Harsher Prague Peace?

[victoria944]

Pan-Germanic would include Scandinavia: the Dutch and the Flemish could be considered virtually German.

Where does the idea that people in Scandinavia and Holland - comprising nations that have centuries old existence - are going to join Germany come from, Prussia defeats France and people across Scandinavia demand to be part of Germany, this is nonsense.

I dont think some patches of Lignite are going to give a Hungarian industrial revolution much of backbone, it's going to remain an agrarian economy, Germany isn't going to offer some super economic terms, it's going to exploit mineral deposits at a cut price. What would make Hungary such an attractive proposition for investment, it has no middleclass that can demand much, and it has no Iron Steel industry to speak of, why would Germany or Britain or anyone suddenly pour money into it. Thats completely unrealistic.
Italy has and has had for centuries a well developed mercantile class, it has strong banks, theres no comparison. Italy is going to be
more useful to Germany than Hungary vis a vis France, but a liability if Germany wants to develop better relations with Britain. What ever happens Hungary is going to have it's plate full dealing with it's nationaliies. Italy by comparison a coherent national state.
Hungary is going to be in danger from it's own subject non Hungarian Nationals, and from the various Balkans states, making even less attractive for foreign investment.

 

[LordKalvan]

Where does the idea that people in Scandinavia and Holland - comprising nations that have centuries old existence - are going to join Germany come from, Prussia defeats France and people across Scandinavia demand to be part of Germany, this is nonsense.

I dont think some patches of Lignite are going to give a Hungarian industrial revolution much of backbone, it's going to remain an agrarian economy, Germany isn't going to offer some super economic terms, it's going to exploit mineral deposits at a cut price. What would make Hungary such an attractive proposition for investment, it has no middleclass that can demand much, and it has no Iron Steel industry to speak of, why would Germany or Britain or anyone suddenly pour money into it. Thats completely unrealistic.
Italy has and has had for centuries a well developed mercantile class, it has strong banks, theres no comparison. Italy is going to be
more useful to Germany than Hungary vis a vis France, but a liability if Germany wants to develop better relations with Britain. What ever happens Hungary is going to have it's plate full dealing with it's nationaliies. Italy by comparison a coherent national state.
Hungary is going to be in danger from it's own subject non Hungarian Nationals, and from the various Balkans states, making even less attractive for foreign investment.

It all makes sense, except when you say that Italy would be "a liability if Germany wants to develop better relations with Britain". Why would you think that?

 

[LordKalvan]

I'm not convinced that Dalmatia would necessarily be picked in the place of Istria, but I can easily see it happening with the right diplomatic butterflies, so we may agree on that. IMO the "middle level" of Italo-Prussian peace gains (Hanover, Saxony, Austrian Silesia, and northern-eastern Sudetenland; Veneto, Trento, Gorizia-Gradisca, Dalmatia) is absolutely not too much for the victors to safely swallow, nor to (look like it is going to) send Austria in immediate collapse and anarchy. My assumption that Italy does not get South Tyrol is entirely based on Italian deference to German national feelings of its ally on that German land. If that would not be a problem for Prussia, no good reason indeed for Italy not to get it.

What you describe as "middle level" of Italo-Prussian peace gains would be the maximum the the victors can reasonably manage to integrate (and it would still be quite more than OTL). My point however is that neither Prussia nor Italy can afford the vacuum that would be created by a sudden collapse of the Austrian empire: that is the main reason to end hostilities as soon as the main objectives have been achieved and before a point of no-return may be reached. Istria might be a point of no-return, since encompasses both the major civilian ports and both navy bases. OTOH, assuming that Austria does not collapse, South Tyrol is too important from a strategic point of view to give it back (Garibaldi taking it is certain ITTL).

 

[Eurofed]

Where does the idea that people in Scandinavia and Holland - comprising nations that have centuries old existence - are going to join Germany come from, Prussia defeats France and people across Scandinavia demand to be part of Germany, this is nonsense.

Of course, in all likelihood TTL events are not going to cause Germanic peoples to rush and seek admission in the German empire. The Nordic peoples, the Dutch-Flemish, and the Iberian peoples are much more likely to seek their own Scandinavian, Greater Netherlands, and Iberian national unifications instead. It is only plausible tha the Dutch-Flemish may swing to a Pan-Germanic PoV and seek a union witn Germany in certain special circumstances: typically if revanchist France invades the Low Countries in a reverse Schliffen Plan.

I dont think some patches of Lignite are going to give a Hungarian industrial revolution much of backbone, it's going to remain an agrarian economy, Germany isn't going to offer some super economic terms, it's going to exploit mineral deposits at a cut price. What would make Hungary such an attractive proposition for investment, it has no middleclass that can demand much, and it has no Iron Steel industry to speak of, why would Germany or Britain or anyone suddenly pour money into it. Thats completely unrealistic.
Italy has and has had for centuries a well developed mercantile class, it has strong banks, theres no comparison. Italy is going to be
more useful to Germany than Hungary vis a vis France, but a liability if Germany wants to develop better relations with Britain. What ever happens Hungary is going to have it's plate full dealing with it's nationaliies. Italy by comparison a coherent national state.
Hungary is going to be in danger from it's own subject non Hungarian Nationals, and from the various Balkans states, making even less attractive for foreign investment.

