Assassinating the tsar, with the deepest apologies to the French

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antoni_Berezowski

WI he'd managed to kill not just Alexander II but also Napoleon III by accident? Let's say he shoots once, hits the emperor without noticing, then shoots again and hits the tsar.


Mmm. First butterfly, no war of 70, as either the empress is either powerless ( most likely IMO ) or is much too busy securing her power to meddle. So no treaty of Frankfuhrt and no annexion of Alsace-Moselle. From that, no system of Alliances, which mean no WWI as we know it. So no Versailles, so no WWII as we know it. And that's from the effects on France alone. I don't feel qualified to go on the effects on Russia.

Oh, and without a war of 70, German full unification is delayed at least, but could also take another form, or end up with *Germany not including some of the southern German statelets, which could stay nominally independent ( as the King of Prussia is not crowned Emperor of the Germans in Versailles )

HUGE butterflies.
 
Mmm. First butterfly, no war of 70, as either the empress is either powerless ( most likely IMO ) or is much too busy securing her power to meddle. So no treaty of Frankfuhrt and no annexion of Alsace-Moselle. From that, no system of Alliances, which mean no WWI as we know it. So no Versailles, so no WWII as we know it. And that's from the effects on France alone. I don't feel qualified to go on the effects on Russia.

Oh, and without a war of 70, German full unification is delayed at least, but could also take another form, or end up with *Germany not including some of the southern German statelets, which could stay nominally independent ( as the King of Prussia is not crowned Emperor of the Germans in Versailles )

HUGE butterflies.

The effects on Russia would be that his son Alexander III would become Tsar. The difference being that he is perhaps more influenced by his (conservative) teachers. Not much difference.

But, Alex III would probably not have started the Russian-Turkish war of 1877/1878. So no Treaty of San Stefano. And as a consequence of this no Berlin conference. The relations between Germany and Russia would have been better from that time on. Russia would not have made alliance with France and Britain. Europe would have been more stable.
 
Mmm. First butterfly, no war of 70, as either the empress is either powerless ( most likely IMO ) or is much too busy securing her power to meddle. So no treaty of Frankfuhrt and no annexion of Alsace-Moselle. From that, no system of Alliances, which mean no WWI as we know it. So no Versailles, so no WWII as we know it. And that's from the effects on France alone. I don't feel qualified to go on the effects on Russia.

Oh, and without a war of 70, German full unification is delayed at least, but could also take another form, or end up with *Germany not including some of the southern German statelets, which could stay nominally independent ( as the King of Prussia is not crowned Emperor of the Germans in Versailles )

HUGE butterflies.

Big butterflies indeed. Too big, in fact, to state categorically what will happen. Certainly no Franco-German war as we know it. Russia was alieanted by the assasination: if it is perceived as an attack on both Russia and France, combined with Alexander III who I believe was something of a Francophile coming to the throne, could Russia be less willing to benevolently ignore Prussia's plans?

If there is domestic chaos in France, which as you say is very possible, German unification will probably happen right then and there. Bismarck was ever the opportunist. In 1867, Baden had wanted to join the NGF, but Bismarck knew this would aggravate France too much and was not yet willing to fight. If France is in no position to object, Bismarck will probably admit Baden, which will open the way for the rest of the southern states to join up.

Bismarck has now achieved his goal without having to fight France, and of course he never really wanted Alsace anyway. What will the new Germany look like? Could it be more decentralised, and perhaps still be a "confederation"? And what will be the internal effects of Russia, with a decade more of Alex III and less of Alex II? Probably not good immediately... that goes onto affect the Ottomans via '78 or-lack-thereof...

Yeah, this pretty much changes everything.
 
The effects on Russia would be that his son Alexander III would become Tsar. The difference being that he is perhaps more influenced by his (conservative) teachers. Not much difference.

But, Alex III would probably not have started the Russian-Turkish war of 1877/1878. So no Treaty of San Stefano. And as a consequence of this no Berlin conference. The relations between Germany and Russia would have been better from that time on. Russia would not have made alliance with France and Britain. Europe would have been more stable.

You can't make categorical predictions like that. Stuff can still happen. As I said, its possible that Germany and Russia have worse relations to start with.

Another butterfly: in 1870, French troops were evacuated from the Latium to fight the Germans. This allowed Italy to step in and move its capital to Rome. Does this still happen?
 

