Malê Rising
- Thread starter Jonathan Edelstein
- Start date
I think so, too - the important thing for choosing the thread is the date of the POD, not whether the TL reaches the 20th century.
Well, that was a nice bit of teamwork.
Nice to see that the Poms and Frogs can get together to bust the Yanks up.
This incident wasn't carried out by "the French and British" as such - it was a couple of frigate captains deciding to take their countries' nebulous treaty obligations into their own hands - but that won't matter much in Washington. It might not matter much in London or Paris either.
For the time being, the American war party has been dealt a blow - as mentioned in a previous update (the one that featured Sam Clemens), they were planning to overthrow the Hawaiian monarchy and then have the new republic request annexation by the United States. That scheme has now blown up in their faces, and Hawaii won't be requesting American protection any time soon. On the other hand, they might be able to make political hay out of Americans being killed by British and French sailors, never mind that the Americans in question weren't fighting for the United States and were attempting a coup against the lawful Hawaiian government.
As I've said before, the 1896 election is going to be a rough one, and some matters may not wait that long.
Notice who the king is too - he won't be a pushover. The American business interests in Hawaii and the war party in the United States might try again, though, depending on whether the British and/or the French follow through on their captains' rescue of the monarchy. (It would be funny if Hawaii became the one thing that Britain and France agreed about even while they were otherwise at war, but the more likely outcome is for one to try to take on the role of protector at the expense of the other.)
The Christmas truce was one of the inspirations for this incident, with the added spice of the two ships' companies actually fighting on the same side.
And yes, this incident will be re-enacted in schoolyards, and will be the subject of books and movies. It's got all the right ingredients: exotic locale, strange bedfellows, and a dash of chivalry to contrast with the industrial brutality of the trenches.
It'll still be here, never fear.
And to hell with US imperialists too. They didn't have the upper hand before this incident. Surely some will try to parley it into a causus belli for an opportunistic leap into adventure--but how much resonance will that call have when it means being at war with both the great alliances at the same time? Some pro-war Americans, probably most of them in fact, want to support one side or the other. And there are those, quite a lot, against any war at all with anyone. It is the imperialist cause, the very one that would be inflamed by the Hawaii, that is being discredited by Sam Clemens's journalism. Not all Americans would have been appreciating the pacifists' efforts to expose the ugly realities of conquest for profit, there certainly would be a faction in the US who want to take advantage of the mutual distraction of the great powers to gobble up prizes and will sneer at Clemens's humanitarian message.
But in Hawaii, the two warring sides joined together to repel a (privately) American-backed filibuster. The implication is clear--loose cannon Yankees might not just be fighting both FARs and BOGs separately, they might actually face joint forces who make truce with each other to fight us together!
Conceivably a major US effort to grab something might backfire so far as to end the Great War so both sides can pile on the US. I have to admit that's quite unlikely--neither side would have anything positive to gain unless they propose to occupy parts of the USA, which must look like a pretty stupid thing to try to do for rather little gain. But it's bad enough to be fighting the French here and the British there, and possibly have them come together in particular battles. What is proven is that the Americans can't count on the two sides being so implacably hostile to each other they can't support their joint interests when it is opportune for them to do so. The gung-ho imperialists are not in a great position to win the day in Washington, it looks to me. The committed pacifists will be joined by partisans of either side who don't want to see their country fighting against their favored faction, and the more pragmatic imperialists will waver, seeing that even with an America mesmerized somehow to follow in lockstep, they face a tough fight.
For what gain? Hawaii is worth something; so is Cuba and other Caribbean prizes, and perhaps the Philippines, maybe some hegemony in Central America. But these prizes cannot be gotten on the cheap at the moment. Spain in her neutrality is covered by both alliances at the moment; if the BOGs are becoming less patient with her, they'd want to punish a Spain that declares war or stretches neutrality too far by taking her territories themselves.
The Monroe Doctrine would tend to discourage the British from simply taking Cuba and Puerto Rico, besides it isn't clear they'd want to divert forces to do that--but they could support local insurrection and quickly recognize independent republics there, republics that would of course immediately request treaties of alliance and friendship with the UK, and thus make ports available to the RN and become British trade partners. The Philippines would most likely be liberated on the same terms--I gave some thought to the possibility that the British would be persuaded to hand them over to the Germans post-war, but neither the British Empire nor the Germans can afford to occupy the place against the native will, nor would Filipinos be easily persuaded to accept the German crown--especially since there isn't really a German crown as such, not yet anyway, just a Prussian king who happens to be "President" of a confederation. Hmm, come to think of it it might be easier for Filipinos to accept being a member republic of the North German Confederation rather than a colonial subject territory!
