Austria intervens in the Franco-Prussian War

[LordKalvan]

They were just some diplomatic talking, nothing of serious. It's that the piedmontese nobility had some tie and traditional leaning with France and at the times was still influent. But in reality nothing come from this talking and the many politicians and merchants were not very fond of France.

You mean when Lamarmora was posted in Paris as a special ambassador, by the king (effectively a way of removing him from Florence without sending him away in disgrace). However Lamarmora was not much loved by the government, and in any case all the pour parlers were predicated on Italy getting free hands in Latium, which Nappy could not grant for internal political reasons. There was not any chanc that something might come out of this.

However in the end the Italians (unofficially) fought on the French side. After Sedan and the departure of Nappy for exile, Garibaldi organised an Italian Legion (some 10,000 volunteers) and fought some actions against the Germans on behalf of the republican government. IIRC, he won the only French victory of the entire war (nothing too big, but the French bar in this war was set pretty low )

 

[lukedalton]

You mean when Lamarmora was posted in Paris as a special ambassador, by the king (effectively a way of removing him from Florence without sending him away in disgrace). However Lamarmora was not much loved by the government, and in any case all the pour parlers were predicated on Italy getting free hands in Latium, which Nappy could not grant for internal political reasons. There was not any chanc that something might come out of this.

Yes I mean that, and yes that were just words, nothing of really serious
or binding.

However in the end the Italians (unofficially) fought on the French side. After Sedan and the departure of Nappy for exile, Garibaldi organised an Italian Legion (some 10,000 volunteers) and fought some actions against the Germans on behalf of the republican government. IIRC, he won the only French victory of the entire war (nothing too big, but the French bar in this war was set pretty low )

Ehy what you expect from Giuseppe if not the only or one of the few victory in a basically one sided war, he is basically the italian version of Teddy Rosveelt

 

[67th Tigers]

I remember reading they had promised something like 100 000 men to France. (They never showed up of course.)

In return for Rome. Napoleon III refused to abandon the Pope to the Italians and they stayed out of it. Indeed a brigade (35th and 42nd Ligne Regiments) remained in Rome.

Indeed, other commitments (Rome, Algeria and the defence of the Spanish border) occupied 14 regiments of infantry and 8 of cavalry.

 

[Max Sinister]

Austria waited to see whether the French would score some victories over the Prussians at first. Which didn't happen, as we know.

Anyways, the Austrians would want Silesia back and could try courting the Danes, Dutch, and British to secure or regain their lands.

Austria + Denmark OK, but why the Dutch and the Brits? And I would guess that at this time, Britain had still better relations with Prussia than with France.

There was a secret agreement between Russia and Prussia: in case of Austria entering the warm Russia would attack Galicia mobilising at least 100,000 men.
An Austrian intervention would have resulted in an early demise of the Habsburg empire

Of course, Bismarck would've taken care of that. But yes, that would've been interesting. At least, in that case he wouldn't have to worry about A-H expanding on the Balcans and ticking off Russia. Hmm, would we see a British-French alliance against the German-Russian block in the future of such a TL? Would the US and Japan back the western powers?

 

[67th Tigers]

Austria + Denmark OK, but why the Dutch and the Brits? And I would guess that at this time, Britain had still better relations with Prussia than with France.

The British were interested in protecting Belgian neutrality, and thus were considering sending an expeditionary force to Antwerp. Unfortunately the British Army is much weaker than 10 years ago, having lost a third of it's total strength by successive cuts.

 

[Delvestius]

Prussia defeated Austria in two weeks only a few years earlier... They would have nothing to bring to the table.

 

[Eurofed]

Of course, Bismarck would've taken care of that. But yes, that would've been interesting. At least, in that case he wouldn't have to worry about A-H expanding on the Balcans and ticking off Russia. Hmm, would we see a British-French alliance against the German-Russian block in the future of such a TL? Would the US and Japan back the western powers?

