PoD explicit in detail. It might well be killing Talleyrand off with a stroke or accident, I loathe the guy, he was amongst the main causes of getting the Bourbons back in charge twice.

We're getting a bit OT, but what exactly was wrong with bringing the Bourbons back?

Napoleon had led the country to defeat, so needed to be jettisoned. His successor needed to be whoever was most acceptable to the victors, hence could get France the most lenient peace. That was clearly the Bourbons.

Beyond that, it didn't matter in the slightest whether the Bourbons were good or bad rulers. If they proved intolerable, there was no need to keep them permanently. Once the lenient peace had been obtained (it was) and the victor powers had moved on to other concerns, they could always be thrown out again, as Napoleon had been before them - or the Directory before him, or the Jacobins before them, or the Girondins before them, or Louis XVI before them. This duly happened in 1830 without causing any problems. They were second raters, but second rate rulers are a normal feature of history, and not always a bad one. The clever ones - Frederick the Great, Napoleon, Bismarck et al - often do far more damage.

 

[Eurofed]

We're getting a bit OT, but what exactly was wrong with bringing the Bourbons back?

The Russo-Prussian victors are enraged against the Bourbons since they sided with Britain and Austria in the war, before Napoleon came back. They figure out that the treacherous Bourbons hence don't deserve their effort to put them back on the throne again, after Napoleon ousted them, and are apparently unable to maintain their throne without foreign help. They decide that they may get a more stable regime in France by putting young Napoleon II on the throne (who is also an Habsburg prince) under an Orleanist-Bonapartist regency.

 

[Eurofed]

P.S. Eurofed, i send you a PM with my critics for you 1866 scenario, that never come to you?, well, i gonna put in the forum(have to rewrite that, because i lost when i reformated my PC thanks to virus), but in general was about the pausability of your scenario and the butterflies(Denmark is not so idiot like france, the Carlist are some reactionary fringe and intervenrtion of France in Spain will make to Britain to declare war to France like in the Napoleonics wars)

My sympathy for your virus troubles.

As it concerns the Carlists, they were able to unleash a civil war (the Third Carlist War) in OTL 1870s. ITTL their fortunes are boosted by the support they get from Bourbon France and from Papal Catholics. Both France and the Pope are quite interested into making Spain a part of their reactionary bloc, and with their support, it is quite plausible that the Carlists may take over.

As it concerns British attitude to French expansionism in Iberia, it is quite true that Britain went to war twice to stop it - when France was the hegemon power on the continent. Here it happens after France was ripped a new one by the Prussian-Italians and suffered a serious demotion in the European pecking order. It is IMO plausible that London may deem the Franco-Spanish real union acceptable in order to balance the new hegemon German-Italian alliance and win French support for containtment of the Russians in the Balkans.

As it concerns Denmark, they simply overvalue French strength a lot (like many did in Europe before 1870) and understimate the newfound strength of the Prussian-Italian aliance likewise, and they think they regain Schleswig-Holstein if they ally with Napoleon III. A really bad bet, but we have seen worse in history.

 

[Mikestone8]

The Russo-Prussian victors are enraged against the Bourbons since they sided with Britain and Austria in the war, before Napoleon came back. They figure out that the treacherous Bourbons hence don't deserve their effort to put them back on the throne again, after Napoleon ousted them, and are apparently unable to maintain their throne without foreign help. They decide that they may get a more stable regime in France by putting young Napoleon II on the throne (who is also an Habsburg prince) under an Orleanist-Bonapartist regency.

Huh!

They're annoyed with the Bourbons for being too pro-Austrian, so they respond by trying to put an Austrian prince on the throne? Sounds like the on about the guy who was so afraid of dying that he committes suicide.

In abnny case, it doesn't offer any reason why Talleyrand et al should not have favoured the Bourbnons. The only reason not to restore them would be if some other ruler could get a better peace deal, for France, and there wasn't the slightest reason to suppose that.

