No Franco-Russian Alliance

Giving up Slovenia from Austria is like asking Russia to give up St Petersburg... as in, it might happen, but it's not going to be by choice, because it's considered part of the homeland.
 
Austria-Hungary isn't going to join any alliance hostile to both Germany and Russia, it'd be suicide.

Yes, exactly and any alliance with the primary partners being Germany and Russia will condemn Austria to being nothing more than a client of the two; a mutually agreed upon buffer state with little foreign policy autonomy at all.

But Germany chose Austria over Russia because of (as someone else mentioned) ethnic preferences.

As for the Franco-Russian alliance, I believe it benefitted Russia to the detriment of France which of course ended up fighting for the cause of Pan-Slavism.
 

LordKalvert

Banned
Yes, exactly and any alliance with the primary partners being Germany and Russia will condemn Austria to being nothing more than a client of the two; a mutually agreed upon buffer state with little foreign policy autonomy at all.

But Germany chose Austria over Russia because of (as someone else mentioned) ethnic preferences.

As for the Franco-Russian alliance, I believe it benefitted Russia to the detriment of France which of course ended up fighting for the cause of Pan-Slavism.

France fights for her position of a Great Power- she didn't care about Pan Slavism but knew if Russia was destroyed, then she would be next

Germany chose Austria because Austria was weaker. Russia would dominate a Russo-German Alliance and if Austria was destroyed, then Germany would forever be at the mercy of Russia and France. Germany can dominate Austria and after a Franco-Russian War, Germany would be safe from Austria but never safe from Russia
 
France fights for her position of a Great Power- she didn't care about Pan Slavism but knew if Russia was destroyed, then she would be next

This being of course borne out by the fact that, while allied to Russia, Germany did nothing to destroy France. It was only decades after the Russian alliance was lost that Germany figured out it NEEDED to destroy one or the other of those two to win a war.
 
The point was not about destroying but about securing a dominating position.

Bismarck had achieved such a goal in 1871. He had seriously weakened France by snatching away Alsace-Moselle which had a rather strong industry, and by isolating republican France on the diplomatic stage (thanks to an alliance with Russia and Austria).

No weakened country can be satisfied by a situation where it is isolated and consequently at the mercy of the dominant player. And it will of course look for any solution to reestablish some kind of more favourable balance.

Post Bismarck Germany was not able to hold Russia and Austria together. And I think it is a mistake to believe that through a more russian-friendly diplomacy, Germany would have kept this alliance together.

It is german unification around Prussia itself in 1867 that pushed Austria towards the Balkans. And the Balkans were considered by Russia as its natural sphere of influence and expansion.

And whatever the diplomacy conducted, there would have been a high risk of conflict between Russia and Austria or Ausqtria+Germany.

In 1914, it is Austria that pulled the trigger by demanding conditions that no country could accept. And it did so because it knew it enjoyed Germany's support.

And if Germany did support Austria and did conciously take the risk of a general european war, it is because it thought that it was better waging war against Russia in 1914 when Russia was still not too powerful than to do it 5 or 10 years later when Russia would be more powerful.

One too misknown fact is that Russia was the most dynamic economy before WWI. It had the fastest growth and the country was modernizing very quickly. That was key in Germany's decision to risk a general war in Europe : the better the sooner.
 
Even Bismarck was unable to keep together Austria, Russia and Germany.
The first Drei Kaiser Bund was signed in 1871, and was already dead in 1875 after the Bosnian riots (Russo-Austrian disagreement obviously). The revival of the alliance came in 1881, and was apparently a Bismarckian coup, since Russia was upset by the outcome of the Berlin Conference of 1878. This time around it lasted a bit longer (1881-1887, with a renewal in 1884) but it eventually died since the Austro-Russian conflict of interest in the Balkans could not be resolved (and possibly did not have a solution).
As a comparison, the Holy Alliance (Russia, Austria and Prussia) lasted much longer, from the Congress of Troppau in 1820 (when Metternich successfully wooed Czar Alexander) to the Russian intervention in Hungary in 1849 - almost 30 years. It was certainly much easier to keep the unity when the Balkan sore was not yet open (although it was starting to fester: the Greek insurrection of the 1820s - branded as a reckless and criminal act by the three eastern Powers - and the refusal of Metternich to participate in the multi-national fleet sent to Greece waters was not well received by Russia). However the Punctuation of Olmutz (1850) saw Austria bully Prussia out of the Erfurt Union (an obvious humiliation for Prussia) and the war of Crimea convinced Russia that Austria was not a reliable ally.
In the end Bismarck had to choose an ally, and favored Austria over Russia (certainly not out of misplaced ethnic sympathy but rather because Austria could never be a serious rival for German ambitions, while Russia was huge, populous and a potential rival in a more or less distant future).
It is true that in an ATL where Bismarck chooses Russia, Germany can better influence the rate of Russian development but at a same time a Russia which becomes disenchanted with the benefits of the alliance and chooses to terminate it at some point might be a big problem with no easy solution.
From the POV of the French government Russia is certainly the best possible ally, if not tied into the German alliance system (Great Britain would be an even better choice but there is no way I see for a Franco-British alliance after the Congress of Berlin and 1900. France and Great Britain will certainly cooperate on many issues, but the British government will not given France the boon of a defensive alliance aimed against Germany - IOTL even in July 1914 Grey never pronounced the magic words which might potentially stop the spiral of ultimatums, mobilizations and counter-mobilizations across Europe). Russia was willing to give this guarantee with the added bonus of lucrative French loans for the infrastructures that Russia desperately needed.