Susano

Banned
On the German question, I restate my usual position that Biusmarck had no further extending plans for Germany. He already had at that time what he wanted - the German Confederation destroyed, so no Austrian influence in North Germany anymore and a Greater Prussia in the form of the NGC. Take Hesse-Darmstadt for example - now the reason it wasnt eannexd outright were dynastcial ties to Russia, but it only became member of the NCG for its territories north of the Main, not those south of it. Thus it can be seen Bismarck even took care not to expand too much southwards, so as to keep the NGC a Greater Prussia. Baden was not admitted so not to offend France, that is true, but the reverse conclusion that it would have been admitted had France been weak... hm, I dunno. I think rather not.

Of course, Bismarck had made a sort of devils pact with German nationalism, and that might just move his hand (just as IOTL that moved the hand of the southern rulers to honour their treaties with the NGC).

Nontheless, saying Alsace-Moselle to Alsace-Lorraine, even if the Lorraine moniker is of course a bit dubious, is highly and annoyingly ideology-speak ;)
 
On the German question, I restate my usual position that Biusmarck had no further extending plans for Germany. He already had at that time what he wanted - the German Confederation destroyed, so no Austrian influence in North Germany anymore and a Greater Prussia in the form of the NGC. Take Hesse-Darmstadt for example - now the reason it wasnt eannexd outright were dynastcial ties to Russia, but it only became member of the NCG for its territories north of the Main, not those south of it. Thus it can be seen Bismarck even took care not to expand too much southwards, so as to keep the NGC a Greater Prussia. Baden was not admitted so not to offend France, that is true, but the reverse conclusion that it would have been admitted had France been weak... hm, I dunno. I think rather not.

You're the expert here, so I'm not asking this to challenge you but rather to edify myself. I'm under the impression that if Baden itself was enthusiastic about joining, and the NGF had no diplomatic reason to turn them down, the only reason to do so would be a dmoestic desire not to let the southern states in at all. Now, given that Bismarck allowed the Franco-Prussian war to happen when he could probably have arrested it, and persuaded that southern states to sign on to the Empire at its conclusion, its always seemed to me that he was for Prussia first, but if an opportunity to bring the south into a Prussian-centric Germany appeared, he was not averse to taking it. One would think a France in no position to resist Baden joining of its own accord would constitute such an opportunity, surely?

Of course, Bismarck had made a sort of devils pact with German nationalism, and that might just move his hand (just as IOTL that moved the hand of the southern rulers to honour their treaties with the NGC).

That'swhat I was thinking.

Nontheless, saying Alsace-Moselle to Alsace-Lorraine, even if the Lorraine moniker is of course a bit dubious, is highly and annoyingly ideology-speak ;)

I agree their. This is an English-language discussion on an English-language foreign (puny continentals), and the English name for the territory also happens to be a name which is politicaly neutral whilst also being French. There is absolutely no reason not to use it, except perhaps a desire to forget that Reichsland Elsass-Lothringen ever existed.
 

Susano

Banned
Now, given that Bismarck allowed the Franco-Prussian war to happen when he could probably have arrested it,
Could he? This will start that debatte with fhaessig again, but really, what can you do if your obnoxious neighbour declares war out of sudden over some report to a thirdgrade newspaper?

My prediction is rather that any period of French weakness will pass without much being done in Germany. After all, the NGC had just been established the previous year at the time of the assassination. Over time, of course, there will be grumblings in North and South to "finish" the unification, but this will take years if not decades to manifest, Id estimate. Thats more based on my estimations on societies in general than any German expertise, but after all, people usually dont immidiatly become dissastified with any given politcial situation.
 
You can't make categorical predictions like that. Stuff can still happen. As I said, its possible that Germany and Russia have worse relations to start with.

Stuff can always happen of course, but Alex III was called The Peacemaker. In his reign he prevented Russia from engaging in a mayor war. He was conservative, also in the way that he didn't take chances. To me it is very unlikely that the Russio-Turkish war of 1877 would happen.

If Alex III became Tsar in 1867, how do you see that German-Russo relations would be worse? Very interested in your view here. (Perhaps his Danish anti German wife had influence on him..). On the whole it doesn't seem probable to me.
 
Stuff can always happen of course, but Alex III was called The Peacemaker. In his reign he prevented Russia from engaging in a mayor war. He was conservative, also in the way that he didn't take chances. To me it is very unlikely that the Russio-Turkish war of 1877 would happen.