 

[Mikestone8]

The Russo-Prussian victors are enraged against the Bourbons since they sided with Britain and Austria in the war, before Napoleon came back. They figure out that the treacherous Bourbons hence don't deserve their effort to put them back on the throne again, after Napoleon ousted them, and are apparently unable to maintain their throne without foreign help. They decide that they may get a more stable regime in France by putting young Napoleon II on the throne (who is also an Habsburg prince) under an Orleanist-Bonapartist regency.

Huh!

They are annoyed with the Bourbons for being too pro-Austrian, so they respond by trying to put an Austrian prince on the throne. Sounds like the guy who was so afraid of dying that he committed suicide.

And this certainly does not explain why Talleyrand et al shouldn't have supported the Bourbons. The only reason for not restoring them would be if there were some other ruler likely to get a better peace deal for France, and there wasn't.

 

[Eurofed]

If the casus belli is Rome only or Rome and Luxembourg together, then Italy might join. Otherwise, they might be cautious about attacking the premier land power in Europe, or so everyone thinks. They have just been through a major war, and their country is barely 10 years old and by no means unified. They need time to consolidate. After Sedan or an equivalent, Italy will almost certainly join for Nice, Savoy, and Corsica if they can pull it off. I can't see Prussia taking more than it did OTL, since I think France will sue for peace after Italy joins. Austria will be in no shape to join the war.

True, theoretically Italy might not join the Franco-Prussian War even ITTL. I do regard it as a low-probability outcome, however, for various reasons:

Italy had already got alienated from France over the Rome issue, and a French intervention to force them scaling down their gains from defeated Austria isn't going to help. A decisive victory in the 1866 war is going to make Italy bolder and more confident in the diplomatic-military field and increase nationalistic enthusiasm and cohesion rather more than OTL. Therefore, they are going to make a bolder bid to gain Rome than OTL as well. Moreover, both Prussia and Italy ITTL would deem the alliance a huge success and would be driven to confirm and reinforce it against France. Moreover, the total success of the alliance in 1866 would motivate both Bismarck and Napoleon to want the war more and take a tougher stance on the Luxemburg issue than OTL.

For these reasons, the rather more likely path for the FPW war ITTL is a compound Rome-Luxemburg casus belli in 1867 with Italy taking part from the start. And I don't think that Italian partecipation would make France fold any sooner than OTL. Gallic denial of defeat was so stubborn IOTL that I fully expect they continue the fight until the German-Italians have occupied everything from Paris to Marseilles. Although the wider front and harsher defeat likely means that we are going to see the Commune expanded to Lyon and Marseilles as well.

4: I think the US will stay out of a *WW1, but I think they will be fairly pro-*Entente. Yes, you have all those lobbies you mentioned, but you also have Britain as the US's largest trading partner, and the trading interests have lobbyists too. If Britain enacts a blockade of Germany, I think that relations will steadily go downhill, as OTL. This time, there will be no German USW to save relations, since Germany can get all the food it needs from Russia.

As you point out, pro-UK business lobbies aren't going to go away, but they shall have very few convincing arguments to sway American public opinion on the Entente's side. USW isn't likely to be used except perhaps very late in the war to defeat Britain if it proves stubborn after its allies have folded. If anything, it is the Entente that is likely to violate the neutrality of Belgium and/or Switzerland. As you mention, Britain is still going to blockade Germany, Italy, and Russia as its usual M.O. and annoyance at UK interference of US neutral trade is going to be a powerful argument that pro-CP lobbies may use to sway public opinion against the Entente.

I think Austria will survive to WW1. There will be a worse version of OTL's Augsleich, but it will survive. One result might be a Triple Monarchy forming after the war with Prussia, resulting in Austria-Hungary-Bohemia.