But there's really no reason for the British to just hand over the Philippines like that; most likely they'd do as in the Americas, set up an acceptable local republic and then sign treaties with it to be informally in the British sphere of influence--and as long as Germans are friends of Britain, their ships too would be welcome at Manila.So the BOGs clearly do not need American help to punish Spain, if it should come to that, and there's no reason for them to reward the Americans for anything in particular. (In fact now both alliances can hold the Hawaii incident against us, should they wish to counter any US claims on their consciences--the US government will point out that that was no plot of Washington's, which is probably quite true--though if the plot had gone forward of course the US might well have annexed Hawaii after the fact, as OTL.)
I honestly haven't thought much about what the FARs have to offer Americans and would like us to do for them to earn it, because I never wanted the FARs to win and certainly didn't want to see the USA drawn in on their side. Right now, it looks like the FARs are slowly but surely starting to lose, and so it would be quite dumb for the Americans to come in on that side, unless Yankee intervention would turn the tables and ensure FAR victory across the board.
But massive as the USA is, it is not a very militarized country. Given time, years and years of it, the US can mobilize an awesome force. But against the BOGs, particularly Britain and her control of the seas, it isn't clear the USA has time. Nor is it clear just where the FARs would benefit from American intervention, without the founding powers of that alliance having to give up prizes they are fighting for. The most obvious opportunities are distracting the British by vying for supremacy in the Caribbean; intervening in the Amazon war (all too likely, if Yanks can get that far south without being sunk by the RN, that they'd either make little more than a token contribution, or if they can come in force, would simply take control for their own benefit, either as annexed US territory or under a puppet regime); or distracting the British in the Pacific or east Asia. It seems doubtful any Americans want to seize territories in Africa, and if they do it isn't clear either that they can take territories the British have been holding, or if they could that the new Anglophone regime would be any better for France than the previous one.
The Americans are just not in a position to threaten the key interests of the BOGs; they don't even touch on Ottoman territory anywhere and the Germans have little overseas possessions to threaten. The British have hostages to fortune enough, but that's because they are everywhere; what Americans can threaten to take from them is either peripheral or big enough to give them a serious fight--Canada, that is. If the Americans are fighting Britain they are fighting Canada--indeed Canada might even at this late date seem like the prize worth enticing Americans into the war over. But with Canada taken on such terms I think it would be a poison pill. Perhaps even this late in the war, slowly gaining an upper hand in the European land war and generally prevailing overseas, the British still can't afford the sort of reinforcements they'd normally send to defend Canada from a Yankee attack, and so perhaps this is a unique opportunity for the Americans to erase the border to the north and lay claim to the whole continent north of the Rio Grande. (Wait, I forget if they still purchased Alaska already, or if instead Alaska was made part of British territory--I suppose it can't have stayed Russian or we'd have heard of the sideshow North Pacific war between Canada and Russian America!
Doesn't matter then, if the Yanks can take the heart of Canada along the Great Lakes and into the northern Plains, they'll get the peripheral stuff too at the peace table).But the price of that would be earning deep and bitter hostility with Britain and her allies. If Britain is suddenly deprived of Canada, it will be a blow but it won't prevent the BOGs from prevailing in the Old World; the US can't do further services for the FARs that will tip the balance and ensure British defeat. Postwar, the Americans would be persona non grata everywhere British influence holds. The conquest of Canada would launch the new century as a death struggle between the two Anglo powers, at a time the USA is still largely on the back foot; her allies would be reactionary Russia and the second-string power in Europe, both quite battered and probably unstable, against a British hegemony in the world at large and a Germany likely to be concentrating on consolidating power on the European continent but quite willing to back Britain overseas in return for getting her own footholds there--this Anglo-German alliance would be keen to offer the republics of Latin America aid to avoid coming under the Yankee shadow.
Under the circumstances, while some Americans might be bold and greedy enough to savor the thought of such a knock-down fight and confident that American resources would win the long fight, most Americans, for either lofty or parochial reasons, would not want to commit to such an opportunistic anti-BOG war, while the BOGs don't really need them as open allies and so there would be few rewards to be had; going boldly against both alliances is even dumber than just taking on the BOGs.