I don't deny that, but actions have unexpected consequences. One can state with some confidence that there won't be a Russo-Turkish War, but that could lead to a very unstable Europe down the line.

If Alex III became Tsar in 1867, how do you see that German-Russo relations would be worse? Very interested in your view here. (Perhaps his Danish anti German wife had influence on him..). On the whole it doesn't seem probable to me.

It's not a strong conviction, I'm just saying I wouldn't be so sure that Germany and Russia would have better relations. They certainly could. Maybe the opposite of what I suggested will happen, and the murder will make Alvensleben seem even more important.
 
The 1866 Treaty of Prague that ended the Austro-Prussian War provided that a referendum was to be held in northern Schleswig to determine whether it should belong to Prussia or Denmark. This was only included to appease the French and the provision was eliminated after the Franco-German War, but in TTL France and Denmark could demand its enforcement (joined by Sweden-Norway, probably Britain, possibly Russia, and maybe even A-H).

Regarding the Russo-Turkish relations, if there is to be no war I expect the eventual negotiated establishment of one or 2 Bulgarian autonomous provinces. Relations between Berlin and St Petersburg would be much improved by the absence of such a war.
 
Could he? This will start that debatte with fhaessig again, but really, what can you do if your obnoxious neighbour declares war out of sudden over some report to a thirdgrade newspaper?

So you think that Bismarck got the war he didn't truly want and told Moltke to make the best of it, and at the end public opinion obliged him to unify Germany and General Staff opinion obliged him to annex Alsace? That certainly seems to be one way of looking at it. And of course its always seemed to me that starting the war was for Nap Three more of a domestic decision that a diplomatic one.

Which debate is that? I take it's not the long and bitter one I got into about whether France could have won?

My prediction is rather that any period of French weakness will pass without much being done in Germany. After all, the NGC had just been established the previous year at the time of the assassination. Over time, of course, there will be grumblings in North and South to "finish" the unification, but this will take years if not decades to manifest, Id estimate. Thats more based on my estimations on societies in general than any German expertise, but after all, people usually dont immidiatly become dissastified with any given politcial situation.

Unless they're French, of course. :D

Very much a sound analysis, though.

The 1866 Treaty of Prague that ended the Austro-Prussian War provided that a referendum was to be held in northern Schleswig to determine whether it should belong to Prussia or Denmark. This was only included to appease the French and the provision was eliminated after the Franco-German War, but in TTL France and Denmark could demand its enforcement (joined by Sweden-Norway, probably Britain, possibly Russia, and maybe even A-H).

Regarding the Russo-Turkish relations, if there is to be no war I expect the eventual negotiated establishment of one or 2 Bulgarian autonomous provinces. Relations between Berlin and St Petersburg would be much improved by the absence of such a war.

Good points. I wonder who would win the plebsiscite? If the post-war plebiscite had been all-or-nothing, Germany would have won, but the fact that Germany played evasive in the 1870s suggests that there was stronger Danish sentiment at that point.
 
Last edited:

Susano

Banned
So you think that Bismarck got the war he didn't truly want and told Moltke to make the best of it, and at the end public opinion obliged him to unify Germany and General Staff opinion obliged him to annex Alsace? That certainly seems to be one way of looking at it. And of course its always seemed to me that starting the war was for Nap Three more of a domestic decision that a diplomatic one.

Which debate is that? I take it's not the long and bitter one I got into about whether France could have won?

No, the debatte about wether Bismarck played Nappy-3 and wanted a war, or wether Nappy-3's aggression forced a war on Bismarck. Fhaessig says its the former because the treaties with teh South German states were soon to run out and hence Bismarck had to establish something more permanent in that time. I say that this was not Bismarck's aim and anyways the whole series of events made it impossible for him to mastermidn anything unless he had mind control over Nappy-3.

Good points. I wonder who would win the plebsiscite? If the post-war plebiscite had been all-or-nothing, Germany would have won, but the fact that Germany played evasive in the 1870s suggests that there was stronger Danish sentiment at that point.
Oh, yeah, completly forgot that clause. Welcome Duchy of Schleswig-Holstein under House (Oldenburg-)Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderhausen-Glücksburg(-Schleswig-Holstein) (the Oldenburgs really made splitting into sidelines an artform...).

