No Franco Prussian War

Firstly i apologize if this has been done to death but i tried using the search thing and wasn't able to make it work properly.

My question is fairly simple, what would be the effect on Europe and the world if there was no Franco Prussian war. This war allowed for a united Germany as well as sowed the seeds for World War I, which then sowed the seeds for World War II, then the Cold War conflicts in Korea, Vietnam, Angola, Cuba, Central America and so on.

So does this mean an entirely peaceful 20th Century, probably not but I'm sure it would mean a very different hundred years.
 
To make this work you would have to make Bismarck lose power in the Reich, as he was the main driving force behind the war, with the select 'editing' of telegrams between French and German monarchs.
 
I wouldn't say Bismark would need to lose power. Let's just suppose Napoleon III let things slide a little bit. I mean the Emms telegram hardly seems like a good reason to fight a war anyway.
 
Those Napoleons, always so proud. Ok then lets say a neutral country like Britain or Russia, or the Netherlands or something bring the two sides together and they hash out their differences diplomatically. Remember the concert of Europe is still going on at this point, It was very important to most monarchs, politicians, and diplomats of the time to keep war out of Western Europe, now they weren't always successful but I think they were more often then not. In fact I'll say that the event as it occurred in reality (war and such) seems more far fetched then some sort of diplomatic agreement or smoothing out.

Now I know some will say "but Bismark wasn't the type to work things out diplomatically, he preferred to fight". The thing is while that may be true I think if he would have had the opportunity to unite the German republics without war he would have taken it. Now what a lot of people either forget or don't know is that most of Bismark's predecessors were as skilled diplomatically as they were militarily, diplomacy it seems is almost always overshadowed in the history books by war. Remember that most of the German Republics were not brought in to the fold because of war but instead diplomacy.

Anyway the question isn't how could you bypass the war, but what would bypassing the war mean for the future.
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
If the Franco- Prussian war could have been avoided, I guess the south German states would not have joined Germany. I am sure The North German Federation would have formed Germany after a few years (without the south and Alsace- Lorraine). However both Nappy III and Bismarck really wanted the war. I guess if some of them was worried about a backstab from another enemy the war could have been avoided. This would also mean the Italians would not get Rome.
 
Firstly i apologize if this has been done to death but i tried using the search thing and wasn't able to make it work properly.

My question is fairly simple, what would be the effect on Europe and the world if there was no Franco Prussian war. This war allowed for a united Germany as well as sowed the seeds for World War I, which then sowed the seeds for World War II, then the Cold War conflicts in Korea, Vietnam, Angola, Cuba, Central America and so on.

So does this mean an entirely peaceful 20th Century, probably not but I'm sure it would mean a very different hundred years.

I doubt the world would be that much more peaceful. It is far too much to say Germany is the only possible source of a world conflict.

As long as Prussia is the dominant power in Germany (and it us unless you are butterflying away the Austro-Prussian war too), Austria will have to expand into the Balkans rather than central Europe - thus the problem that started WWI in OTL, the confrontation between Austria and Russia in the Balkans, still exists.

Then there are the issues of colonial wars between the UK and Russia or the UK and France, both of which nearly occurred and could have triggered world wars in the late 19th or early 20th centuries.
 

Susano

Banned
To make this work you would have to make Bismarck lose power in the Reich, as he was the main driving force behind the war, with the select 'editing' of telegrams between French and German monarchs.

No, he wasnt. napoleon III declared the war over a triviality, in the best Napoleonic tradition of using foreign adventurism (and Germany has been his goal for that in the 1860s) to fortfiy his doemstic position.

"but Bismark wasn't the type to work things out diplomatically, he preferred to fight"
Err, wha...? No, seriously what?

thething is, Bismark calready had reached his goal with the dissoluation of the German Cofnederation and the establishment of the North German Confederation, which basically was an uber-Prussia with different name. Which is what Bismarck had wanted. In 1869 he even rejected Badens application for admission into the NGC...

Now, should Bismarck not rudely shorten the Ems Dispatch, or should Napoleon III not declare war over it, then youll have a divdied Germany for some more year sor possibnly decades. However, most probably not for ever. Even in 1870 - well, why did teh South German States help the NGC? Sure, there were mutual defense pacts, but they were honoured mostly because of an immense public pressure stemming from a popular German nationalism. And that sentiment wont just fade away...
 
Now I know some will say "but Bismark wasn't the type to work things out diplomatically, he preferred to fight". The thing is while that may be true I think if he would have had the opportunity to unite the German republics without war he would have taken it.
?????????????????
 
I'm not 100% sure of what the diplomatic playing field would have been like, but I do not believe that France and Russia would have been allies, for the purpose of that alliance was to isolate Germany. That would have made it so that if Russia had backed Serbia, they would have suffered a catostrophic defeat in the WW1 or more likely in that TL the German-Russian war.
 

Redbeard

Banned
Hah, I didnt even notice that. Yeah, thats certainly even more wtf-worthy.

I really don't think you can blame "Youwanttoknow" for labeling Bismarck as a fighting man rather than a smoothtalker, not when considdering Bismarck's (in)famous "Blut und Eisen" speech:

"Nicht durch Reden oder Majoritätsbeschlüsse werden die großen Fragen der Zeit entschieden, sondern durch Eisen und Blut!"

(The great questions of these times are not decided through speeches or majority votes, but with iron and blood!).

Bismarck of course was an excellent diplomat and strategist, allways succeeding in only fighting when he had a favourable opportunity (putting him in constrast to later German leaders), but he not only didn't hesitate to use war as an instrument - he probably all the way counted on things escalating into war. In that context he was an example to his followers (the apprentices of the wizzard messing things up thoroughly).

Regards

Steffen Redbeard
 
France would become more industrialized than in OTL.
Why? The ability of the French to rapidly repay the war indemnity was not due to a shortage of capital but rather a surplus of it. By 1870 Paris was already a major exporter of capital and, even at this relatively early stage, actively investing abroad. I see no reason why French domestic industry would benefit in this TL

Blochead said:
As long as Prussia is the dominant power in Germany (and it us unless you are butterflying away the Austro-Prussian war too), Austria will have to expand into the Balkans rather than central Europe - thus the problem that started WWI in OTL, the confrontation between Austria and Russia in the Balkans, still exists.
This is probably the most important point in the thread. With Austria actively moving into the Balkans some form of conflict is inevitable. Without a dominant German Empire to hold Vienna in check WWI (or some equivalent war) is likely to occur a lot sooner and in a very different geopolitical context. Prussia/Russia v France/Austria anyone?
 

Susano

Banned
Bismarck of course was an excellent diplomat and strategist, allways succeeding in only fighting when he had a favourable opportunity (putting him in constrast to later German leaders), but he not only didn't hesitate to use war as an instrument - he probably all the way counted on things escalating into war. In that context he was an example to his followers (the apprentices of the wizzard messing things up thoroughly).

Oh, he certainly went out of his way to incite the German War of 1866, thats true. But that was to reach his goal to destroy the Austrian-led German Confedertaion. He did not incite or provoke the Franco-German War - I mean, seriously, declaration of war over a shortened dispatch published in a third rate newspaper?

Bismarck of coruse saw war as a valid tool, but he was no war politican. Rather a peace politcian, even, after the German Empire had been founded IOTL. While he saw war as a possible tool, he didnt think too highly of that tool... as for that quote, that can be attributed more to his dislike of parlamentarism and to rhethorics than to martialism.
 
Top