It is easiest and safest for Washington to simply do nothing.
I was thinking about the adventures of Flashman in this TL - the books that take place either before the PoD or soon enough after to be unaffected by butterflies would be Flashman, Royal Flash, Flash for Freedom, Flashman's Lady and Flashman and the Mountain of Light. Possibly Flashman at the Charge and Flashman and the Great Game as well, I can't remember if the Crimean War or the Indian Mutiny were butterflied.
The one most likely to be affected, IMO, is Royal Flash, as that depends on Prisoner of Zenda being written so Fraser can pastiche it (and since that didn't happen until 1894, it's likely Royal Flash is doomed). OTOH, there are references in Jonathan's Flashman on the Niger post to events from Flashman, Flash for Freedom, and Flashman's Lady, so we know those adventures must have happened in forms reasonably close to their OTL ones.
The one most likely to be affected, IMO, is Royal Flash, as that depends on Prisoner of Zenda being written so Fraser can pastiche it (and since that didn't happen until 1894, it's likely Royal Flash is doomed). OTOH, there are references in Jonathan's Flashman on the Niger post to events from Flashman, Flash for Freedom, and Flashman's Lady, so we know those adventures must have happened in forms reasonably close to their OTL ones.
It is the imperialist cause, the very one that would be inflamed by the Hawaii, that is being discredited by Sam Clemens's journalism. Not all Americans would have been appreciating the pacifists' efforts to expose the ugly realities of conquest for profit, there certainly would be a faction in the US who want to take advantage of the mutual distraction of the great powers to gobble up prizes and will sneer at Clemens's humanitarian message.
But in Hawaii, the two warring sides joined together to repel a (privately) American-backed filibuster. The implication is clear--loose cannon Yankees might not just be fighting both FARs and BOGs separately, they might actually face joint forces who make truce with each other to fight us together!
A great deal will depend on how Paris and London respond to the incident. If they endorse the captains' actions and make clear that Hawaii is under their protection, that will be a major deterrent against further American meddling. On the other hand, if they disavow (or even court-martial) the captains, then the American war party may decide that the BOGs and the FARs have washed their hands of the situation and that Hawaii is fair game. They'd be wrong - both Britain and France have strategic and economic interests in Hawaii, and if they disavow the captains' intervention, it would be because they don't want other officers to think that cooperation with the enemy is a good idea - but the imperialists might not realize that. They might even convince themselves that the parties backed down due to fear of the United States, and that if they seized Hawaii (or Hawaii and the Spanish Caribbean possessions), the BOGs and FARs would let them get away with it. There are several ways this could go wrong, although it also might not.
Keep in mind that the butterflies affect the British military fairly early, due to the cooperation with the Malê against the West African slave trade and the growing involvement in the Omani empire during the 1850s and 1860s. Some events are more affected by the changes than others - big wars such as Crimea still happen - but the kind of brushfire conflicts that Flashy gets involved in would be those that are changed the most.
As a rule of thumb, anything Flashy did prior to 1850 in the OTL novels (with, as you say, the exception of Royal Flash) has a counterpart in TTL, which would mean Flashman, Flashman's Lady, Flashman and the Mountain of Light and Flash for Freedom. Adventures during the 1850s and 1860s may have rough counterparts - TTL's Flashman is involved in Crimea, the Indian rebellion of 1857 and the ACW - but the specific scrapes he gets into will be quite different. Post-1870 novels have no ATL parallel.
One of these days not too remote, I'll post an annotated bibliography.
That's just because you want to go there on vacation.
At this point, with the failed coup attempt, Hawaii isn't going to join the United States in the near term unless there is another, successful, attempt to annex it by force. In the medium to long term, though, the haoles are in Hawaii to stay - they've intermarried with both noble and common Hawaiians, and they're deeply integrated into the Hawaiian economy. This almost guarantees that Hawaii will have some kind of ongoing relationship with the United States; whether it's simply a close economic partnership, or some kind of political association, will depend on events.
The Hawaiians would do well to lean toward Britain for protection; the British have enough already in the Pacific that they won't feel a need to annex the place but it is convenient for them to have a friendly base there, halfway between British Columbia and Australia/New Zealand. So they are much safer patrons than the expansionist Yankees.
At the moment of course it would not be so wise to appear to be falling into British arms, what with half the world at war against them. After the war, they should definitely look into some stronger treaties of friendship with Britain, offering the RN port rights and the like.