A 1870 Germany-Italy-Russia vs. France-Austria would surely cause the emergence of the following geopolitical system in Europe: a thoroughly stable German-Italian-Hungarian CP block, since the demise of Austria would remove all antagonism from the Triple Alliance relationship, a pissed-off revanchist France seeking any worthwhile ally in its revenge quest against Germany and Italy, a Russia and Britain into the Great Game strategic rivalry and willing to ally with whomever is not the partner of the other.

It only took something as extreme as the deep diplomatic incompetence of Wilhelmine Germany to make those rivals do an alliance of convenience. Since ITTL Bismarck would have much more prestige as the creator of Greater Germany (no matter its previous misgivings, after he comes to regard it as inevitable, you may bet your life savings that he's going to tell everyone it was his grand plan all along since 1862), in all likelihood he stays the Chancellor pretty much up to his death in 1898. With him at the helm during the 1890s, Germany would be able to keep either Russia or Britain fairly happy as an ally of the CP.

As which power Bismarck would pick as the main ally of the CP, this is THE geopolitical question of this kind of TL. There are very good reasons for him to choose London or St. Petersburg. My personal assumption is that most likely, he would try for a variant of what he did about Russia and Austria IOTL, pick one as the official ally, but give the other enough counterassurances to keep it a friendly neutral to the CP and France isolated. After his demise, the balancing act would probably collapse and the CP would be forced to stick to one as their ally with the other making the Entente with France.

 

[Eurofed]

Prussia defeated Austria in two weeks only a few years earlier... They would have nothing to bring to the table.

And yet, Napoleon III courted Austria as an ally before the war, so despite the setbacks of 1859 and 1866, he still thought of Vienna as a worthwhile ally, and his opinion is what matters here.

 

[Uruk]

I cant really see this easy Prussian march to victory described in this thread if Austria entered the war. How would the Danes react? Would the Dutch allow the Guelphic Legion to invade Hannover and would Britain support them?
What about the Prussias reluctant German allies like Bavaria do? Would the same Hungarians that had their revolution crushed welcome their Russian "liberators"?

 

[Eurofed]

How would the Danes react?

Not really likely. Denmark was taught by its defeat in 1864 to steer quite clear from provoking Prussia/Germany ever again.

Would the Dutch allow the Guelphic Legion to invade Hannover and would Britain support them?

Why ? The rest of Europe doesn't give a rat's ass about Welf dynastic claims, certainly not Britain. The dynastic union ended a generation ago and in 1870, Britain deemed Napoleon III, not Bismarck, the aggressor and troublemaker, and they were deeply suspicious of French ambitions on the Rhineland and Low Countries (thanks to Bismarck cleverly leaking evidence of the same to the British press).

What about the Prussias reluctant German allies like Bavaria do?

They were bound to Prussia by defensive alliance treaties, economic ties, and the massive nationalist wave that swept German public opinion when France declared war.

Would the same Hungarians that had their revolution crushed welcome their Russian "liberators"?

It's not about welcoming the Russians as liberators, it's about salvaging the Kingdom of Hungary from the Habsburg wreckage before it's too late and Slovaks, Romanians, and Croats start getting too many ideas.

 

[Uruk]

The Danes took the first chance they got to reclaim parts of the lost territories to Germany.

The Hungarians finally got what they sought in 1867 and as seen in WW1 remained loyal subjects of the Habsburgs until the dissolution, why would they act differently in 1870 from 1914?

The wave of nationalism... Why did Bismarck have to make so many concessions to Bavaria when the Empire was formed if it was so firmly behind Prussia?

 

[Eurofed]

The Danes took the first chance they got to reclaim parts of the lost territories to Germany.

What chance whatsoever ? They stayed firmly neutral during WWI, and did so as well in WWII as long as it was their choice.

The Hungarians finally got what they sought in 1867 and as seen in WW1 remained loyal subjects of the Habsburgs until the dissolution, why would they act differently in 1870 from 1914?

