Confederate Victory: Impact on Europe?

Question to the Brits,

I once read that the success of the Union played a role in the debate over extending suffrage in the 1860s; is there any truth to this, or is it hyperbole?
 
Hrmm. I'm not sure I buy into the idea that Bismarck tricked the South German states into joining the Franco-Prussian War,

Actually, it was not a trick, it was forced under the treaty which ended the 1866 war. And I doubt you will sontend that the South German states signed these without duress.

Under these treaties, the soth German states were obliged to declare war on any foreign power which declared war un Prussia, until 31st december 1870.

In order to get a more united Gemany, Bismarck needed to get the South German states in a common war against a foreign foe, which would let him exalt german patriotism and essentially annex South Germany. The Power that be in South Gemany were less than thrilled with this plan, as you can imagine, even if the man on the street could be convinced to go along in a fervor of german patriotism.

So, essentially, Bismarck needed a foreign foe to declare war in order to unifite Germany under prussian flag.


and that without that they wouldn't join a German Union. They were just as German as the rest of the Reich; why would they want to remain independent?


You're thinking as a modern man here. What we call germany isn't the 'Greater German Reich' of the XIXth century german romantics ( and that has never been unified since, even under the 3rd Reich ). The German national character we know was forged, among other things, by the Kulturkempf in the late XIXth century; However, while some German unification was obviously going to occur, it may not have to occur as it did OTL ( with two german states and a lot of part of gerter germany in other states ), as there was a lot of opposition between the North and South of Germany on a cultural, religious and even language level. The government of the South German states were definitely against absorbsion by Prussia in the 1850-1870 period. Having three or even four german states in the XXth century is a plausible possibility, IMO.
 
This is nonsense. Bismarck did not want war (or hed already have used the Luxemburg crisis as opportunity),

Bismqrck NEEDED a war declared by a foreign foe before 31st december 1870, at a time he was ready and his foe was isolated on diplomatic level. How did the Luxembourg crisis give him that?

and the North german Cofnederation was already the end of his plans. Bismarck had no further reaching plans for an united Germany - that only arose out of the aftermath of the war.

ACtually, it arose DURING the war, as Wilhelm I was crowned German emperor in Versailles in January 1871, before the end of the war. That title was chosen by Bismarck against Wilhelm wishes, as Bismarck knew that was the only way to get the other German Kings to approve.


snip

And lets not forget what Napoleon III declared war over. He declared war over the rudely shortened telegramm published in a third rate newspaper!

Napoleon was pushed into the war by the pressure of the Paris mob and Court. Not that he was not considering it, but he was hesitating. Among the reasons he finally decided for war were his war ministry assurances that the army was fully ready.

And since when is the fact that one party declared war the definite proof that this was the party wanting war? Unless I'm mistaken, there is a clear counter exemple on December 8th 1941. There are also a few other exemples of governments declaring wars even if they didn't really want to, in history.


snip

For that matter, why did the South German states help out the North German Confedration? Sure, there were the mutual defense treaties, but thing is they were honoured because of public pressure born out of German nationalism. Hence, after the war, there was the question of "what now". There were the gained French lands to consider, as was the future of the relations between South Germany and the NGC. It was out of this situation, to solve this problems, that Bismarck decided to have an united Germany. Apparently at first he had planned for an extended NGC, with the Prussian King as head, but as in the NGC merely as "Präsidium" ("Presidency"), but then he had the idea to call this bureaucratic monster German Empire and to call its head German Emperor. The coronation at Versailles thus really was not the end a long term masterplan of Bismarcks - as said, that already was the NGC. Rather, it was Bismarcks solution to solve the problems of the aftermath of the war.

As already stated the coronation occured before the end of the war and before the german empire gained any french land ( or regained old germanic lands, depending on your PoV, of course )


So, even if we have Napoleon think twice about his adventurism (given his history, that seven somewhat difficult Id say),

Not so difficult, given that, in the TL I'm from, he did really hesitate and though rather seven times than two.


that wont prevent German unfication. German nationalist public pressure will still be a problem for the South German states, and while Bismarck doesnt really want to incoprate them, he wont be North German Chancellor forever.