What this means for US-Hawaiian relationships depends on the nature of the Anglo-American relationship. If it roughly goes as OTL, with Americans getting more cordial and sentimental toward Britain, then the numerous Americans settled in Hawaii will not be a problem, nor will lots of Yankee tourists and even major ownership of plantations--the established Hawaiian monarchy has the British to keep the visitors and immigrants honest.
But there's only so much room in Hawaii and I suppose that given that lots of Japanese immigrated there OTL despite the political distance between the US and Japan, then given Anglo-Japanese friendship and with the Hawaiian monarchy dependent on British favor to guarantee their safety, I guess that at least as many Japanese will come there as OTL, if not more.
At some point the monarchy might get creeped out by so much immigration and decide to tighten up; then there would be fewer Asians and Euro-American types alike.
Or of course a Yankee misadventure might take the island for the US during this Great War anyway. It seems highly unlikely to me because OTL it was done on the sly pretty much, with the immigrant American plantation owners organizing a coup--the same coup that got put down here--to create a Republic for the sole purpose (as far as I know, maybe it was more ambivalent than that) of petitioning to join the USA. The US government was responding to this request OTL and formal US military forces had nothing to do with it until invited in.
Here that coup has been aborted and the royal government is on its guard against others; a mass expulsion of Americans might well be in the cards now. That could itself be a pretext for some US action, but even that excuse will look less like a justification in view of the coup attempt. For the US to take the islands now, Congress would have to declare war (or conceivably, the whole thing could happen without a formal DOW but that idea would look very novel and unkosher at this time) and then fund a serious naval action conveying a large invasion force. It would be perfectly clear there would be no question of liberating enserfed natives from misrule, not the way they fought to shut down the coup. It would be an act of naked and deliberate theft, with none of the deninability of OTL.
And while some US factions might discount the British or French will to object, others won't, or will object themselves on moral grounds. Others will be deterred by the possibility of serious repercussions in international relations.
For the imperialists to carry the day, either they must persuade the President the whole thing can be done on the cheap, fast and quietly, under the cover of some naval exercise, and the rest of the country not paying any attention, which seems unlikely after this fascinating story hits the press. Or the yellow press would have to go overtime whipping up a frenzy of national outrage so powerful and blind the hawks get their way openly and on a larger scale. Again it's hard to imagine; lots of Americans would respond to the call, but more than a tiny minority would not and even if they are outvoted, their words of caution and reprimand would be recorded. Again given the facts, the general public knowledge that the Hawaiians support their monarchy and will fight for it, I don't see brazen imperialism winning control of House and Senate majorities.
At the moment of course it would not be so wise to appear to be falling into British arms, what with half the world at war against them. After the war, they should definitely look into some stronger treaties of friendship with Britain, offering the RN port rights and the like.
What this means for US-Hawaiian relationships depends on the nature of the Anglo-American relationship. If it roughly goes as OTL, with Americans getting more cordial and sentimental toward Britain, then the numerous Americans settled in Hawaii will not be a problem, nor will lots of Yankee tourists and even major ownership of plantations--the established Hawaiian monarchy has the British to keep the visitors and immigrants honest.
But there's only so much room in Hawaii and I suppose that given that lots of Japanese immigrated there OTL despite the political distance between the US and Japan, then given Anglo-Japanese friendship and with the Hawaiian monarchy dependent on British favor to guarantee their safety, I guess that at least as many Japanese will come there as OTL, if not more.
At some point the monarchy might get creeped out by so much immigration and decide to tighten up; then there would be fewer Asians and Euro-American types alike.
Or of course a Yankee misadventure might take the island for the US during this Great War anyway. It seems highly unlikely to me because OTL it was done on the sly pretty much, with the immigrant American plantation owners organizing a coup--the same coup that got put down here--to create a Republic for the sole purpose (as far as I know, maybe it was more ambivalent than that) of petitioning to join the USA. The US government was responding to this request OTL and formal US military forces had nothing to do with it until invited in.
Here that coup has been aborted and the royal government is on its guard against others; a mass expulsion of Americans might well be in the cards now. That could itself be a pretext for some US action, but even that excuse will look less like a justification in view of the coup attempt. For the US to take the islands now, Congress would have to declare war (or conceivably, the whole thing could happen without a formal DOW but that idea would look very novel and unkosher at this time) and then fund a serious naval action conveying a large invasion force. It would be perfectly clear there would be no question of liberating enserfed natives from misrule, not the way they fought to shut down the coup. It would be an act of naked and deliberate theft, with none of the deninability of OTL.
