Tocomocho said:
Yes - quite, but dreikaiserbund means "union of three emperor's".
Franco-Prussian War Never Happens
- Thread starter luakel
- Start date
Yes - quite, but dreikaiserbund means "union of three emperor's".
Susano
Banned
Nonsense. The Franco-Prussian War can be solely blamed at Napoleon III., who in his traditional maneer wanted to score a foreign policy sucess to divert attention from domestic problems. It also fits in the "Revenge for Sadova!" theme of French policy in this time, as the Prussian victory at Königsgrätz indeed pretty much destroyed the French conception for intervening in that war (Napoleon wanted to "save" a defeated Prussia, and gain the Rhine border in return, one reason Bismarck made so hastily peace with Austria.) So, the Ems Dispatch was just a nice pretext for Napoleon.Max Sinister said:
Bismarck, OTOH, was already saturated with the North German Confederation. Already in 1867 he could have used the Luxembourg Crisis for war with France, and in 1860 he refused the entry of Baden into the NGC extra so to not provoke France. Bismarck had before 1871 no plans to raise a German Empire; he knew that Prussia (and all his plans did center around Prussia, afte rall, not Germany) couldnt absorb all of Germany. North Germany was different, as a membe ro fthe NGC parliament said, it was a gathering of a dog with his leece. The NGC was all Bismarck had planned for.
The Ems Dispatch "provocation" - well, the French behaviour itself was nothing short of rude, so it simply deserved a rude answer. I mean, Germany already had accepted that Leopold wouldnt become King of Spain - and then France makes extra demands? Yeah, rude attitude means rude answer. There is no provocations inherent in that.
It was Napoleon III. who used the Ems Dispatch for his politcial and diplomatic games, not Bismarck. It just horribly backfired for Nappy-3.
So, the critcial question for no German-French War is to prevent the foreign adventurism of Napoleon III. And, eh, considering his previous policy, the best guess for that is to off him. Make him die earlier, and make his sucessor less adventurist. What comes next is a decade or three of peace, simply, Id imagine.
David S Poepoe said:
It is actually also known as the Triplice, that being it's French and Italian name:
La Triplice, par contraction du terme "Triple Alliance", est le nom donné à la veille de 1914 à l'alliance conclue entre l'Allemagne, l'Autriche-Hongrie et l'Italie.
And of course, it is perfectly valid, seeing as how we also use the term "Entente Cordiale"...
Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy
Banned
Susano said:
The NGC didn't exist yet.
Didn't Bismarck edit the dispatch before having it published?
Max Sinister
Banned
Maybe Bismarck knew that Germany was too big to be absorbed by Prussia, but he still worked for its unification after the war. If he didn't want it, why should he've bribed Ludwig of Bavaria with several million marks, so he'd join the empire?
Susano
Banned
Typo, I meant 1869.
And yes, Bismarck did. That was the "provocation". Of course, editing with foreign dispatches to let them look more mean-spirited is no nice thing to do - but at most it should have caused a diplomatic crisis, not a war! It caused a war because Napoleon III. wanted a war. Bismarck, well, I think he just did a diplomatic gesture - he answered an unfriendly act with an unfriendly act. I do not think he expected a war to come out of that.
/E:
Didnt he do those bribes 1870/71, though, IIRC?
And yes, Bismarck did. That was the "provocation". Of course, editing with foreign dispatches to let them look more mean-spirited is no nice thing to do - but at most it should have caused a diplomatic crisis, not a war! It caused a war because Napoleon III. wanted a war. Bismarck, well, I think he just did a diplomatic gesture - he answered an unfriendly act with an unfriendly act. I do not think he expected a war to come out of that.
/E:
Didnt he do those bribes 1870/71, though, IIRC?
Max Sinister
Banned
Bismarck wasn't stupid. And before the war, he made several secret military alliances with the Southern German states. He could guess what would happen, so he decided to steer the events in the optimal way for Germany.
That and the sight of a French army with yet another Napoleon at its head crossing the Rhine into Germany must have worked like a red cloak in front of a bull for those minor German states. They surely had not forgotten what happened at the beginning of the XIXth century. I don't think they needed much prodding to join the NGC against the French.Max Sinister said:
Susano
Banned
Bismarck didnt care for Germany. Only for Prussia.Max Sinister said:
And didnt the NGC in 1870 rely on the old "Schutz- und Trutzbündnisse" with the South German states? Which were already concluded 1866 as part of the Peace of the German War. That was just a standard tool to extend Prussian influence, surely not aimed at one target specifically.
No, it would either take a prophet or a maniac to predict that an edited foreign dispatch would lead to war, because only a maniac (or somebody with an own agenda, of course) would take this as a casus belli! Thus, if we want no Franco-German War to happen, we would have to alter Napoleon III. Most likely, even without Ems Dispatch, hed thus have taken some other Casus Belli.
More Responses
You call the alliance of Germany, Russia and Italy the Dreikaiserbund>>>>
Okay, change it to Dreireichsbund.
That means that Hohenzollerns still in the Spanish Throne, right? In that case there are not reigns of Amadeo I, Alfonso XII and Alfonso XIII, no First Spanish Republic and no War of Cantons. In short words, Spain is not in the middle of a crisis of 40 years and its army is stronger and possibly Prussian-like. The industrialization and politics should be also different from OTL Spain and the 3th Carlist War and Cuban rebellions ended earlier. Even the Spanish-American War should never happened!>>>
I posted an earlier version of this timeline on another board, and someone there insisted that there was no way the Spanish-American War WOULDN't have happened, with an American victory. It does give Spain greater incentive to enter the War here: as a way of regaining some of it's former glory. But if Spain is a stronger entity, that puts more pressure on France, who might end the war worse off.