Yes, there was pressure to unify, buit there was also resistance ( remember the later Kulturkampf ). The unification of Germany in two countries plus separate part of other states as in OTL, is not foreordained. It could have stopped with three or more german states.

As for your prediction of 1866.... you apparently dont even know who fought there!:rolleyes:

Since that came out of one post too quickly written that I had already owned to before your post, this is at best a dirty debating trick ( to imply that all my arguments are wothless because I made one error ) and at worst an attempt to start a flamewar.

If you really want to go down to schoolyard level, I'll point out that you similarly don't seem to know when the 2nd german empire was created, based upon this one post. Do you think this undercuts all your other arguments?


The NGC was founded in teh AFTERMATH of the war. More properly the war was between the German Confederation, headed by Austria, against Prussia and some allies. And as said, Napoleon III had rather planned to intervene on Prussian side as pseudo-ally anyways. Hence, if Prussia loses what happens is that the German Confederation is restored.

That's if Prussia is totally crushed, yes. If it is not ( but is still defeated ), however, I think there will still be a Prussian dominated North German federation, but it will be reduced wrt OTL. And there will be an Austrian dominated South German federation to match it ( and perhaps some neutral lands inbetween, depending on how the war and peace treaty go ).
 

Susano

Banned
Bismqrck NEEDED a war declared by a foreign foe before 31st december 1870, at a time he was ready and his foe was isolated on diplomatic level. How did the Luxembourg crisis give him that?
Well, apparently by publishing shortened diplomatic letters in third rate newspapers. If the non-matter of 1870 (when Prussia already had backed down on the question of Spanish succession) boiled to becoming a war, the Luxemburg crisis sure could have been escalated to that point as well. In any case, Bismarkc could not have anticipated that such a ridicolous issue would lead to war.

ACtually, it arose DURING the war, as Wilhelm I was crowned German emperor in Versailles in January 1871, before the end of the war. That title was chosen by Bismarck against Wilhelm wishes, as Bismarck knew that was the only way to get the other German Kings to approve.
A point where it was clear Germany would win and gain at minimum the Alsace. As it was they got the Alsace minus Belfort, plus Metz, but such details were unimportant then. Thing is it was clear that the German states would win the war, and that created the problem of the diplomatic aftermath of the situation. And in that situation Bismarck had the idea of further German unification, and then the idea to call this further German unification "German Empire" for propagandistic reasons.

Which, however, means he cant have conveyed the war as a means to have this unficiation, because before teh war he didnt even have that aim!

Napoleon was pushed into the war by the pressure of the Paris mob and Court. Not that he was not considering it, but he was hesitating. Among the reasons he finally decided for war were his war ministry assurances that the army was fully ready.
So Napoleon III only hesitated because he had doubts about the army? Well, that doesnt change a single point Ive made then.
However, maybe the Pairs Mob is to be blamed. Maybe. I only went by Napoleons previous diplomatic-military actions - I dont know the details of France in 1870. What do I know, though, its certainly not Bismarck or Prussia or the NGC or Germany as a whole that can be blamed. Well, that is, they all can be blamed, and are, bt not rightly so.

And since when is the fact that one party declared war the definite proof that this was the party wanting war? Unless I'm mistaken, there is a clear counter exemple on December 8th 1941. There are also a few other exemples of governments declaring wars even if they didn't really want to, in history.
Id say there is a fair bit of difference between declaring war over the invasion of Poland and declairng war over the a (if rudely) shortened diplomatic message published in some newspaper. Really, if THATs the casus belli, you already know who the agressor is.

As already stated the coronation occured before the end of the war and before the german empire gained any french land ( or regained old germanic lands, depending on your PoV, of course )
Old German lands. I mean, also old Germanic, as German is a Germanic language, but I think the issue was not the Romance-Germanic divide ;)

Not so difficult, given that, in the TL I'm from, he did really hesitate and though rather seven times than two.
As said, I was going by his precedent. Maybe the Paris mob is to be blamed, but my point was that Bismarck did not mastermind the war, and had no masterplan to unite Germany, either.