And while some US factions might discount the British or French will to object, others won't, or will object themselves on moral grounds. Others will be deterred by the possibility of serious repercussions in international relations.
For the imperialists to carry the day, either they must persuade the President the whole thing can be done on the cheap, fast and quietly, under the cover of some naval exercise, and the rest of the country not paying any attention, which seems unlikely after this fascinating story hits the press. Or the yellow press would have to go overtime whipping up a frenzy of national outrage so powerful and blind the hawks get their way openly and on a larger scale. Again it's hard to imagine; lots of Americans would respond to the call, but more than a tiny minority would not and even if they are outvoted, their words of caution and reprimand would be recorded. Again given the facts, the general public knowledge that the Hawaiians support their monarchy and will fight for it, I don't see brazen imperialism winning control of House and Senate majorities.
A few comments about Poland: unless there was a HUGE change compared to OTL, Galicia won't rise - pamphlets notwithstanding. After all I don't see Prussians acting better in Greater Poland than Austrians in Galicia.
Also, I think it's too early for a Polish uprising in Congress Poland - OTL uprisings where somewhat cyclic, one generation apart (1830-1863-1905, or more widely 1768-1794-as above) and also needed certain level of organisation (conspiracy of lieutnants in 1830, Whites and Reds in 1863 and Socialists in 1905).
And one last thing: the coat of arms of Poland, Jonathan, only took that form in 1927. Before then Eagle had a closed crown with a cross, as well as different shape.
Also, I think it's too early for a Polish uprising in Congress Poland - OTL uprisings where somewhat cyclic, one generation apart (1830-1863-1905, or more widely 1768-1794-as above) and also needed certain level of organisation (conspiracy of lieutnants in 1830, Whites and Reds in 1863 and Socialists in 1905).
And one last thing: the coat of arms of Poland, Jonathan, only took that form in 1927. Before then Eagle had a closed crown with a cross, as well as different shape.
France might offer better terms than Britain in the short term, given that it needs Hawaii more than Britain does. On the other hand, it would be less able to follow through.
I kind of like the idea of Britain and France combining to protect Hawaii, each for its own reasons, but can't quite see that happening on a governmental level (as opposed to a frigate-captain level) while the war is going on.
I can't quite see a mass expulsion of Americans. At this point, such a measure would not only rip the guts out of the Hawaiian economy but would tear apart families. Haoles had married into most of the upper-class Hawaiian families, including the royal family, and an expulsion decree would include the husbands, in-laws and cousins of many influential people. The monarchy might potentially get around that problem by granting exemptions, but (a) there would have to be so many as to swallow the rule; and (b) they would be granted to the very class that is causing the trouble. Throwing out the American sailors and shopkeepers while letting the planters, industrialists and merchant barons stay would do nothing for the security of the Hawaiian kingdom.
What seems more likely to me is that Hawaii will let the Americans stay, imprison or expel the actual coup plotters, and encourage non-American investment (British, French, North German, even Japanese) as a counterweight to American economic dominance. None of this would give the United States a casus belli. On the other hand, it might leave the door open for the coup plotters to try again, especially if a pro-imperialist faction is in power in Washington and they can secure a promise of official American backing. For the reasons you state, however, I tend to agree that the probability of this outcome is low.
The Japanese came as contract laborers in the plantations, and would do so in TTL as well - although, if postwar Hawaii becomes close to Britain and attracts British investment, there may also be contract labor immigration from India (as there was in Fiji) or even East Africa. TTL's Hawaii may become even more of a cultural crazy quilt than OTL.
Your points are well taken. My thinking about the rebellion is more or less as follows:
- 1896 is a full generation from 1863; in fact, it is as far from 1863 as 1863 was from 1830. Assuming that an uprising occurred in the early 1860s in TTL (which I think it would, because the underlying disputes over conscription and Russification would still exist), there has been enough time for a new generation to grow up.
- I anticipate that the nucleus of the rebellion will be the Polish trade unions, somewhat like 1905 in OTL. I've already mentioned that the unions of the Russian Empire are being radicalized due to the wartime industrial policies and labor conscription. In Russian Poland, this radicalization has taken on a nationalist cast, and the urban socialists have co-opted much of the nationalist movement.