Very true. But Italy is not any more likely than Germany itself to go in a collision course with Britain. It all depends on whether the Italo-German axis supports Russia or UK-Turkey in the Balkans and the Middle East. If the former, Britain is obviously going to be hostile to Berlin and Rome. If the latter, Britain is going to be friendly, and Italian ambitions on places like Libya and Ethiopia to get London's blessing. In this case, Italy is likely to get Libya peacefully in some kind of diplomatic bargain, much like Britain did with Cyprus.

 

[LordKalvan]

Facing 2 enemies may have lessened the likelyhood that the French would have sat on the defensive.

France had many battle hardened veteran officers and troops, thanks to its involvement in Mexico, Italy and North Africa.

The French had a much better rifle, Prussian rifles were pretty outdated, granted Prussia had superior Artillery. But the rifle is the deciding weapon.
Battles are decided at the point of contact, by the infantry. Whatever else happens, - and Napoleon proved this, so does Fred the Great, Wellington and many others - all other problems can be redressed, except for the nitty gritty fighting between the infantry.

Had the French been forced by circumstances to go on the offensive
the elan of there elite troops and veterans may well have undermined the Prussians before the mass of there mobilization could be bought to bear.

On balance the French officer corps has more experience of combat than the Prussians. This never came into play because the army was bottled up in defensive strategy waiting for the Prussians to attack them.

A bold move into the Rhineland before Italy can be a factor may also have encouraged the Danes or Austrians to become involved.

You cant write off France as though it was bound to lose.
Anythimg could've happened.

IOTL the french plan for the war against the NCG was to take advantage of the larger French standing army and invade the Rhineland while the Prussians and their allies were still mobilising. What happened in reality was that the French were so slow in their own mobilization and so sluggish in marching toward the Rhine that they were pre-empted by the Prussian advance, which made use of railways. The war parameters are changing very rapidly in this period, and even the experiences of the war of 1859 were already completely outdated ten years later. The colonial wars fought by the French (Mexico, Indochina, Korea) are even less applicable. OTOH, the Prussians had fought against Denmark in 1864 and against Austria in 1866: their core of veterans is much more recent, and forged in European wars. Even more important, the Prussians have the advantage of having a General Staff, proven and in control of the operations. ITTL the Italians too have the advantage of the 1866 successful experience, and also their army has a better cohesion and much stronger confidence.

 

[TheNordicBrit]

Ah, my apologies for the confusion then. I thought we were all on board with the scenario outlined largely by Eurofed earlier in the thread featuring a war over Rome in 1869.

I assumed we were talking about 1867 due to the Battle of Mentana which Garibaldi wins with covert support from the Italian government. This would lead to the Pope fleeing to France, a huge crisis and then a war with Italy refusing to give up Rome and Prussia supporting them. This and Luxembourg of course, I can't imagine the issue of Luxembourg would've been written off yet as I can't imagine Napoleon III would be so ready to back down over the issue.

As towards the Mitrailleuse there were few of them and their crews poorly trained IOTL due to the massive restrictions the monarchists Senate imposed on the military. ITTL though that doesn't happen, and both Louis-Napoléon and Eugénie were avid modernists and industrialists. So ITTL there's likely to be more Mitrailleuse, and better trained crews operating them; or at least a device similar in function and scope. At least by 1869; see below for 1867 commentary.

I still don't see how the Monarchists won't get as much power here? If your claim is correct and they wished to bring Napoleon III down then surely an even bigger failing in 1866 would simply boost their support.

Well now at least we're not discussing IOTL. I have to ask though why you believe ITTL France would be defeated by the Prussians and Italians in less time than IOTL, considering the differences between IOTL & ITTL.

I'll deal with this below

Asides from the Francophile claim all valid critiques; and now the discussion is moving forward at least.

The Chassepot is a clearly superior weapon to the Prussian's Dreyse needle gun, with something like twice the range iirc. Now, if we're talking a 1867 war (over Luxembourg I assume), then yes the discrepancy is going to be in Prussia's favor due to the limited number of Chassepots fielded by the French. However it wouldn't be a cake-walk even then, as the weapon the Chassepot was replacing was the Tabatière rifle, a breech-loading conversion of the muzzle-loading Minié rifle, which had a much lower rate of fire compared to the Dreyse, or even the Chassepot, but still had a much greater range than the Dreyse.

True, however IOTL the Chassepot, while greatly helpful to the French cause in killing many Prussians it didn't save the war for the French. Now I know this is a different TL however a weapon that's not as good as the Chassepot (to me) can't help them anymore.

In 1866 France could field 250,000 troops within two weeks, including active and reserve units. Louis-Napoléon wanted a million troops at his disposal, and so by the Franco-Prussian War France had over 800,000 soldiers. An 1867 war ITTL means French numbers will still be on the low side, probably around 375,000 troops, taking into account Louis-Napoléon's stronger position and Eugénie's hardliner approach.

Comparably iirc the Prussians, and their German allies, had fielded 500,000 troops in the Austro-Prussian War, but the early battles of that campaign featured Prussian armies in the low thousands until the decisive victory at Sadová, nearly a month after hostilities commenced. If we're discussing a war over Luxembourg this could possibly mean the French take the city and press into the Prussian Rhineland before the Prussians and their German allies are able to bring to bear the full weight of their numbers.