Prussia and Austria I think just didnt want to open up old wounds. Neither side would have gained anything by the referendum, so why bother with it? Besides, neither side didnt like democracy at all. That can be seen in the time since the Congress of Vienna (where both together with Russia were the reactionary eastern powers opposed to the progressive western powers France and UK): Smaller German states were mostly willing to have constitutions and grant some power to the people - Prussia and Austria hardly were so.

If Schleswig-Holstein votes as a whole, then there will be a definite majority for an independant duchy (which will probably be in the NGC, Prussia will retain that much power near its border). Since that Duchy was the preferred option of the German Nationalists it will probably also win out against the territories staying directly Prussian.
 
If Schleswig-Holstein votes as a whole, then there will be a definite majority for an independant duchy (which will probably be in the NGC, Prussia will retain that much power near its border). Since that Duchy was the preferred option of the German Nationalists it will probably also win out against the territories staying directly Prussian.

I was under the impression that the referendum was in Schlewsig only.
 

Susano

Banned
I was under the impression that the referendum was in Schlewsig only.

Looking at Pervez' post he said Northern Schleswig even, but I have read it was supposed to be all of S-H...

/E: Having actually looked it up again :eek: , I take back what I said and will now state the opposite: It were pparently the "northern Schleswig Districts". No idea just where the referendums territory's southenr border would be, though. Hm, interesting. Well, then, Denmark would probably reclaim those areas, and remaining S-H would remain Prussian.
 
Last edited:

Valdemar II

Banned
Looking at Pervez' post he said Northern Schleswig even, but I have read it was supposed to be all of S-H...

/E: Having actually looked it up again :eek: , I take back what I said and will now state the opposite: It were pparently the "northern Schleswig Districts". No idea just where the referendums territory's southenr border would be, though. Hm, interesting. Well, then, Denmark would probably reclaim those areas, and remaining S-H would remain Prussian.

Denmark would get the modern border plus Flensburg but minus Tönder/Tønder, while Danish (rather Sønderjysk) was spoken south of that line, the Danish speakers in that primary identified themself as Schleswigers first, Germans second and Danish speakers last (through enclave in the west will vote for Denmark, mostly on the westen isles*).

I have made a map which show the border between Danish and German in 1838, gray is mixed areas, and the green dots is towns in Danish area with Low German dialect spoken by a significant minority or the majority.

*the non coloured areas on the map.

DAnishGermanborder1838.png
 
Last edited:

Susano

Banned
Thats a very... danophile map ;) Ethnic maps Ive seen have the broder really be just at the modern border, either with Flensburg danish, or with some German land just south of the middle of the border Danish and in return the eastcoast just north of the border ethnic German...

But those details dont matter all that map: If the treaty just stipulates there has to be a referendum, and that is forced through, well, Prussia will still determine the modus of the referendum, that is, most importantly the single election districts. Gerrymandering ahoy!

And coming to think of it, I dont see why the referendum is forced through when it wasnt IOTL. The clause IOTL wasnt ended due to the Franco-German War, but only 1878. Really, all countries would be in a similar shape than IOTL, only that there is no united Germany, and Austria would still have no reason to demand the referendum to actually take place.
 

Valdemar II

Banned
Thats a very... danophile map ;) Ethnic maps Ive seen have the broder really be just at the modern border, either with Flensburg danish, or with some German land just south of the middle of the border Danish and in return the eastcoast just north of the border ethnic German... .

Yes it is a danophile map, but the germonhile maps is little different for 1838. What you have seen is identification maps, which was a lot more pro German, for reasons mentioned before. This is a map of what language which was spoken.

But those details dont matter all that map: If the treaty just stipulates there has to be a referendum, and that is forced through, well, Prussia will still determine the modus of the referendum, that is, most importantly the single election districts. Gerrymandering ahoy!.

Yes quite likely.

And coming to think of it, I dont see why the referendum is forced through when it wasnt IOTL. The clause IOTL wasnt ended due to the Franco-German War, but only 1878. Really, all countries would be in a similar shape than IOTL, only that there is no united Germany, and Austria would still have no reason to demand the referendum to actually take place.

I personal also doubt that it will happen.
 
An internal effect on an earlier Alex III for Russia:

Earlier Alex III may mean earlier anti-Semitic repression, meaning the Jewish waves of emigration to America from eastern Europe happens earlier. That should have some interesting butterflies.
 
Top