Because they would still go along reluctantly with this revanchist Habsburg dynastic war (Hungary has no real interest in screwing Prussia, it did have some in screwing Serbia), which they did oppose IOTL (to work, the scenario necessitates some rearrangements in the domestic political situation of A-H to make Austrian revanchists dominant enough, and/or Hungarian neutralists submissive enough, for the Franco-Austrian alliance to happen; e.g. Italy performing somewhat better in 1866 and making A-H more paranoid). They would be loyal when war starts, but when A-H military situation starts go bad enough, as it shall inevitably and quickly happen with a three-front war, they are going to tell "told you so" to the Habsburg, and do 1848 again to try and salvage the sacred integrity of the Kingdom of Hungary from the Habsburg collapse by switching to the victors' side. Differently from the Entente, Germany and Italy have a strong vested interested into avoiding the success of Slav irredentism during the Habsburg collapse, so they are going to cooperate with a Hungary turned friendly.

The wave of nationalism... Why did Bismarck have to make so many concessions to Bavaria when the Empire was formed if it was so firmly behind Prussia?

Those concessions were not that many, nor so important, more face-saving than anything else.

 

[LordKalvan]

I cant really see this easy Prussian march to victory described in this thread if Austria entered the war. How would the Danes react? Would the Dutch allow the Guelphic Legion to invade Hannover and would Britain support them?
What about the Prussias reluctant German allies like Bavaria do? Would the same Hungarians that had their revolution crushed welcome their Russian "liberators"?

The "reluctant German allies" are really much less reluctant than one would think: after all they got out of the defeat in the previous war almost unscathed, and it would be wrong to underestimate the surge of German nationalism that swept across the country after the victory against Austria.
IMHO, Bismarck played his cards very well here, and all the entreaties of the French never swayed the German southern states.

Denmark has lost his appetite for war in 1864. I would really be astonished if they tried for another round.

The British have just one single point of interest, and it is Belgian neutrality (Hanover was never a significant issue in British foreign policy after the coronation of Victoria). From their point of view, Nappy is a greater risk for Belgium than the German confederation is: no way they are going to intervene directly in support of France.

The strong Hungarian opposition to what they regarded as a "German squabble" is another point worth keeping in mind: it will be not a good thing if the German portion of the empire is perceived to completely disregard the Hungarian position, and so soon after the Ausgleich (which was supposed to restore the traditional rights and prerogatives of the Hungarian crown). When the Russians come knocking, an insurrection is not too ASBish; as a minimum, the Hungarians will drag their feet, delay mobilization and in general make a nuisance of themselves.

Last but not least, an Austrian intervention would almost certainly be met by an Italian intervention. This was pretty cler to the Austrians too, even if there was no open or secret pact between Italy and Prussia: Nappy had started to romance Austria in 1868 with the aim to set up an anti-Prussian alliance, but even the most revanchist Austrians wanted at least a formal Italian commitment not to intervene before signing up in the alliance.

How long will Austria be able to stay in the war is doubtful, but it is quite certain that the empire will not survive this war.

 

[LordKalvan]

The wave of nationalism... Why did Bismarck have to make so many concessions to Bavaria when the Empire was formed if it was so firmly behind Prussia?

Because old Otto was a smart cookie, and his aim was to build a lasting German empire. Just telling the Bavarians to soldier up and obey would not have been a really smart move. However all the "concessions" did not change the reality of Prussian dominance.

 

[LordKalvan]

And yet, Napoleon III courted Austria as an ally before the war, so despite the setbacks of 1859 and 1866, he still thought of Vienna as a worthwhile ally, and his opinion is what matters here.

I'd also point out that over two decades as emperor Nappy never proved to have a very good grasp of geopolitical realities and quite often moved very badly: Italy, Mexico and Luxembourg are all proof that he was not the sharpest tool on the rack. None of his various plots and enterprises brought real benefits to France and in the end he lost his crown.

 

[Eurofed]

The "reluctant German allies" are really much less reluctant than one would think: after all they got out of the defeat in the previous war almost unscathed, and it would be wrong to underestimate the surge of German nationalism that swept across the country after the victory against Austria.
IMHO, Bismarck played his cards very well here, and all the entreaties of the French never swayed the German southern states.