Ah, but now I must tell you to remember this is a TL The Prussians (i.e. Bismark) would've learnt from this mistake and surely now, as they'd been training for for years, would have a system in place for effective, large-scale mobolisation with the use of railroads. Also on Luxembourg it was described as the 'Gibraltar of the north' - And ITTL it's still occupied by Prussian forces, while I do reckon that initially the French would siege the place when the Prussians quickly get to Luxembourg they'll push the French away.

The Italians numbers I'm not entirely sure of. Wikipedia has the Italians listed as fielding some 120,000 men at Custoza, but then less than 40k at Bezzecca. This is obviously a large difference and could play a pivotal role in the outcome of the war; especially if the Italians are fielding large enough numbers the French have to divide their forces to keep the Italians from Lyon or Marseille while occupying Luxembourg against the Prussians. Even then however the Italian war effort is going to be quite lackluster; Garibaldi was more of a guerrilla warfare specialists than he was a suited for traditional European combat, especially by the late 19th century. In general the Italians in this period were notoriously bad at great power warfare so I think we can agree on a limited southern theater in the Alps and the mountain passes of Savoy and Nice that's going to see the Italians launching rather weak and poorly organized offensives against a strong French defensive position.

According to Wikipedia in the whole war the Italians had 300,000 troops. As Eurofed has been saying the Italian across the Alps would be slow and wouldn't be an immediate thing, however the French would have to spare some of their 375,000 troops for that front, probably a good deal once the Italians get through. Not only that but, as you say, Garibaldi will be involved and is good at guerrilla tactics, don't forget that Nice is still primarily Italian and was Garibaldi's homeland. I can imagine there'd be a lot of guerrilla warfare within Nice, I expect the French would lose as well while having to deal with an approaching Italian army and no-more troops being spared from the Prussian theatre. Not only that but Savoy wasn't too happy about the annexation, though it is far less Italian, I reckon we'll see a minor 'civil war' within Savoy which I expect the Italians will win with help from Garibaldi.

After this we'll probably see Garibaldi go to Corsica while the Italian army deals with the pitched battles in France, Garibaldi will see limited success in Corsica though I reckon he could succeed if he brought a large enough army with him and managed to whip the Corsican's into rebellion if he can convince them France will lose thus the way forward is with Italy.

Overall Napoleon III will lose as he's splitting his 375,000 strong army in order to deal with a Prussian force that could be 500,000 strong or more which has better artillery, also Napoleon doesn't have the use of a machine-gun or amazing rifles (though the French ones were still a bit better than the Prussian ones). Not only that but the French will have to deal with guerrilla warfare in Nice, Savoy and (possibly) Corsica to the south while an Italian army between 160,000 - 300,000 invades their southern cities and sets up sieges of places like Marseilles. Also the Italians, while not great, would have high morale as they're continuing their successful, and to them inevitable, Risorgimento.

On the issue of veteran troops, both sides will have veterans. The Prusso-Italians fought a war just the previous year and were highly successful in it, while the French have around 40,000 veterans from Mexico, however other than that their other veterans are minor numbers of troops from various expeditions, most of which happened years prior to the POD, at most some 1,600 troops from Korea and the Battles for Shimonoseki. Don't forget though that the troops from the expedition were against rather undeveloped troops while the Mexican veterans were supported by many of the Mexican natives, here it's the French against well-trained, veteran Prusso-Italian troops.

 

[LordKalvan]

Very true. But Italy is not any more likely than Germany itself to go in a collision course with Britain. It all depends on whether the Italo-German axis supports Russia or UK-Turkey in the Balkans and the Middle East. If the former, Britain is obviously going to be hostile to Berlin and Rome. If the latter, Britain is going to be friendly, and Italian ambitions on places like Libya and Ethiopia to get London's blessing. In this case, Italy is likely to get Libya peacefully in some kind of diplomatic bargain, much like Britain did with Cyprus.

I dearly hope that ITTL a successful Italy will stay away from third-tier real estate propositions like Libya and Ethiopia (as well as from Balkanic adventurism : the Ottomans are the best friends of a successful Italy). There are a lot of much better opportunities, guaranteed to satisfy the hunger of the most rabid imperialist and jingoist, and at the same time capable to pay a dividend too. It would obviously pay to be friends with the British, but I do not really see any major obstacle on this path (and German interests should also be aligned in this direction).

A menage-a-trois with Russia would also probably work, but it would be much harder work, and it would be a bit scary too,

 

[Eurofed]

What you describe as "middle level" of Italo-Prussian peace gains would be the maximum the the victors can reasonably manage to integrate (and it would still be quite more than OTL). My point however is that neither Prussia nor Italy can afford the vacuum that would be created by a sudden collapse of the Austrian empire: that is the main reason to end hostilities as soon as the main objectives have been achieved and before a point of no-return may be reached. Istria might be a point of no-return, since encompasses both the major civilian ports and both navy bases. OTOH, assuming that Austria does not collapse, South Tyrol is too important from a strategic point of view to give it back (Garibaldi taking it is certain ITTL).

