Franco-Prussian War: Inevitable?

Barbarossa Rotbart, did you just look at the Wikipedia page for French–German enmity and say to yourself; "Aha! Wikipedia starts their chronology with the Treaty of Verdun, therefore Verdun makes the Franco-Prussian War inevitable!"?
No, I looked at that to find the reasons for the French-German Enmity.
The reasons for the war are quite simple and they are the same reasons why that war was inevitable.
 
Which post?
This one:
It was inevitable, because France feared that a unificated Germany would contest France's position as the hegemonial power on the continent. Prussia did need the war to get the other German states on his side and being victim of French aggression was very helpful. BTW a victory would make the victor the sole continental hegemonial power.
So in my opinion a Franco-German war was as long inevitable as long France was the sole continental hegemonial power.
and this one:
Two things make the Franco-Prussian War inevitable:
- France being a hegemonial power, wanting to stay a hegemonial power and fearing that a unificated Germany will replace it.
- Prussia not being a hegemonial power, wanting to be one and knowing that France has something against it.
-> As long as France is a hegemonial power, the Franco-Prussian war was inevitable.
 
What this have to do with the treaty of Verdun? I can't see how an event that happened 1027 years before the Franco-Prussian years has any revelance with it. It's like saying the murder of Julius Caesar is responsible of the fall of the western roman empire that make no sence.
 
You're falling for the old argument of teleological determinism.
And what should this mean?
You really believe that France would have accepted the German Unification, something that endangers France position as the hegemonial power in Europe?
What this have to do with the treaty of Verdun? I can't see how an event that happened 1027 years before the Franco-Prussian years has any revelance with it. It's like saying the murder of Julius Caesar is responsible of the fall of the western roman empire that make no sence.
And again. This has nothing to do with the Franco-Prussian War. How many times do I have to repeat it!
 
Life isn't some Civ-esque computer game. You're deluding yourself if you think that "the French" would go to war with "the Germans" in 100 out of every 100 scenarios involving German unification. Politics is more complicated, intricate, and nuanced that merely who has the bigger stick. You simply have presented absolutely zero reasoning for your ostentatious claims aside from repeating the well-ofted meme of 'German challenges to French hegemony.' Even the smallest possible difference could have led to a very different resolution of the situation - that's what alternate history is all about.
 
Some events are inevitable. After the Franco-Prussian War World War I became inevitable. It was only a matter of time and Bismarck himself feared that a great war will happen soon. (But it took longer than he thought.)
Do not forget that France always had a problem with its neighbors. For along time Austria (the other European hegemonial power) was a problem for France, because Austria and Spain (both ruled by different branches ofHouse Hapsburg) surrounded France. That's the reason France was interested in both the Spanish succession and in driving Austria out of the Netherlands. After Austro-Prussian war Prussia became a problem for France because Prussia managed to unite most of Germany and to defeat Austria (who had been a guarantor that the German Confederation stayed powerless). Remember that the French battle cry in the Franco-prussian War was 'Revenge for Sadowa!'. And that means revenge for the Austrian defeat at Königsgrätz (a name unpronouncable in French, thus Sadowa, which is near Königsgrätz, was chosen).
Even if Bismarck had found another way of creating the German Empire, France would have tried everything to keep Germany powerless. And that would have led to war (which until World War I was always the common way to solve diplomatic problems). Thus a Franco-German(!) War was inevitable.
 
Repeating your position does not make it a jot more accurate.

That France did X OTL does not mean that France would do X in any given timeline. History is not done from a script.
 
Repeating your position does not make it a jot more accurate.
The same can be said about constantly denying without giving reasons! Why should France do not act on the founding of a new European power which endangers France's position as the hegemonial power in Europe?
That France did X OTL does not mean that France would do X in any given timeline. History is not done from a script.
No, France did that often enough in the past and thus it is only logical that France will do it again as long as wars are seen as a common solution to diplomatic problems.

History is not done by a script, but often enough history develops its own momentum. Sometimes a crushing defeat and an unjust treaty will lead to a new war one or two generations later. Sometimes similiar problems will be solved in the same way.
 
The same can be said about constantly denying without giving reasons! Why should France do not act on the founding of a new European power which endangers France's position as the hegemonial power in Europe?

Because France would prefer peace? Because France is busy with something else where having Germany as an ally would be useful (such as against Britain)? Because of any of a hundred possibilities that you dismiss because it interferes with your idea that events decades and centuries ago made it inevitable?

No, France did that often enough in the past and thus it is only logical that France will do it again as long as wars are seen as a common solution to diplomatic problems.

History is not done by a script, but often enough history develops its own momentum. Sometimes a crushing defeat and an unjust treaty will lead to a new war one or two generations later. Sometimes similiar problems will be solved in the same way.
Sometimes =/= every time.
 
From a strategic sense, yes. That was already acknowledged by the contemporaries. There is, for example, a memorandum from the Reichswehr in the 1920s just saying France would be the best ally from an objective point of view. That this could not work, was clear though.

So in my opinion I can answer the original question with one word:

YES!

Adler

And if Austria wins at Koniggratz (which given the narrowness of Prussia's victory is actually plausible) all this inevitability means squat. As a Prussia that loses 1866 will never be in a position to menace France, which will be thinking more about Austria and the legacy of Solferino.
 
The only chance to prevent the war, and even that was not a really good one, was 1848. After the failing of the revolution was was inevitable.

Adler

Um, actually, yeah, if Austria kicked Prussia's ass like it was supposed to have done Napoleon III will never go to war with Prussia. Why would he bother?

Please answer the questions!!!!
What do you think are the reasons for the French-German Enmity?
What do you think would have happened if Bismarck was NOT appointed minister-president of Prussia in 1862?
And, which German state would have lead the German unification if Prussia is not doing that?
And don't answer with 'depends...'!

The Franco-German enmity is a sloppy view of history that neglects the huge shift between dynasties and the natures of the wars over the Rhineland boundary having been very different kinds of wars, and by no means following any kind of logical or consistent sequence of events one after the other. It's mythology, not history. :rolleyes:
 
Top