- I agree that Austrian rule was no worse than Prussian, and in fact it was probably better: the Habsburg Empire wasn't a nation-state and it never tried to turn the Poles into Germans or Russians. However, the Polish nationalists in TTL aren't simply looking to trade Austrian rule for German; instead, they want to establish their own state. They understand that such a state will have to be a German client kingdom, but believe that even so, they will be more masters in their own house than they are under the current arrangement. There is also widespread anger over conscription, martial law and wartime taxation. In addition, Austrian rule in Galicia depended heavily on the support of the nobility, and the union-dominated uprising that is about to break out in TTL is as much against the magnates as it is against the imperial powers. I anticipate that the uprising in Galicia will be the reverse of the 1846 revolt - as in 1846, it will pit the peasantry and urban working class against the gentry, but this time the gentry will side with Austria and the peasants with the revolution. The uprising won't start in Galicia, and it may not be as intense there as in Russian Poland, but it will spread there.
- Um, my mistake about the coat of arms - if I show it again, I'll use the right one.
And finally, here is the definitive list of TTL's Flashman titles:
- Flashman: First Anglo-Afghan War, 1842
- Flashman’s Lady: Borneo and Madagascar, 1843-45
- Flashman and the Mountain of Light: First Anglo-Sikh War, 1845-46
- Rebel Flash: 1848 Revolutions in Central Europe, 1848-49
- Flash for Freedom: Dahomey and the United States, 1849-50 (in this version, his ship is the last slave ship out of West Africa)
- Flashman’s Troika: Crimean War, 1854
- Flashman’s Rani: Indian Rebellion, 1857-58
- Flashman and the Devil: American Civil War, 1863-64
- Flashman and the Piranha: Amazon conflict, 1868 ("the Piranha" is the nom de guerre of a female guerrilla leader who is based in a quilombo)
- Flashman’s Honor: Franco-Prussian War, 1870-72
- Dutch Flash: Aceh Crisis, 1873
- Flashman and the Kraal: Boer War and Sotho Gun War, 1875-76
- Flashman on the Niger: Oyo-Company War, 1878-79
- Flashman and the Warlord: Great Lakes and Eastern Congo, 1884-86
- Flashman’s Valley: Ticino Revolt 1895-96
If the BOG's win a big enough victory for the north Germans to successfully integrate the south, most Germans might be willing to let at least part of Posen go to a new Polish state to guarantee its friendliness: the loss will be rather minor compared to the gains. OTOH, the Prussian nobility and the "march to the east" loonies...
Bruce
Bruce
Too bad that, although the frustrating failures of the Franco-Prussian War ITTL prevented the Prussians from claiming the supremacy they did OTL and the King of Prussia must deign to the humiliatingly republican and parliamentarian title of "President" of the Confederation, North Germany still is at bottom a Prussian hegemony. If they are victorious enough to win over southern Germany, then the prestige of the victory will add to the pragmatic leverage the great Prussian kingdom holds over the other German lands. Probably even a sweeping victory will still leave the other lands, the free cities and the bigger kingdoms quite a lot of rights and dignity and influence in proportion to their importance to the Confederation. And those kings and burghers, to bolster their own position relative to great Prussia, will champion the rights and dignity of the little principalities too.
But when all is said and done, the Kingdom of Prussia was, OTL, something like 60 percent of the German Empire. Here it might be a bit smaller from a failure to be able to annex some other lands outright--I've lost track of the fate of Hannover for instance, whether the defiance of Prussian power that led to defeat by Prussia and allies and the termination of that kingdom was so early it was not butterflied, or whether it happened anyway despite butterflies, or whether Hannover is in fact a member of the Confederation and not renamed Prussian provinces here. Even if Hannover went under I believe that there were later additions to Prussia that would not have happened here, in favor of a more voluntary Confederation. So Prussia might not be quite so overwhelming. And perhaps there won't be an Empire even if all the south German states do join, and the Hohenzollern monarch must be content to be "merely" a King and a President, not an Emperor. But even a mere King and President holds a lot of clout when Prussia is still likely to be over half the Confederation and its kingpin.
So sadly, the views of a bunch of east Prussian Junkers will have an unfortunate amount of weight. Nor will the King of Prussia want to whittle down his demographic claim to supremacy.
The fate of Prussian-held parts of Poland then turns on how indispensable the Poles make themselves to BOG victory, and how united they stand with each other on the matter of national freedom.