I do find it quite plausible and likely that Italy may get Dalmatia instead of Istria, and South Tyrol in addition to Trento, in the right circumstances (which may include the concerns you mention, although IMO French pressure is more of a reason for the former). Italy shall have to give autonomy to South Tyrol similar to the modern one to appease the feelings of its ally, even if it shall be free to Italianize Istria and Dalmatia as much as it likes.

Having said that, can we agree to make this the peace deal, and settle the argument:

- Prussia: Hanover, Saxony, Austrian Silesia, and northern-eastern Sudetenland;

- Italy: Veneto, Trento, South Tyrol, Gorizia-Gradisca, Dalmatia.

 

[TheNordicBrit]

I dearly hope that ITTL a successful Italy will stay away from third-tier real estate propositions like Libya and Ethiopia (as well as from Balkanic adventurism : the Ottomans are the best friends of a successful Italy). There are a lot of much better opportunities, guaranteed to satisfy the hunger of the most rabid imperialist and jingoist, and at the same time capable to pay a dividend too. It would obviously pay to be friends with the British, but I do not really see any major obstacle on this path (and German interests should also be aligned in this direction).

A menage-a-trois with Russia would also probably work, but it would be much harder work, and it would be a bit scary too,

It would, the most Italy would do is gradually absorb Tunisia into its sphere of influence, then a Protectorate and lastly a full-blown province of Italy. ITTL Italy has gained Nice, Savoy, (possibly) Corsica, Venetia (on its own) and Istria/Dalmatia. It wouldn't feel the need to assert itself through conquest of Ottoman Libya, instead it'd simply absorb Tunisia as everyone expected IOTL. France will gripe however a more powerful Germany and Italy will shout France down. We may see Libya become Italian in some carve-up of the Ottoman Empire anyway, but I doubt it'd be a simple Italo-Ottoman War.

 

[Eurofed]

I dearly hope that ITTL a successful Italy will stay away from third-tier real estate propositions like Libya and Ethiopia (as well as from Balkanic adventurism : the Ottomans are the best friends of a successful Italy). There are a lot of much better opportunities, guaranteed to satisfy the hunger of the most rabid imperialist and jingoist, and at the same time capable to pay a dividend too. It would obviously pay to be friends with the British, but I do not really see any major obstacle on this path (and German interests should also be aligned in this direction).

A menage-a-trois with Russia would also probably work, but it would be much harder work, and it would be a bit scary too,

All quite true, I was just pointing out why UK and Italy would not clash even if Rome for whatever reason decides to pursue the OTL colonies too.

 

[LordKalvan]

According to Wikipedia in the whole war the Italians had 300,000 troops. As Eurofed has been saying the Italian across the Alps would be slow and wouldn't be an immediate thing, however the French would have to spare some of their 375,000 troops for that front, probably a good deal once the Italians get through. Not only that but, as you say, Garibaldi will be involved and is good at guerrilla tactics, don't forget that Nice is still primarily Italian and was Garibaldi's homeland. I can imagine there'd be a lot of guerrilla warfare within Nice, I expect the French would lose as well while having to deal with an approaching Italian army and no-more troops being spared from the Prussian theatre. Not only that but Savoy wasn't too happy about the annexation, though it is far less Italian, I reckon we'll see a minor 'civil war' within Savoy which I expect the Italians will win with help from Garibaldi.

After this we'll probably see Garibaldi go to Corsica while the Italian army deals with the pitched battles in France, Garibaldi will see limited success in Corsica though I reckon he could succeed if he brought a large enough army with him and managed to whip the Corsican's into rebellion if he can convince them France will lose thus the way forward is with Italy.

Overall Napoleon III will lose as he's splitting his 375,000 strong army in order to deal with a Prussian force that could be 500,000 strong or more which has better artillery, also Napoleon doesn't have the use of a machine-gun or amazing rifles (though the French ones were still a bit better than the Prussian ones). Not only that but the French will have to deal with guerrilla warfare in Nice, Savoy and (possibly) Corsica to the south while an Italian army between 160,000 - 300,000 invades their southern cities and sets up sieges of places like Marseilles. Also the Italians, while not great, would have high morale as they're continuing their successful, and to them inevitable, Risorgimento.

On the issue of veteran troops, both sides will have veterans. The Prusso-Italians fought a war just the previous year and were highly successful in it, while the French have around 40,000 veterans from Mexico, however other than that their other veterans are minor numbers of troops from various expeditions, most of which happened years prior to the POD, at most some 1,600 troops from Korea and the Battles for Shimonoseki. Don't forget though that the troops from the expedition were against rather undeveloped troops while the Mexican veterans were supported by many of the Mexican natives, here it's the French against well-trained, veteran Prusso-Italian troops.