Yes, there was pressure to unify, buit there was also resistance ( remember the later Kulturkampf ). The unification of Germany in two countries plus separate part of other states as in OTL, is not foreordained. It could have stopped with three or more german states.
However, that was an important point of the Catholics in the Kulturkampf - that they, too, were Germans, after all and hence ufnairly single dout. The Kulturkampf was simply a clash of secular and church powers as it also happened at a dozen other countries at the time. To deduce particularism from it is folly.

That's if Prussia is totally crushed, yes. If it is not ( but is still defeated ), however, I think there will still be a Prussian dominated North German federation, but it will be reduced wrt OTL. And there will be an Austrian dominated South German federation to match it ( and perhaps some neutral lands inbetween, depending on how the war and peace treaty go ).
Depends. That might the result without any foreign intervention, yes, but if the French do meddle, that might quickly change.
 
Well, apparently by publishing shortened diplomatic letters in third rate newspapers. If the non-matter of 1870 (when Prussia already had backed down on the question of Spanish succession) boiled to becoming a war, the Luxemburg crisis sure could have been escalated to that point as well. In any case, Bismarkc could not have anticipated that such a ridicolous issue would lead to war.

If he didn't, why did he send the Elms Telegraph, then?

Unless you have a pacific explanation for this, occam's razor states that Bismarck did want a war and indeed masterminded its start.

A point where it was clear Germany would win and gain at minimum the Alsace. As it was they got the Alsace minus Belfort, plus Metz, but such details were unimportant then. Thing is it was clear that the German states would win the war, and that created the problem of the diplomatic aftermath of the situation.

Likely, possible. Sure, I don't think so; AFAIK, France fielded More soldiers after Sedan than before.

And in that situation Bismarck had the idea of further German unification, and then the idea to call this further German unification "German Empire" for propagandistic reasons.

Which, however, means he cant have conveyed the war as a means to have this unficiation, because before teh war he didnt even have that aim!

Then why did he trigger the war?

I know you don't believe this, but if we can't get to a common point on this, we can't get further.

So Napoleon III only hesitated because he had doubts about the army? Well, that doesnt change a single point Ive made then.
However, maybe the Pairs Mob is to be blamed. Maybe. I only went by Napoleons previous diplomatic-military actions - I dont know the details of France in 1870.

I think I know some and Napoleon had indeed some doubts about his army readyness ( see the rejected Niel reform, for exemple ) and that had already stopped him in some of his earlier adventures ( in Italy, for exemple ).

But Napoleon wanted to be the dominent power in Continental Europe and he would have started the war if he was sure he would win it. I think you have captured his character accurately ( I happen to despise the man, BTW - I'm rather a fan of Hugo :D -) but, in this case, he wasn't sure.

What did Decide NIII to declare war AT THAT POINT, more than his own inclinaison, was a combinaison of the assurances of his war minister, the pressure of the court ( especially the empress ) and the demonstration of the Paris mob. The later was triggered by the Elms dispatch being published ( and I still maintain that Bismarck knew exactly what he was doing when he sent it ). The court and Empress used these demonstration to convince Napoleon that he was likely to face revolution in France if he didn't go to war with Prussia. After this, Napoleon still hesitated untill assured by Mornay that everything was ready.

Remove any of the 3 point and Napoleon III won't declare war at this point. ( either No Elms dispatch - or no publication -, another empress or the army obviously not ready ).


What do I know, though, its certainly not Bismarck or Prussia or the NGC or Germany as a whole that can be blamed. Well, that is, they all can be blamed, and are, bt not rightly so.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on that one.


Id say there is a fair bit of difference between declaring war over the invasion of Poland and declairng war over the a (if rudely) shortened diplomatic message published in some newspaper. Really, if THATs the casus belli, you already know who the agressor is.

Not when one side manoeuver ( masterfully to get the otherone in a position when not declaring war means a civil war )

Old German lands.

I think that's another point we'll have to agree to disagree.