Denmark has lost his appetite for war in 1864. I would really be astonished if they tried for another round.

The British have just one single point of interest, and it is Belgian neutrality (Hanover was never a significant issue in British foreign policy after the coronation of Victoria). From their point of view, Nappy is a greater risk for Belgium than the German confederation is: no way they are going to intervene directly in support of France.

The strong Hungarian opposition to what they regarded as a "German squabble" is another point worth keeping in mind: it will be not a good thing if the German portion of the empire is perceived to completely disregard the Hungarian position, and so soon after the Ausgleich (which was supposed to restore the traditional rights and prerogatives of the Hungarian crown). When the Russians come knocking, an insurrection is not too ASBish; as a minimum, the Hungarians will drag their feet, delay mobilization and in general make a nuisance of themselves.

Last but not least, an Austrian intervention would almost certainly be met by an Italian intervention. This was pretty cler to the Austrians too, even if there was no open or secret pact between Italy and Prussia: Nappy had started to romance Austria in 1868 with the aim to set up an anti-Prussian alliance, but even the most revanchist Austrians wanted at least a formal Italian commitment not to intervene before signing up in the alliance.

How long will Austria be able to stay in the war is doubtful, but it is quite certain that the empire will not survive this war.

All true, but Italy is almost certainly not giving any such guarantee of non-intervention, short of France giving up Rome (which Napoleon III won't do), and/or Austria giving up Trento (which Franz Joseph won't do). This is why the scenario needs Austria to make the alliance with France despite lack of guarantee about Italy, in order to work. Now, French military power was widely overestimated in Europe before 1870, so the French and the Austrians alike may easily believe their alliance shall defeat Prussia and Italy together. This is why the PoD needs Austria to become more revanchist and paranoid, and to deem Italy a lost cause (say by changes in its political domestic situation, and by a better Italian performance in 1866, with a continuation of the Prussian-Italian alliance).

 

[LordKalvan]

A 1870 Germany-Italy-Russia vs. France-Austria would surely cause the emergence of the following geopolitical system in Europe: a thoroughly stable German-Italian-Hungarian CP block, since the demise of Austria would remove all antagonism from the Triple Alliance relationship, a pissed-off revanchist France seeking any worthwhile ally in its revenge quest against Germany and Italy, a Russia and Britain into the Great Game strategic rivalry and willing to ally with whomever is not the partner of the other.

It only took something as extreme as the deep diplomatic incompetence of Wilhelmine Germany to make those rivals do an alliance of convenience. Since ITTL Bismarck would have much more prestige as the creator of Greater Germany (no matter its previous misgivings, after he comes to regard it as inevitable, you may bet your life savings that he's going to tell everyone it was his grand plan all along since 1862), in all likelihood he stays the Chancellor pretty much up to his death in 1898. With him at the helm during the 1890s, Germany would be able to keep either Russia or Britain fairly happy as an ally of the CP.

As which power Bismarck would pick as the main ally of the CP, this is THE geopolitical question of this kind of TL. There are very good reasons for him to choose London or St. Petersburg. My personal assumption is that most likely, he would try for a variant of what he did about Russia and Austria IOTL, pick one as the official ally, but give the other enough counterassurances to keep it a friendly neutral to the CP and France isolated. After his demise, the balancing act would probably collapse and the CP would be forced to stick to one as their ally with the other making the Entente with France.

I'm mostly in agreement, but I believe that Bismarck was too much in love with his balancing act vision (which - at best - could be made to work for a short period of time only). I am also of the opinion that the British should always be the partner of preference for the German empire, since there are potential areas of conflict with them.
Anyway OTL shows that the Bismarckian balancing act ended up with both Russia and UK on the same side against Germany: it should be the best proof that it was at best a very chancy proposition.