You call the alliance of Germany, Russia and Italy the Dreikaiserbund>>>>
Okay, change it to Dreireichsbund.
That means that Hohenzollerns still in the Spanish Throne, right? In that case there are not reigns of Amadeo I, Alfonso XII and Alfonso XIII, no First Spanish Republic and no War of Cantons. In short words, Spain is not in the middle of a crisis of 40 years and its army is stronger and possibly Prussian-like. The industrialization and politics should be also different from OTL Spain and the 3th Carlist War and Cuban rebellions ended earlier. Even the Spanish-American War should never happened!>>>
I posted an earlier version of this timeline on another board, and someone there insisted that there was no way the Spanish-American War WOULDN't have happened, with an American victory. It does give Spain greater incentive to enter the War here: as a way of regaining some of it's former glory. But if Spain is a stronger entity, that puts more pressure on France, who might end the war worse off.
Susano said:
Why then did Bismarck express he was upset when Wilhelm I accepted to withdraw the candidacy of Leopold? The French demand was not rude, it was just asking for a clarification that Prussia wouldn't push Leopold again in the future for the throne of Spain.
And why did Bismarck say that the edited dispatch would have the effect of a red flag on the French bull?
I'm afraid you're doing a bit of revisionist history here...
I think the main reason Rumania kept out of the war until that date was because while the population was fairly eager to join the conflict against Austria and seize Transylvannia their king until that time was the original Hohenzollern selected for the role. As such he still identified very much with Prussia and Germany. In this timeline, presuming the same monarch, as Austria and Prussia are on opposite sides he would probably be pretty eager to join in on the Prussian side. There were also rivalries between Rumania and Bulgaria.Garbageman said:
Sorry about the late reply but I missed your comment of 4/7/06 and the discussion of the last couple of days. Still think, unless you have a markedly stronger France and Austria that the Prussian/Russian bloc will be way too strong for the prolonged struggle you suggest. Might be modified by a British entry on their side as they would be concerned about such a major change in the balance of power and the Conservatives, presuming no drastic changes, were far more interventionist than the Liberals.
Steve
Susano
Banned
Leopold was a chance, an opportunity. Dynastic policy was not what it had been previously, but still...benedict XVII said:
A clarification? Didnt Napoleon basically want the Hohenzollerns to state that none of them would ever aspire to the spanish throne again? Of course, oly Bsiamrcks version mad ethat be a rude demand, but basically, that seems to me to be an additional demand/request even when France in the case itself already had the upper hand, and Id say such is rude.
Revisionist history? So you say declaring war over an edited dispatch is... normal? No, very objectively, its Napoleon III. who is at fualt here, and it thus him whod have to be altered or removed.
stevep said:
If I put the Ottomans on the France/Austria/Bavarian side (along with Bulgaria) will that be enough to keep the war going into late 1915/early 1916? I'd have to put the Greeks in the opposing camp, and may have to throw some obstacles Spain's way (and I may keep Rumania out for reasons of artistic license).
Redbeard
Banned
The Ems telegram was preceeded by open French attempts to humiliate Prussia by demanding guarantees and excuses etc. and even with ill-disguised threats of war over the Leopold issue (Leopold had already withdrawn his candidature).
In other words the French had cornered themselves and in this situation it was an opportunity just waiting to be seized by Bismarck. His editing of the official German reply simply created the impression that the French envoy had insuted the King of Prussia and the King of Prussia had insulted the French envoy and thus had both the French and Prussian public demand "war now!". In that situation not declaring war would mean an unacceptable loss of prestige for the French even if declaring war also meant that the minor German states were obliged to support Prussia, and Austria-Hungary had to stay at least passive.
In this context you of course are right that the French had mainly themselves to blame, not at least by the initial demands from Prussia. But I do not agree that "it would either take a prophet or a maniac to predict that an edited foreign dispatch would lead to war". From the starting point of the French demands in the "Kurpark incident" he clearly orcestrated the events and the French were just puppets. But even before that he had done his diplomatic homework by not at least achieveing a free back from the Russians. The Austrians and Danes were still licking their wounds and the British had no army of significance (and would to a degree anyway enjoy a thrashing of the French).
In order to postpone the war we first need the French not to start it all by trying to humiliate the Prussians over the Leopold issue. Empress Eugenie being occupied with something else would help a lot, what about finding a young Guards Officer for her to have an affair with?
The French knowing/realising more exactly that Prussia had a free back would also be helpful, but I'm not sure it will be enough as the French at that time apparently considered themselves invincible.
All in all I think the Eugenie PoD is the best - never let spouses interfere in business!
Regards
Steffen Redbeard
Leopold had already posed and withdrawn his candidacy once, before reinstating it a second time, and eventually remove it again. It was perfectly logical for the French to make sure that this time, it was for good. The request was also made in a fully private discussion between the King and the French Ambassador, and hence could not really be seen as an attempt at humiliation.
Napoleon III was actually quite wary about going to war, it was his Ministers, and esp. Olivier, who got all inflamed on the topic.