If Russia is allied with Germany, France has a problem: the potential partners are Austria and Italy, neither of them satisfactory under many aspects. Theoretically having both of them as allies would be better than having one or the other; I'm however convinced that the mistrust and bickering between Austria and Italy while they were both in the OTL Triple Alliance would prove even worse in this ATL (and from a financial POV loans to Austria and Italy would be less lucrative than loans to Russia).

An alliance between France and Germany is certainly an utopia: the war of 1870-71 left a lot of bad blood. The only possible scenario for such an alliance might be the survival of the 2nd Empire in a weakened form (say Napoleon III goes to Paris rather than following MacMahon to the defeat of Sedan, there is a quick and less painful peace treaty and Bismarck follows his instinct to prop up the Bonaparte regime rather than risk a republic on the German border). Very hard to manage, though.

Last consideration: the Ottomans' bugbear is Russia. If Russia is allied with Germany, it will be in the interest of France and Great Britain to prop them up to keep the Russian bear locked in the Black sea and it will be very difficult for Germany to enter as a commercial partner.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
True - the only potential path, and even it is doubtful,

Even Bismarck was unable to keep together Austria, Russia and Germany.

True - the only potential path, and even it is doubtful, is the Austrian sphere is limited to the non-slavic half of the Balkans (Slovenia to Bosnia, today; perhaps Montenegro and Albania) while the Russian sphere is limited to the "slavic" side (Romania, Bulgaria, and Serbia today).

Hungary is a sticking point, of course; perhaps independence as a buffer state ... or just let the Russians and Austrians divvy it up, with all the subsequent opposition from the Hungarians. It worked (more or less) for the empires when it came to Poland - at least for a while.

The above is very rough, of course; lots of enclaves and potential problems, but at least in terms of religion and perceived "ethnicity" it tracks (somewhat); plus it gives both powers enough "local" problems, they probably can't devote anytime to confronting each other.

It also gives the Russians a way to focus on the Straits and Anatolia for their future ambitions, away from Central/Eastern/Southeastern Europe, and (presmably) gives the Austrians more than enough territory and people to govern.

Ottomans/Turks/etc will be in search of firm allies (or will be focused on Anatolia), which opens up some diversions for the Italians and French - even the British, of course.

The Germans may look elsewhere, of course.

Best,
 
True - the only potential path, and even it is doubtful, is the Austrian sphere is limited to the non-slavic half of the Balkans (Slovenia to Bosnia, today; perhaps Montenegro and Albania) while the Russian sphere is limited to the "slavic" side (Romania, Bulgaria, and Serbia today).

Nice try, but Serbia is still an Austrian client at the time of the congress of Berlin (the solution you propose was adopted OTL, with the exception of Serbia which remained Austrian-aligned), Romania is independent and pro-Russian, Bulgaria is not independent and (nominally at least) pro-Russia, and the Ottomans own the rest of the Balkans with the exception of Greece.

Not only I would be very surprised if Austrian pride (and prejudice :D) would allow them to accept such a solution but even if they did it would open the door to Serbian irredentism not only over "Serbian" Bosnia but also on the areas inhabited by Serbians in the Austrian empire (and Kosovo, Macedonia, Scutari or Valona to have access to the Adriatic in the Ottoman empire).

It would not do any good to Austro-Russian relations, as a matter of fact it would make a war in the Balkans more likely to happen much earlier than OTL. If Russia supports Serbians, Rumenians and Bulgarians against the Ottomans (and it is quite obvious they'll do it) the Austrians will support the Ottomans (as they did). The likelihood of some incident is extreme, and the Drei Kaiser Bund will not survive (or maybe not even be born).

It may sound funny, but the only way I see to avoid OTL troubles and instability in the Balkans might be to preserve the integrity - at least nominal - of the Ottoman empire (no independence for Serbia, no Bosnia for Austria, maybe not even a kingdom of Romania, the only bone tossed to the Russians the principality of Bulgaria), and this solution must be guaranteed and enforced by the Powers. I don't think it politically possible (Russia would scream and Austria would sulk, not to mention the reaction of the public opinion in Europe) but a triumvirate of Germany, France and Great Britain (maybe with the participation of Italy too) might enforce the status quo in the Balkans and possibly even guarantee the European borders. Why Germany should accept such a solution is debatable (and the same applies to France and UK too), but looking back with 20/29 hindsight it would be a great coup.
 
Last edited:
True - the only potential path, and even it is doubtful, is the Austrian sphere is limited to the non-slavic half of the Balkans (Slovenia to Bosnia, today; perhaps Montenegro and Albania) while the Russian sphere is limited to the "slavic" side (Romania, Bulgaria, and Serbia today).

Best,

You've got that almost completely backwards :p

Slovenes, Croats, Bosnians are all South Slavs, while the Romanians aren't even slavic at all. Did you mean Orthodox vs. Non-Orthodox? Because then it makes sense, with the Western Balkans being Catholic/Muslim and Serbia eastwards being Greek Rite.
 
Top