I concede that it is theoretically possible, IF Franz Joseph has the foresight to accept a triple Ausgleich and the Magyars accept to share co-rulership with the Czech. Moreover, the Croats are going to claim an equal stance to the other major nationalities if the Czech look like they are getting one. The Magyars are going to react to it with some hostility, they were prepared to give Croatia some autonomy within Hungary but not an equal stance. Making both the Magyars and the Croats content with the settlement is not going to be an easy feat. A Triple or Quadruple Monarchy would indeed stabilize the Empire but there are many ways that the half-done scaffold could collapse.

In my TL, there is the Catholic schism to mix up things, and push the Habsburg ruling elite towards suicidal reactionary intransigence. Franz Joseph falls under the sway of Papal Catholic reactionary counselors that persuade him that reactionary-centralistic intransigence is the only way to save the Empire, in the face of worse humiliation and nationalist troubles than OTL. As a result, half-hearted attempts at domenstic reforms fold, there is no successful Ausgleich, nationalist malcontent builds and there is a large degree of fusion between liberal, Old Catholic, and Pan-German/nationalist oppositions, till tensions reach the breaking point.

Now, whether it survives WW1 is another question. Austria, attacked on three (or 4, if there's a Serbia in the south) sides, will fall very quickly. After that, Germany's full strength can be concentrated against France. France will take longer, but they will, most likely, fall as well. After that, it's Britain, Turkey, and Japan vs. Russia, Italy, and Germany. Turkey will fall fairly quickly, and Japan will follow before hordes of Russians start flooding into Manchuria. Britain will be forced to surrender by this point.

Yup, even if TTL Austria survives a terminal political crisis in the 1870s, it is going to meet its fate in *ww1, which is going to unfold the way you describe.

This scenario assumes that a lot of the events leading up to WW1, like the Russo-Japanese War, happen more or less as OTL, which is by no means assured.

Yep, but if TTL Austria survives, the interplay of geopolitical relationships between the great powers is going to yield much of the *ww1 lineups you described, barring radical butterflies (such as an Anglo-French colonial war). A Franco-Austrian alliance is almost sure to happen, which shall likely drive Germany-Italy to an alliance with Russia, and this in turn push Britain and Turkey to side with the *Entente.

Conversely, if Austria collapses early, Germany and Italy would have little reason to support Russian expansion in the Balkans, which would make Britain and Turkey amicable, and drive the formation of a French-Russian alliance.

 

[Nivek]

My sympathy for your virus troubles.

As it concerns the Carlists, they were able to unleash a civil war (the Third Carlist War) in OTL 1870s. ITTL their fortunes are boosted by the support they get from Bourbon France and from Papal Catholics. Both France and the Pope are quite interested into making Spain a part of their reactionary bloc, and with their support, it is quite plausible that the Carlists may take over.

As it concerns British attitude to French expansionism in Iberia, it is quite true that Britain went to war twice to stop it - when France was the hegemon power on the continent. Here it happens after France was ripped a new one by the Prussian-Italians and suffered a serious demotion in the European pecking order. It is IMO plausible that London may deem the Franco-Spanish real union acceptable in order to balance the new hegemon German-Italian alliance and win French support for containtment of the Russians in the Balkans.

As it concerns Denmark, they simply overvalue French strength a lot (like many did in Europe before 1870) and understimate the newfound strength of the Prussian-Italian aliance likewise, and they think they regain Schleswig-Holstein if they ally with Napoleon III. A really bad bet, but we have seen worse in history.

Here is my answer for the first in black: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Succession_War , and that was before the British thinkselves as the master of the world, a great power, but not a Empire.

The Carlist was always a fringe movement, and the catholocism start to have a declive in the second half of the victorian era(post F-P war), here he will not be so different, the mostly moralism was by protestanism and not catholicism(a least en europe), and again yout hate against A-H still not amused me(again Daltmatia is full of Croats, and the Magyar claim that, Italy was only a paper tiger, remember that).