We already know they will be divided, working classes against the nobility. And I believe that while there are some parts of Prussia that have overwhelming local majorities of Poles (does anyone have a good demographic map, anything circa 1875-1910 ought to be close enough?) on the whole the territories that were once Polish (heck, wasn't all of Prussia east of the Elbe once Polish, at least, subject to the Polish monarchy?) are now much diluted with German settlement--if they weren't in fact always, some of them anyway. So a geographic division would be tricky, and sure to cause outrage in Germany, in Prussia anyway.
I think the BOGs are fixed for enough of a victory that, if the Poles do rise, the Russian parts of Poland are sure to be independent (legally, perhaps pragmatically under strong German hegemony though the British might have something to say against that). And it seems rather likely that if Russia can be that well beaten, Austria will simply have disintegrated by then--maybe not completely, the Hapsburgs might still hang on to the German territories and perhaps despite my little Ottoman-wank fantasy, Hungary too. Hungary might be missing some territories though. I don't see the Ottomans, even if in quite a strong position at the peace table, getting or even wanting Christian-majority territories they didn't have at the beginning of the war. But there might be quite a bit of sentiment in favor of carving off more small independent nations around the edges, and some of these might take offers of Ottoman protective alliance very seriously, so both Austria and Hungary, together or separate, might be quite eroded on the south side. And in the north--if there's a new Poland made from Russian territory, I would guess that Austrian Poland will be attached to it. Prussian Poland--well, maybe some border adjustments. And maybe later, more, if there's another big war in Eastern Europe with the Germans and Poles on opposite sides AND the Poles somehow are on the winning side.
I don't really know enough about the Polish lands and people in this era to be so damn sure though. I don't see the Prussians disgorging.
Also--I'm not so sure the war will end with either side holding clear and unambiguous victory. I think the Hapsburg empire is going to get hammered and lose lots of territory and the monarchy may fall, or be reduced to a mere kingdom of Austria. Russia might lose Poland and suffer border adjustments elsewhere, maybe even have to give the Crimea back if they get really beaten and the Ottomans are a big part of that. But I think I can see a way for France to come out if, having lost hegemony in southern Germany and a lot of loss in the colonies (they might never get Indochina back for instance) they are nevertheless standing pretty strong, with a big and advanced army, enough naval power (perhaps reduced to mere shore defenses, but formidable ones) to make breaking it costly to the British, and their own territory intact. The peace then might never be anything like the unilateral carving of expired regimes that Versailles and associated treaties were OTL; it could look a lot more like an actual peace treaty. The BOGs might not be in a position to simply dictate terms; even the Hapsburgs might retain some leverage. I can wish for a post-Romanov Russia but might have to settle for their losing some territory and having a lot of civil unrest to deal with.
And if the Poles do not effectively rise in the FAR lands, I would guess they might wind up divided between Romanov (or whatever dynasty or republic or whatever holds sway in Russia) and as provinces of Austria. Without a plausible Polish state for them to join, who exactly could they be pawned off to? Should the Confederation/possible German Empire take on still more members of a hostile people?
Hannover stayed neutral in the Austro-Prussian War and thus retained its independence, along with a couple of the smaller principalities (the others sided with Austria and got annexed for their trouble). Instead of having 80 percent of the North German Confederation's population as in OTL, Prussia has slightly less than 70 percent. It isn't quite as overwhelmingly dominant, but it's still by far the biggest of the NDB member states and has more clout than all the others put together. And due to the three-class system and electoral malapportionment, the Junkers have disproportionate influence within Prussia: wartime casualties may have loosened their grip on military affairs, but the older generation still has inordinate power in the Landtag.
Also, while Wilhelm indeed plans to let the southern German states into the empire on generous terms, the decision about what to do with the Poles will be a wartime one, meaning primarily a Prussian one.
So, yes, Posen will be a big problem - in fact, some of the "march to the east" lunatics might even want to annex Congress Poland and Galicia. Wilhelm won't go along with that - he's smart enough (or at least has smart enough advisers) to know that annexing millions of unwilling citizens is a fool's game. But with annexing all of Poland as one extreme, and with a client kingdom in Russian and Austrian Poland as the middle course, ceding part of Posen would seem dangerously radical.
This isn't to say that the German people might not get behind such a plan. I seem to recall that a division of Posen was proposed at the Frankfurt Parliament, so the idea is out there. It could be sold to the left and center based on principles of self-determination, and to the right as a means of ridding Prussia of Slavic influence and creating a purely German nation. There may even be serious discussion of giving up the parts of Posen that have large Polish majorities, including debates in the legislature and the popular press. But with the expansionist right wing so powerful, any such proposal would face a headwind.