300,000 men for the Italian army would be more or less right. In 1866 the army of the Mincio (La Marmora) was 120,000 strong, and the army of the Po (Cialdini) was 80-85000. Another 100,000 men on the French border, carrying out anti-banditry actions in the south and in general on garrison duty looks right. The 40,000 with Garibaldi at Bezzecca were volunteers, and not part of the regular army (although I believe there would be a similar amount of volunteers in the war with France too).
The Italo-French border is not very penetrable (and as a matter of fact Savoy was declared neutral when handed over to France - so no warfare should happen up north).
It the spark for the war is the Italian annexation of Rome, Nappy would have to attack (and pay the butcher bill). However I am convinced that the main theatre will be north-France, as IOTL: war on the alpine theatre would mostly be smallish attacks, and actions fought by chasseurs des alpes and irregulars, at least until the major battles have been fought in northern France. Whichever is the actual timeline of the war, I can see the French at a disadvantage, since they will have to keep some forces on their alpine border.
Forget Corsica: no reason for Italy to go and look for unnecessary trouble against a superior French navy.

 

[TheNordicBrit]

300,000 men for the Italian army would be more or less right. In 1866 the army of the Mincio (La Marmora) was 120,000 strong, and the army of the Po (Cialdini) was 80-85000. Another 100,000 men on the French border, carrying out anti-banditry actions in the south and in general on garrison duty looks right. The 40,000 with Garibaldi at Bezzecca were volunteers, and not part of the regular army (although I believe there would be a similar amount of volunteers in the war with France too).
The Italo-French border is not very penetrable (and as a matter of fact Savoy was declared neutral when handed over to France - so no warfare should happen up north).
It the spark for the war is the Italian annexation of Rome, Nappy would have to attack (and pay the butcher bill). However I am convinced that the main theatre will be north-France, as IOTL: war on the alpine theatre would mostly be smallish attacks, and actions fought by chasseurs des alpes and irregulars, at least until the major battles have been fought in northern France. Whichever is the actual timeline of the war, I can see the French at a disadvantage, since they will have to keep some forces on their alpine border.
Forget Corsica: no reason for Italy to go and look for unnecessary trouble against a superior French navy.

Oh I do understand that the Italian front would be a minor one, however it would draw valuable men away from the Prussian front. Also I doubt Garibaldi would care about Savoy being neutral. Also I didn't mean an Italian invasion of Corsica, I meant Garibaldi would, as per usual, take it upon himself to attempt an attack on an area he felt rightfully belonged to Italy. He could probably sneak in and cause a ruckus, he seemed to be very good at that

 

[victoria944]

Regarding Anglo German relations.

One problem for any dominant power in Europe, is British seapower. Britain can threaten to interdict against a nations trade routes, threaten exports and blockade imports, as an example rubber, the more industrialised a country is, the hungrier it is for certain raw materials.

The dominant power in this case is Germany, being in there place, in their time, i can easily imagine it would be hard to guarantee that Britain wont use her sea power to cajole and blackmail her way with a power. Its difficult for any nation to be aworld power if it cant protect its sea lanes. Even by 1912 Britain was willing to come to some naval agreement with Germany, but was this because of good will, or was it because of German shipbuilding. If Germany hadn't built such a navy might Britain have been more belligerent to German involvement in Turkey.

Although an Anglo German alliance looks to some, nice on paper, feasible, or even logical to some. Was it. Could Britain and Germany ever have come into alliance.

Maybe not, maybe impossible. Britain had for hundreds of years, adopted a policy of continental balance, striving to stop any one power from dominating the continent, through alliances against the major power. In this case Germany.

An Anglo German alliance would have cemented German dominance of the continent. France and Russia allied to each other had some realistic chance of holding their own against Prussia and Austria. Russia routed the Austrians at the opening of WW1.

Had Britain been in alliance with Germany, Frances position would have in all honesty, been hopeless. All the powers could see this. Britain could blockade France, its small but tough army tipping the balance, against an already struggling France.

In such a situation, Russia is neutered on the continent, forced to appease Germany in the Balkans. Britain may be glad of this, but finds itself the cause of the very thing it has, for centuries striven to prevent. A single power being dominant on the continent. Unthinkable that Britain would allow this, Britains concern is to prevent Germany overwhelming France.

I think neutrality between France and Germany more likely. If Germany does not annexe Alsace Lorraine, then France has no longer any credible territorial demands on the continent. They can't make a just claim to the Rhineland and they have nothing to gain from demands against Italy.

In such a situation the idea that Belgium should be part of France may beome dominant in French national consciousness. This would continue the centuries old British and French mistrust. A France without it's focus consumed by Alsace Lorraine, may default towards increased colonial friction with Britain.

Germany has no direct territorial aspirations in the mediterranean, France and Italy do. How these develop, depends on many things, but it is possible that, removing the French consumption with AL, that Britain becomes concerned at the possibilty of some Franco Italian naval challenge in the mediterranean. More unlikely in the light of events, - but if the events never happened - a German Franco Italian naval race with Britain. The riches of the world the prize. This may not be as far fetched as it seems. Removing Alsace Lorraine from the equation, leaves Germany and France with less tangible reasons to fight each other than maybe Britain.
britain who rules the waves and holds the keys to the vast rescources all the industrial countries need.

Bismarck and others certainly saw no need to fight France once Germany was united. There were many in Germany and France who wanted reapproachment. It didnt happen. But that doesnt mean it couldnt have happened. The critical thing is that without the Alsace Lorraine issue, France is going to be short of concrete demands against Germany.