If you look at the situation between the end of the Roman empire and Charlmagne's rule, part of Alsace was occupied by the Aleman and part of it by the Franks ( Salic Franks to be precise ). - I should have a reference book around here ( unless it's still packed 500 km away ) on the history of Alsace if you want a precise reference but it may take me some time to find it. Obviously, before, Alsace was mostly Celtic and afterward, as it was a natural passage for invading armies, it was a mix of whatever, genetically speaking. Not to mention that, after the 30 year war, Louis XIV did call up peasants from all over europe to Alsace by offering them free lands, so unpopulated had it become.

So I don't really think you can charaterise Alsace ( and Moselle ) as Old anyone's territory. ( unless you want to go back to the Celts :D ).

( BTW, you may have guessed, I'm from Alsace )

I mean, also old Germanic, as German is a Germanic language, but I think the issue was not the Romance-Germanic divide ;)

not it isn't. However, comparing Alsatian to Hichdeutch, bavarian and dutch yields some interesting results, but that's not the point here either.

As said, I was going by his precedent.

Going by precedent is sometime misleadin. Going by precedent, Napoleon I should have won in Russia.

Maybe the Paris mob is to be blamed, but my point was that Bismarck did not mastermind the war, and had no masterplan to unite Germany, either.

As I said, I think we'll have to agree to disagree, here.
However, that was an important point of the Catholics in the Kulturkampf - that they, too, were Germans, after all and hence ufnairly single dout. The Kulturkampf was simply a clash of secular and church powers as it also happened at a dozen other countries at the time. To deduce particularism from it is folly.

KulturKapmf also had quite a lot of the Protestant/catholic and Industrialised/agricultural disputes in, unless I'm mistaken. These were very near to the differences which led to the separation of Belgium from the Netherlands not much earlier. If fact, I'd go as far as to say there were more cultural and historical links between belgian and dutch than between Prussian and bavarians.
 

Susano

Banned
If he didn't, why did he send the Elms Telegraph, then?
I dunno. Maybe he did want to strain relations with France. Maybe he did want to publish the dispatch, but had no time to comment on it or anything and hence shortened it. There is a myriad of possible reasons for such a small and unimportant actions. However, that publishing a shortened diplomatic dispatch would lead to war - how could anybody know this short of precognitive powers? Not to mention that the French demand was rather unsufferable anyways, so maybe it was just an emotional reaction.

Snipping away a lot of stuff now... many of your "agree to disagree comments", and I acknowledge your description of the domestic position in France 1870.

Not when one side manoeuver ( masterfully to get the otherone in a position when not declaring war means a civil war )
Could Bismarck have known? As said, it was such a ridicously, icnredibly minor action that resulted in the war...

If you look at the situation between the end of the Roman empire and Charlmagne's rule, part of Alsace was occupied by the Aleman and part of it by the Franks ( Salic Franks to be precise ). - I should have a reference book around here ( unless it's still packed 500 km away ) on the history of Alsace if you want a precise reference but it may take me some time to find it. Obviously, before, Alsace was mostly Celtic and afterward, as it was a natural passage for invading armies, it was a mix of whatever, genetically speaking. Not to mention that, after the 30 year war, Louis XIV did call up peasants from all over europe to Alsace by offering them free lands, so unpopulated had it become.
The period between Roman Empire and Charles the Great is rather irrelevant, seeing as there was neither France nor Germany in this time. However, the Alsace had been part of Germany continously since the Treaty of Mersen 870 (before it had been aprt of the Middle Frankish Realm, which as we know didnt survive anyways), first as part of the Duchy of Swabia inside the German Kingdom and than as part of the Holy Roman Empire of German Nation. That only changed 1648, and even afterwards, despite whatever resettlement ,might have happened, it was still German speaking - yes, a German dialect, of coruse, but Im sure at this time people in, say, the Provence, didnt exactly speak Parisian, either. And THAT fact onyl chanegd due to massive French cultural imperialism inside its borders. Mind, thats not to say the Alsatians saw the Germans as liberators, and doubly not after the creation of the "Reichsland", but that didnt mean they liked the French, either... I think after WW1, most wouldve liked to become independant. Nontheless, ethnically, the Alsace was German up until the 20th century.