Denmark is very Idiotic but again his intervention or conquer will anger another nation: Sweden-Norway who start to have some of pan-scandinavism in that era(before the separation of Norway) and the Danish post Second Schelish War was not more than a Vassal of Prussia/Germany, but even if they conquer that, the idea of apeasing Britain is not still, maybe change Iceland for colonies(like Congo), because if the full annexed the countries when the english are figthing the American(you know that area, but again my rant for that), nobody will care beacuse the english are figthing by territory

About the third anglo-american war. THAT IS ALMOST AN ASB, the USA was exhausted after the North-South war, so much than they will don't do little for that, the fenian raids were considered like fillbuster of angry irishmen and pay little atention, here will not be so diferent, and if Britain threat the Purchase of Alaska, the only winner is Russia, because they will demand a bigger price in a bid war... or Join USA in the Third anglo-american war(the enemy of my enemy).

well , that are my opinions/rants, in general i know your loved for Italy(You're an Italian as much I'm Colombian, here is more a mixture of languange and idea-force in our nationality) but again, you need here a lot of handwave for this work(the same for the disolution of A-H in the CP victory scenario, both rast and wiking can said than a CP Italy means than the A-H will recive more strenge and survives, and the prussia not want more catholics germans... the kulturkampf was a big expirience for them, Kaiserreich Deutchland is Prussia federate, not a liberal one)

ATT

Nivek von Beldo

P.S. Bismarck and the most of prussian aristocracy(in a book you i doubt the name, sorry that was in english and was pretty old) always looks with bad eyes to savoy italy, they think them as oportunist vulture for their attack in the seven-weeks war, was the attack against rome who give the hate of the frenchmen and the policy of isolationism against France that make the alliance, who you called unnatural by the Austro-Hungarians(the only reliable ally besides...Russia) whi doesn't have Scheming again another of the allies

 

[Eurofed]

Here is my answer for the first in black: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Succession_War , and that was before the British thinkselves as the master of the world, a great power, but not a Empire.

The Spanish Succession War occurred at a time when France was the dominant continental power. ITTL it is just been ripped a new one by the German-Italian duo that is now widely acknowledged as the new dominant power in Europe after the triumphs over Austria and France. French hegemony over Spain is therefore much more acceptable for Britain than it was in 1701 or 1808.

The Carlist was always a fringe movement,

A movement that had the strength to fight three civil wars in a century is no fringe.

and the catholocism start to have a declive in the second half of the victorian era(post F-P war), here he will not be so different, the mostly moralism was by protestanism and not catholicism(a least en europe), and again yout hate against A-H still not amused me(again Daltmatia is full of Croats, and the Magyar claim that, Italy was only a paper tiger, remember that).

Sorry for your pro-Habsburg sympathies, but ITTL the downfall of Austria makes perfect sense. ITTL Italy is acknowledged in Europe as a great power after its magnificent victories over Austria and France (and its economic development is also getting a better headstart than OTL). It enjoys the full support of Germany that regards it as its main ally. If ITTL Italy wants to claim Dalmatia when the Habsburg house of cards collapses, nobody in Europe is going to daresay them, much less the Magyars that basically can only smile and be grateful that Berlin and Rome are letting them keep all their traditional territories and Croatia to be a bulwark against Russian expansionism. Please don't try and project OTL clichès on a TL where they have no reason to exist. Paper tiger my butt.

Denmark is very Idiotic but again his intervention or conquer will anger another nation: Sweden-Norway who start to have some of pan-scandinavism in that era(before the separation of Norway)

Quite possibly, but what else can S-N do ? Denmark brought it upon itself in admittedly a rather foolish move.

and the Danish post Second Schelish War was not more than a Vassal of Prussia/Germany, but even if they conquer that, the idea of apeasing Britain is not still, maybe change Iceland for colonies(like Congo), because if the full annexed the countries when the english are figthing the American(you know that area, but again my rant for that), nobody will care beacuse the english are figthing by territory.