 

[TheNordicBrit]

Bismarck and others certainly saw no need to fight France once Germany was united. There were many in Germany and France who wanted reapproachment. It didnt happen. But that doesnt mean it couldnt have happened. The critical thing is that without the Alsace Lorraine issue, France is going to be short of concrete demands against Germany.

Why wouldn't Germany annex Alsace-Lorraine? It's strategic, desirable for the nationalists and resource rich, I doubt an annexation of Luxembourg would halt the annexation of these regions.

 

[victoria944]

Why wouldn't Germany annex Alsace-Lorraine? It's strategic, desirable for the nationalists and resource rich, I doubt an annexation of Luxembourg would halt the annexation of these regions.

This is an alternate history forum, meaning discussing the effects of things that never happened, happening. Bismarck as has been mentioned many times saw the folly of the annexation, although he exploited it. Maybe on a different day he could have convinced the Kaiser, who knows.

Bismarck had many supporters, including the Crown Prince, Frederick III, who did his utmost to be concilliatory to France, as did others, including some newspapers. Prussia had way back in 1701 agreed that Lorraine was French territory, so it was deemed underhand.

I think Germany not annexing lorraine is far less outlandish, than the idea of the Scandinavian countries and Holland suddenly joining Germany, as a result of the F-P war. And Iberian nationalism where does this come from.

Can someone please explain to me how does Italy, and why does Italy suddenly fight France in 1870. Yes i realise they've whupped the Austrians, a few years earlier. But where was the sentiment to fight France. More likely Italy would be sympathetic to France and hostile to Germany.

 

[Eurofed]

Bismarck had many supporters, including the Crown Prince, Frederick III, who did his utmost to be concilliatory to France, as did others, including some newspapers. Prussia had way back in 1701 agreed that Lorraine was French territory, so it was deemed underhand.

Although TTL Germany theoretically of course might not annex Alsace-Lorraine, in practice it is even less likely than OTL, for several reasons: first of all, Prussia/Germany is getting its own expansionist/nationalist objectives fulfilled to a greater degree than OTL in other areas, so they have less precedent to give France a break about a land they deemed German; second, Italy is going to get its own irredentist claims against France fulfilled, so Prussia/Germany is going to follow the example of their allies. Many Germans thoughts that France had unfairly stolen Elsass-Lorraine in the 17th-18th centuries by exploiting the weakness of disunited HRE/Germany, and the 1701 assent you quote might easily be seen as given under duress.

And Iberian nationalism where does this come from.

Scandinavian and Iberian nationalism are quite possibly getting a substantial boost in popularity from the example of German and Italian national unifications getting so successful.

Can someone please explain to me how does Italy, and why does Italy suddenly fight France in 1870. Yes i realise they've whupped the Austrians, a few years earlier. But where was the sentiment to fight France. More likely Italy would be sympathetic to France and hostile to Germany.

Italy is going to fight France first and foremost since Rome acts as a wedge between the two powers. Napoleon III is politically compelled to support Papal rule in Latium since French Catholics are a very important compenent of his power base. He would rather fight a war than drop the Pope. Italy deems Rome an indispensable component of its national unification. With a full success in 1866, it is going to have very little patience with a France acting as a stumbling block to its unification.

Any residual sympathy Italians might have kept for the help France gave to Italian patriots against Austria in 1859 was killed first by the separate peace that France made at the end of that war, which delayed the liberation of Veneto and Trento; second, by the cession of Nice and Savoy, which Italy made under duress to repay France of that aid and to get its assent to the annexation of Central Italy; last, but foremost, by the French support for the Pope (in the words of an Italian patriot, "Mentana killed Magenta").

ITTL the alliance between Prussia and Italy has worked as a charm, both powers have their own good reasons to fight France (besides Rome, such a war would allow Italy to recover Nice, Savoy, and Corsica), so they have no good reason not to keep it. And a full victory in 1866 is going to make Italy confident enough that the Italo-Prussian combo may win a war with France.

Last but not least, people need to abandon the idea that there was going to be any kind of strong "Latin solidarity" sentiment of sympathy between France and Italy. If anything, France was one of the historical and regional rival powers for Italy.

 

[Eurofed]

Regarding Anglo German relations.

One problem for any dominant power in Europe, is British seapower. Britain can threaten to interdict against a nations trade routes, threaten exports and blockade imports, as an example rubber, the more industrialised a country is, the hungrier it is for certain raw materials.

The dominant power in this case is Germany, being in there place, in their time, i can easily imagine it would be hard to guarantee that Britain wont use her sea power to cajole and blackmail her way with a power. Its difficult for any nation to be aworld power if it cant protect its sea lanes. Even by 1912 Britain was willing to come to some naval agreement with Germany, but was this because of good will, or was it because of German shipbuilding. If Germany hadn't built such a navy might Britain have been more belligerent to German involvement in Turkey.

Although an Anglo German alliance looks to some, nice on paper, feasible, or even logical to some. Was it. Could Britain and Germany ever have come into alliance.

Maybe not, maybe impossible. Britain had for hundreds of years, adopted a policy of continental balance, striving to stop any one power from dominating the continent, through alliances against the major power. In this case Germany.

An Anglo German alliance would have cemented German dominance of the continent. France and Russia allied to each other had some realistic chance of holding their own against Prussia and Austria. Russia routed the Austrians at the opening of WW1.