KulturKapmf also had quite a lot of the Protestant/catholic and Industrialised/agricultural disputes in, unless I'm mistaken. These were very near to the differences which led to the separation of Belgium from the Netherlands not much earlier. If fact, I'd go as far as to say there were more cultural and historical links between belgian and dutch than between Prussian and bavarians.
Yes, well, of course Catholics and Proetstanst were rather regionally seperated still back then. So, yes, there was a regional component involved, but it did not lead to particularism. The only really ethnic-German particularist party was the Welfenpartei in proetstant (!) Hannover, and even they didnt exactly get many votes... the Catholics still felt as Germansm, thank you very much, just as unfairly persecuted Germans.
 
The period between Roman Empire and Charles the Great is rather irrelevant, seeing as there was neither France nor Germany in this time.

Alsace has never been part of Germany either, as it didn't exist at the time. So speaking of German lands as in a country rather than a people in the middle age is meaningless.

Susano;1811247 However said:
And the HRE didn't either.

of Mersen 870 (before it had been aprt of the Middle Frankish Realm, which as we know didnt survive anyways), first as part of the Duchy of Swabia inside the German Kingdom and than as part of the Holy Roman Empire of German Nation. That only changed 1648, and even afterwards, despite whatever resettlement ,might have happened, it was still German speaking - yes, a German dialect, of coruse, but Im sure at this time people in, say, the Provence, didnt exactly speak Parisian, either. And THAT fact onyl chanegd due to massive French cultural imperialism inside its borders.

Actually, it only changed because of the advant of TV in the 1970s-1980s. All of my cousins ( which are now in the late 20s ) learned french in school as their mothertongue was alsatian.

However, while Alsatian may be a german dialect, the alsatian themselves consider it a different tongue, which is one of the reason there was an Alsatian renaissance everytime Germany annexed Alsace; The Germans would forbid french and the Alsatian didn't want to speak Germans ( those that couldn't get off with it ), so everyone switched back to Alsatian, even for official or cultural matters.

Mind, thats not to say the Alsatians saw the Germans as liberators, and doubly not after the creation of the "Reichsland", but that didnt mean they

Given that Alsace saw what would be considered as ethnic cleansing by todays standard after annexion to the 2nd Reich, I would say so. ( IIRC, the population of Alsace in 1870 was around 1,450,000. Out of these, 600,000 left for one reason or another during the years after annexion...... and were replaced by 400,000 german colonists ).


liked the French, either... I think after WW1, most wouldve liked to become

Then why did so many Alsatian desert the German army to volunteer for the french one during WWI that the Reich had to institute an official policy of reprisal against the famillies ( occured in mine ) - and that still didn't stop it -. ?

For that matter why was there not a reverse emigration movement when France came back in 1978 ( 'only' 120,000 left Alsace to go to Germany then )?

And, of course, there is the Zabern Affain, Hansi, the Alsatian diaspora, HSP, SOGENAL....etc


independant. Nontheless, ethnically, the Alsace was German up until the 20th century.

<Snort> Ethnically, the Alsatian people have not changed in the XXth century. The last big movement of population was after 1871. If they are not ethnically german now, they certainly were not in 1870 ( before the aforementionned colonists came in ). Unless of course you call the Franks Germanic people, which is ethnically true but rather makes the whole discussion meanigless.

Ethnical and linguitical identity are two different things.

At the risk of repeatin myself, ethnically, the Alsatian are a melange. At the basis there was a celtic ( likely with some pre-celtic mixed in also ) people. Then some Roman traces ( legion camp for centuries leave genetic traces ). Then some Aleman AND some Franks settled in after the roman empire fell. From then to 1648, every invading armies left its own genetic traces, beginning with the Huns and ending with the Swede. Then Louis XIV imported peasants from all over europe ( a lot came from Switzerland - again familly history - ). The last big movement of population was the after 1871 described above.
 
The Alsatian cuisine with lots of Choucroute , Sauerkraut or Sürkrüt looks quite Teutonic to this humble German.

I am admittedly posting this while sipping some Whiskey, and I am as Prussian as a Pickelhaube. ;)

I should get some Choucroute garnie ...
 
Top