You're correct in predicting that, in the event of a BOG victory, the outcome will depend in large part on how valuable the Poles are to the war effort. They might just be valuable enough to overcome that headwind. Or alternatively, Wilhelm might propose to reconstitute the Grand Duchy of Posen, with a territorial legislature and cultural autonomy for the Polish population. We'll see what happens - I'd appreciate any further thoughts Tizoc or our German contingent may have.
Another thing that might benefit France in the event of a FAR loss is that any cessions of European territory would go to Germany, not to Britain. If the NDB/German Empire picks up the southern German states (or even Austria) and establishes a de facto hegemony over Poland, Bohemia and the Baltic, the British would start to worry that it's getting entirely too big, and might want an intact France to act as a counterweight. If France is still strong enough at this point to make conquest prohibitively costly, then Britain might go to bat for it in the peace negotiations and put pressure on Wilhelm to satisfy himself with an indemnity and some French colonies. Alsace-Lorraine would still be a sticking point, of course, but there might be ways to finesse it. Again, we'll see what happens.
What about an autonomous "Kingdom of Alsace-Lorraine" under a cadet branch of one of the more neutral German dynasties, with a Franco-German condominium over it? Could we get, through the co-operative mechanisms here, a really early form of the ECSC? You have been hinting that the Westphalian state system is going to be one of the casualties of this war; perhaps one of the most fought-over pieces of land in the world might be a place to start.
Or perhaps Germany just annexes Alsace and not the northern third (or so) of Lorraine? Alsace was historically German, and IIRC wasn't really considered an integral part of France the way Metz was. (This might allay British concerns-Metz was annexed because it was heavily fortified and occupied a strategic position, so the German military wanted it. If Germany doesn't annex it, it will be giving up that advantage.)
You just came close to reading my mind about one of the possible outcomes for Alsace-Lorraine, right down to it being one of the prototypes for the weakening of the Westphalian system. If you want, you can PM me and I'll tell you what I have in mind (subject to intermediate events working out as planned); I've been looking to run the idea by someone.
First I want to apologize for my last post; just glancing at the last line I'm embarrassed. The Poles are not "a hostile people" to the Germans except in specific contexts; I'd define progress as defusing the occasions of mutual hostility.
I'm very sorry to have used such unfortunate and sweeping language. I've been writing a lot of posts very late at night, after I should be asleep, and lately I actually do fall asleep in the middle of writing some of them and then try to finish it in spurts of wakefulness; when done I have little capacity for proofreading.
I'm a big fan of the idea of a separate Alsace (with or without Lorraine) as a buffer state between France and Germany; treaties specifying rights of both great nations to inspect the middle country lest it secretly harbor arms favoring the other nation would be a big intrusion on sovereignty by normal standards, but under the circumstances, reasonable, and I don't think it needs to be under a "condominium" in general. A republic seems more natural to me but then I'm looking through OTL lenses, where France was a republic and Germany became one; ITTL various crowned regimes are more the norm so we might be stuck shopping for a constitutional monarch, I fear.
However the context I think of it in is one where France has lost Alsace-Lorraine to the Germans and is obsessed with getting them back; my notion is a stronger and wiser Germany (after the fact that is, the wise thing would probably have been not to take them in the first place) negotiates peace with France by taking them off the table.
I'm very sorry to have used such unfortunate and sweeping language.
I've been writing a lot of posts very late at night, after I should be asleep, and lately I actually do fall asleep in the middle of writing some of them and then try to finish it in spurts of wakefulness; when done I have little capacity for proofreading.I'm a big fan of the idea of a separate Alsace (with or without Lorraine) as a buffer state between France and Germany; treaties specifying rights of both great nations to inspect the middle country lest it secretly harbor arms favoring the other nation would be a big intrusion on sovereignty by normal standards, but under the circumstances, reasonable, and I don't think it needs to be under a "condominium" in general. A republic seems more natural to me but then I'm looking through OTL lenses, where France was a republic and Germany became one; ITTL various crowned regimes are more the norm so we might be stuck shopping for a constitutional monarch, I fear.
However the context I think of it in is one where France has lost Alsace-Lorraine to the Germans and is obsessed with getting them back; my notion is a stronger and wiser Germany (after the fact that is, the wise thing would probably have been not to take them in the first place) negotiates peace with France by taking them off the table.