Had Britain been in alliance with Germany, Frances position would have in all honesty, been hopeless. All the powers could see this. Britain could blockade France, its small but tough army tipping the balance, against an already struggling France.

In such a situation, Russia is neutered on the continent, forced to appease Germany in the Balkans. Britain may be glad of this, but finds itself the cause of the very thing it has, for centuries striven to prevent. A single power being dominant on the continent. Unthinkable that Britain would allow this, Britains concern is to prevent Germany overwhelming France.

I think neutrality between France and Germany more likely. If Germany does not annexe Alsace Lorraine, then France has no longer any credible territorial demands on the continent. They can't make a just claim to the Rhineland and they have nothing to gain from demands against Italy.

In such a situation the idea that Belgium should be part of France may beome dominant in French national consciousness. This would continue the centuries old British and French mistrust. A France without it's focus consumed by Alsace Lorraine, may default towards increased colonial friction with Britain.

Germany has no direct territorial aspirations in the mediterranean, France and Italy do. How these develop, depends on many things, but it is possible that, removing the French consumption with AL, that Britain becomes concerned at the possibilty of some Franco Italian naval challenge in the mediterranean. More unlikely in the light of events, - but if the events never happened - a German Franco Italian naval race with Britain. The riches of the world the prize. This may not be as far fetched as it seems. Removing Alsace Lorraine from the equation, leaves Germany and France with less tangible reasons to fight each other than maybe Britain.
britain who rules the waves and holds the keys to the vast rescources all the industrial countries need.

Bismarck and others certainly saw no need to fight France once Germany was united. There were many in Germany and France who wanted reapproachment. It didnt happen. But that doesnt mean it couldnt have happened. The critical thing is that without the Alsace Lorraine issue, France is going to be short of concrete demands against Germany.

As I said, Germany has even less reason than OTL to give France a break about Alsace-Lorraine. As it concerns Britain, a Prusso-Italian total victory against Austria and France, and even the collapse of the Habsburg empire and its partition between Germany, Italy, Russia, and Hungary is not going to destroy the balance of power in Europe (change it substantially, yes; destroy, no).

It makes the Germany-Italian bloc the new most powerful land power in Europe in the place of France (that kept the title between the Crimean War and the F-P-I war) and of Russia (that kept the title between the Napoleonic Wars and the Crimean War). As long as Britain, France, and Russia remain great powers (and even a worse defeat in the F-P-I war is not going to change this), a balance of power still exists in Europe, even if there is a new alpha couple. British attitude may of course change if and when a new WWI-like conflict cripples France and Russia and makes the Berlin-Rome axis totally dominant in the continent, but this is not yet the case in TTL 1870s.

In this period, Britain is still relatively detached from continental affairs in its "splendid isolation", and mainly focused on imperial concerns. Its main strategic concern as it concerns Europe is to prevent Russia from becoming the dominant power in the Balkan and Middle East areas, since this would indirectly threaten India. Their attitude toward the new German-Italian wunderkind couple is mainly going to be affected by their attitude toward Russia and the Ottomans in this theater. If Berlin and Rome seem willing to lend an hand to contain the Bear, Britain may find the basis of a mutually beneficial partnership with them. If they instead seem to support Russian expansionism, Britain is going to be hostile. As previously discussed, ITTL there may be good reasons for the German-Italian bloc to favor an alliance either with Britain and Turkey, or with Russia. Both are quite plausible options. Of course, Britain is also going to turn hostile if Germany and Italy start a naval arms race that appears to threaten traditional British supremacy on the high seas.

 

[wolf_brother]

I still don't see how the Monarchists won't get as much power here? If your claim is correct and they wished to bring Napoleon III down then surely an even bigger failing in 1866 would simply boost their support.

To put it simply, the monarchists were extremely cautious. They wanted to corrupt the system from within and use the empire as a stepping stone towards a restored monarchy; the only question in their mind is if a Bourbon or Orléanist sits on the throne. If Louis-Napoléon doesn't grant them the foot in the door they needed in the parliament, and especially if Eugénie is made Regent, they never get their chance to grab the reigns of power and weaken France's military. This will be especially true if Émile Ollivier isn't appointed PM in 1869 and the Bonapartists continue to rule as essentially enlightened despots.

True, however IOTL the Chassepot, while greatly helpful to the French cause in killing many Prussians it didn't save the war for the French. Now I know this is a different TL however a weapon that's not as good as the Chassepot (to me) can't help them anymore.

Granted; but you must see how the superior range could be a deciding factor in the war. After all IOTL the Dreyse is routinely pointed to as a reason for the Prussian victories in the Seven Weeks War and Franco-Prussian War, and its only worthwhile feature was a high rate of fire; which isn't exactly something French weapons were lacking themselves.

Ah, but now I must tell you to remember this is a TL The Prussians (i.e. Bismark) would've learnt from this mistake and surely now, as they'd been training for for years, would have a system in place for effective, large-scale mobolisation with the use of railroads. Also on Luxembourg it was described as the 'Gibraltar of the north' - And ITTL it's still occupied by Prussian forces, while I do reckon that initially the French would siege the place when the Prussians quickly get to Luxembourg they'll push the French away.