With the partition of the Austrian empire and the complete defeat of France, Germany is the dominant power on continental Europe (in particular if the alliance with Italy is firmly established) and should be looking to promote stability and growth. An alliance (or at least an informal understanding) with the British based on a common policy of containing Russia and ensuring stability in the Balkans should benefit both parties.
OTOH, an alliance with Russia would by necessity end up in having to support their penetration in the Balkans and ultimately granting the Russian an access to the Mediterranean and/or the Persian gulf either of which would be unacceptable to Great Britain.
Additionally, there are obvious risks in promoting the development of the Russian empire: nothing worse than feeding a bear

 

[LordKalvan]

All true, but Italy is almost certainly not giving any such guarantee of non-intervention, short of France giving up Rome (which Napoleon III won't do), and/or Austria giving up Trento (which Franz Joseph won't do). This is why the scenario needs Austria to make the alliance with France despite lack of guarantee about Italy, in order to work. Now, French military power was widely overestimated in Europe before 1870, so the French and the Austrians alike may easily believe their alliance shall defeat Prussia and Italy together. This is why the PoD needs Austria to become more revanchist and paranoid, and to deem Italy a lost cause (say by changes in its political domestic situation, and by a better Italian performance in 1866, with a continuation of the Prussian-Italian alliance).

No Italian guaranteed neutrality (since Nappy will never agree to give up the Pope) and firm opposition by the Hungarian half of the empire, but Austria still goes into the war? Even assuming that they don't know about the secret Prussian-Russian compact it is a tall demand .
There are just two ways I see it possible: an assassination attempt against Franz Joseph mounted up by pan-German circles (or Italian irredentists) or Bismarck making up his mind and deciding that the Austrian question must be resolved in 1870. The latter is certainly almost ASBish, but I'd say that both are quite unlikely.

 

[Eurofed]

I'm mostly in agreement, but I believe that Bismarck was too much in love with his balancing act vision (which - at best - could be made to work for a short period of time only). I am also of the opinion that the British should always be the partner of preference for the German empire, since there are potential areas of conflict with them.
Anyway OTL shows that the Bismarckian balancing act ended up with both Russia and UK on the same side against Germany: it should be the best proof that it was at best a very chancy proposition.

With the partition of the Austrian empire and the complete defeat of France, Germany is the dominant power on continental Europe (in particular if the alliance with Italy is firmly established) and should be looking to promote stability and growth. An alliance (or at least an informal understanding) with the British based on a common policy of containing Russia and ensuring stability in the Balkans should benefit both parties.
OTOH, an alliance with Russia would by necessity end up in having to support their penetration in the Balkans and ultimately granting the Russian an access to the Mediterranean and/or the Persian gulf either of which would be unacceptable to Great Britain.
Additionally, there are obvious risks in promoting the development of the Russian empire: nothing worse than feeding a bear

Well, you know that I am not so one-sided as you are on the relative merits of the British vs Russian alliance option for these CP, but I agree that the OvB balancing act is not the best option for the CP, better to pick an ally early and stick to it. However, IMHO OvB instead of Willy II in charge of German diplomacy during the 1890s cannot nothing to improve the chances greatly of Germany to keep whomever they try to woo as an ally between London and St. Petersburg. Although, if worse comes to worse, a Greater Germany-Italy-Hungary Triple Alliance can in all likelihood defeat even the OTL Triple Entente.

 

[Elfwine]

Well, you know that I am not so one-sided as you are on the relative merits of the British vs Russian alliance option for these CP, but I agree that the OvB balancing act is not the best option for the CP, better to pick an ally early and stick to it. However, IMHO OvB instead of Willy II in charge of German diplomacy during the 1890s cannot nothing to improve the chances greatly of Germany to keep whomever they try to woo as an ally between London and St. Petersburg. Although, if worse comes to worse, a Greater Germany-Italy-Hungary Triple Alliance can in all likelihood defeat even the OTL Triple Entente.

...how? (to the underlined part)

The material end of things is still stacked heavily against the Triple Alliance, and Italy being a member isn't that big an asset.