Bismarck would not at this time be much interested in colonial or naval-bases gains at the price of alienating Britain, so selling Greenland and neutralizing Iceland makes sense, it would appease Britain considerably and letting Germany and Italy keep their combined shares majority of the Suez Canal without British opposition, which he (rightfully) deems more valuable. Iceland and Greenland would only be really valuable to Germany if it planned a naval race and a war with Britain, and nothing could be more alien from Bismarck's plans.

About the third anglo-american war. THAT IS ALMOST AN ASB, the USA was exhausted after the North-South war, so much than they will don't do little for that, the fenian raids were considered like fillbuster of angry irishmen and pay little atention, here will not be so diferent, and if Britain threat the Purchase of Alaska, the only winner is Russia, because they will demand a bigger price in a bid war... or Join USA in the Third anglo-american war(the enemy of my enemy).

You may notice that the 3rd A-A war starts when Britain overreacts to the Fenian raids' success, blaming them on America at large (which would be basically untrue, only US private groups and rogue sectors of the US military truly supported them) and declaring war. ITTL what extra support the Fenians gain is enough to make them reap impressive success against the poor Canadian militias and this pushes Britain to overreact. If attacked by Britain, America would defend itself at the best of its considerable strength and even many Southerners would side with the North in such a war. In many ways, it would be a shark vs. tiger war, the post-ACW US Amry would be supreme on land and conquer Canada quickly, the RN would dominate the high seas but America does not fold quickly because of blockade alone. While it fights the US, Britain is also harried by the Irish insurrection and worried by Russian expansionism in the Balkans, attempts to reconquer Canada become costly failures and Britain decides to cut its losses and accept a compromise peace that recovers Atlantic and most of Central Canada for the British Empire. Mostly they only concede Western Canada which is still a largely empty stretch of land. Southern Ontario stings but America accepts to pay for the land it acquires and indemnify Loyalist Ontarians that relocate to Northern Ontario. America accepts the UK purchase of Alaska as yet another mollifying gesture to Britain. They don't care much at that point, they are getting western Canada which to their eyes is much more valuable than Alaska.

and the prussia not want more catholics germans... the kulturkampf was a big expirience for them, Kaiserreich Deutchland is Prussia federate, not a liberal one)

ITTL Catholic Germans, Austrians, and Italians quickly become Old Catholics during the Kulturkampf, that doctrinally are all but indistinguishable from Anglicans and Lutherans.

P.S. Bismarck and the most of prussian aristocracy(in a book you i doubt the name, sorry that was in english and was pretty old) always looks with bad eyes to savoy italy, they think them as oportunist vulture for their attack in the seven-weeks war, was the attack against rome who give the hate of the frenchmen and the policy of isolationism against France that make the alliance, who you called unnatural by the Austro-Hungarians(the only reliable ally besides...Russia) whi doesn't have Scheming again another of the allies

*Sigh* You really ought not to project OTL prejudices on TLs where they have no reason to exist. ITTL Italy has fought two major wars in a quick row on the side of Prussia/Germany, joining their allies from the start, pulling their own weight, and substantially contributing to victory in both cases. Opportunist vultures my butt. TTL Bismarck and the Junkers have no reason to deem the alliance with Italy anything but fully reliable, a valuable asset, and a cornerstone of German foreign policy. Conversely, they regard TTL Austria, which has got its butt on a plate by France, Prussia, and Italy alike in a mere seven years and is doddering on the brink of domestic collapse, as worthless, a failed former great power only ripe for irredentist pickings. And again, the Catholic schism is making them less wary of annexing German Austria and Bohemia-Moravia.

Russia would have been a good ally for the German-Italian duo if Austria by some political miracle (a quadruple Ausgleich extended to the Czechs and Croats that the Magyars, Franz Joseph, and his reactionary advisors find acceptable) had against all odds stabilized, recovered, and gone to join an alliance with France-Spain. Since it does fall, Berlin and Rome have much less reason to tolerate and foster Russian expansionism in the Balkans. Hence, Britain is a better perspective ally at the moment.