Once again, granted; so what we will see are two large, professional, organized, and rapidly mobilized European armies clashing at Luxembourg and along the Rhine. Bets on how long it is before we see trench warfare à la the later stages of the ACW? Neither side, Prussians, Italians, or the French, are really prepared for a war of attrition at this point.

According to Wikipedia in the whole war the Italians had 300,000 troops. As Eurofed has been saying the Italian across the Alps would be slow and wouldn't be an immediate thing, however the French would have to spare some of their 375,000 troops for that front, probably a good deal once the Italians get through. Not only that but, as you say, Garibaldi will be involved and is good at guerrilla tactics, don't forget that Nice is still primarily Italian and was Garibaldi's homeland. I can imagine there'd be a lot of guerrilla warfare within Nice, I expect the French would lose as well while having to deal with an approaching Italian army and no-more troops being spared from the Prussian theatre. Not only that but Savoy wasn't too happy about the annexation, though it is far less Italian, I reckon we'll see a minor 'civil war' within Savoy which I expect the Italians will win with help from Garibaldi.

After this we'll probably see Garibaldi go to Corsica while the Italian army deals with the pitched battles in France, Garibaldi will see limited success in Corsica though I reckon he could succeed if he brought a large enough army with him and managed to whip the Corsican's into rebellion if he can convince them France will lose thus the way forward is with Italy.

Overall Napoleon III will lose as he's splitting his 375,000 strong army in order to deal with a Prussian force that could be 500,000 strong or more which has better artillery, also Napoleon doesn't have the use of a machine-gun or amazing rifles (though the French ones were still a bit better than the Prussian ones). Not only that but the French will have to deal with guerrilla warfare in Nice, Savoy and (possibly) Corsica to the south while an Italian army between 160,000 - 300,000 invades their southern cities and sets up sieges of places like Marseilles. Also the Italians, while not great, would have high morale as they're continuing their successful, and to them inevitable, Risorgimento.

So we're in agreement that the southern theater stalls out in the mountainous terrain of the French Alps, with lots of guerrilla warfare and ethnic strife. It's not going to be pretty, but the Italians certainly aren't going to be able to surge forward and make an overwhelming contribution to the war effort.

As towards the rest its going to depend on how the conflict starts, and how it plays out. If we're looking at the Pope in flight from Italy than the entire affair is going to take on religious overtones very quickly, with the 'true faith' French Catholics rallying around the empire against the Italians and Prussians. Just as you speak of Italian guerrillas in Nice, Savoy, and possibly Corsica, there will be French guerrillas not only in those areas but also in Alsace-Lorraine; following a Prussian invasion all Frenchmen will be Bonapartists, and in the south the situation will be even more tense.

Now we need to look outside France - how is the war perceived across Europe? What, exactly, is the situation in Hungary by 1867, and how is that relating to both Italian irredentism and German historical claims. How likely are we to see the Germans, Italians, or both, being forced to send some of their forces, and how much, to put out the fires along the Danube? As others have already said in thread its in the best interest of both Berlin and Rome that the Austrian empire survives, but with such a devastating defeat in 1866 that's highly unlikely.

As well we need to look at how London, and St. Petersburg, reacts to the issue. Historically the lowlands were held to be an important neutral buffer. Just as it happened IOTL both Britain and Russia aren't going to be happy with how things are going, and there's going to be increasing pressure on all sides to end the conflict quickly and let the other powers meditate. If/when things stall out into trench warfare along the Rhine and mountain warfare in the Alps the calls for such are going to increase greatly. For Prussia this will be easier to give into, as long as Luxembourg neutrality is enforced with neither side 'winning.' For the Italians though as I've said the issue is primarily religious in nature. The question thus is how much will it take for Berlin to throw Rome under the bus; I think Luxembourg's neutrality, Prussian unification of Germany, and Russian guarantees for help, and recognizing Prussian/German spheres of influence in, the 'Hungarian situation'.

On the issue of veteran troops, both sides will have veterans. The Prusso-Italians fought a war just the previous year and were highly successful in it, while the French have around 40,000 veterans from Mexico, however other than that their other veterans are minor numbers of troops from various expeditions, most of which happened years prior to the POD, at most some 1,600 troops from Korea and the Battles for Shimonoseki. Don't forget though that the troops from the expedition were against rather undeveloped troops while the Mexican veterans were supported by many of the Mexican natives, here it's the French against well-trained, veteran Prusso-Italian troops.

Actually my thoughts on the matter were that the French Mexican veterans, and France's veterans from her colonial adventures, would be rather well suited to combating Garibaldi's Italians; both of them being fairly experienced in guerrilla warfare in mountainous terrain.

 

[wolf_brother]

Why wouldn't Germany annex Alsace-Lorraine? It's strategic, desirable for the nationalists and resource rich, I doubt an annexation of Luxembourg would halt the annexation of these regions.

Why would the Germans press for annexation of Alsace-Lorraine ITTL, and further how would they ever been in a position to claim it, let alone control it? Even ignoring the last point, ITTL the region has been nothing but an area of unrest and French guerrilla warfare against the Prussian forces - does William really want to take that into his new German empire?