PC/WI: German-Italo-Russian alliance dismantle Austria in 1866

[El_Presidente]

So, for whatever reason Bismarck is convinced to annex the german parts of Austria into Germany (maybe the king forces him to accept it or something, it really doesn't matter). To prevent rhe backlash that surely would come from neighboring nations if such thing happened, he tries to involve as many of them as he can. With this in mind, he:

• Promises to Russia Galicia, Bukowina, Krakow and a (more or less) joint control of an "independent" Kingdom of Hungary, with russian-influenced duchies in Slovakia. Also promises support against any possible future war agains the Turks.
• Promises to Italy the Veneto (which they already occupied), Dalmatia and support against France regarding former italian Savoy and Tunisia.

At least at first glance this alliance is a win-win for everybody.
Russia would gain a buffer and ally agains the British for in case anything in Central Asia goes to hell. Also, she would lose his main enemy in the Balkans, gain acces to the Hungarian Plain and in a *San Stefano after the future war against the Turks (who couldn't hold agains Russia, much less against Russia-Italy-Germany) could extent his influence to the Agean and Constantinople.
Italy would win also. In a *Franco-Prussian war, Italy would probably get Savoy back and maybe even recognition of the sovereignity over Tunisia. Yes, she would lose Trento but she won Dalmatia to compensate that and, after the eventual dismantling of Turkey, maybe influence in Albania.
And lastly, Germany got the big prize. She gained control of Central Europe, annexing Austria and Bohemia-Moravia. She eliminated the possibility of a two-to-three front war, secured the Baltics (which, through influence over Denmark, were pretty much closed to anyone who Germany didn't want to get in and now that the only major power (apart of Sweden, which was AFAIK pro-German anyway) that has any presence in it is an allied one even more) and won the support of Russia (and Italy) against the eventual Franco-British (and maybe even Turkish) Entente.

So, the thing is:
Is this plausible at all? Even if not, which would be the Frenc/British/Turkish/etc reaction to such an alliance dismantling Austria?

 

[RyuDrago]

Point of the question, is how and why Bismarck and the Prussian establishment would go for the Grossdeutschland rather than the Kleindeutschland.

 

[El_Presidente]

Point of the question, is how and why Bismarck and the Prussian establishment would go for the Grossdeutschland rather than the Kleindeutschland.

Well, I said in the OP that the question is not why he wants it, rather what would happen when he allies with half of Europe to do it. But to answer the question, AFAIK Wilhelm I didn't share Bismarck's distaste for catholics, nor his reactionarism, being more or less on the liberal spectrum of things (at leasr, being more open to liberalism), and more or less suportive of the idea of Grossdeutschland.
The idea here is that Wilhelm I is more insistant on forming Grossdeutschland, forcing Bismarck's hand in including the Austrians in it; maybe he goes "Grossdeutschland or nothing" and Bismarck, though not supportive of the idea, accepts and does what he does best: securing Prussia's/Germany's interests.

 

[TimTurner]

How would the Brits react to the above scenario? Not all that well, I imagine (given the consequences this might have on their policy of dividing Continental interests), but they couldn't stop it.
"Minister, Britain has had the same foreign policy objective for at least the last five hundred years: to create a disunited Europe. In that cause we have fought with the Dutch against the Spanish, with the Germans against the French, with the French and Italians against the Germans, and with the French against the Germans and Italians. Divide and rule, you see. Why should we change now, when it's worked so well?" - Yes, Minister

 

[El_Presidente]

How would the Brits react to the above scenario? Not all that well, I imagine (given the consequences this might have on their policy of dividing Continental interests), but they couldn't stop it.
"Minister, Britain has had the same foreign policy objective for at least the last five hundred years: to create a disunited Europe. In that cause we have fought with the Dutch against the Spanish, with the Germans against the French, with the French and Italians against the Germans, and with the French against the Germans and Italians. Divide and rule, you see. Why should we change now, when it's worked so well?" - Yes, Minister

Yes, the Brits would not be happy, but what are they going to do? To defend Austria they would have to go to war against Russia, Italy and most of Germany, and french support is not a given, at least at first. Yes, they could try and go to war, but I don't think they would be succesful. So, what would they do?

 

[TimTurner]

Yes, the Brits would not be happy, but what are they going to do? To defend Austria they would have to go to war against Russia, Italy and most of Germany, and french support is not a given, at least at first. Yes, they could try and go to war, but I don't think they would be succesful. So, what would they do?

Nothing in the short run, that's for sure.

 

[Max Sinister]

The Croatians and Slovenians are Slavs too, and the Romanians in Transsylvania are orthodox. Russia's gonna claim those too.

 

[skarosianlifeform]

France and Britain will get closer (they had somewhat cordial relations under Napoleon III whichs helps too) and become allies. Then, next Russo-Turkish War sees Germany, Hungary, Greece and Italy joining on the Russian side, leading to more Turkish defeat and siege of Constantinople.

France and UK will likely try to contain Russia, and Bismarck will manage to negotiate an agreement, limiting Russian gains but more favorable than OTL (ie. Bulgaria is fully independent but the Turks get to keep Constantinople, the Straits and Eastern Thrace). Other than that, Ottoman territories in Europe are carved between Bulgaria, Serbia, Greece and Italy (Albania). Greece also gains Crete and Aegean Sea.

To placate Paris and London (and let them save face), Bismarck gives Cyprus, Egypt and Kuwait to Britain, and Lebanon to France. While Italy gets Tunisia and Libya.

Then, the Ottoman Empire drifts to the Anglo-French Entente, despite the sore spot of Cyprus and Lebanon.

Then at some point you get WWI between Entente (UK, France, Ottomans, Japan, and likely Belgium same as OTL) and Triple Alliance (Russia, Germany and Italy, with Hungary and other Balkan states following).

 

[Koprulu Mustafa Pasha]

I can only think about the horrors resulting of this...

Is Transylvania also Hungarian? Then the Romanians are pissed and won't likely allow Russians to move troops there. Other than I can't think of a good reason for Russia to support Catholic Hungary over Orthodox Romania...

Russia had an Orthodox Bulgaria to influence but they were not interested in Russia meddling with them. I doubt Hungary would like to work together too much.

And dismantling a large state as Austria is a catastrophic thing. It won't he forgotten for some decades. Hell it might even forget the rebellion in Herzegovina and Bulgaria.

 

[El_Presidente]

France and Britain will get closer (they had somewhat cordial relations under Napoleon III whichs helps too) and become allies. Then, next Russo-Turkish War sees Germany, Hungary, Greece and Italy joining on the Russian side, leading to more Turkish defeat and siege of Constantinople.

France and UK will likely try to contain Russia, and Bismarck will manage to negotiate an agreement, limiting Russian gains but more favorable than OTL (ie. Bulgaria is fully independent but the Turks get to keep Constantinople, the Straits and Eastern Thrace). Other than that, Ottoman territories in Europe are carved between Bulgaria, Serbia, Greece and Italy (Albania). Greece also gains Crete and Aegean Sea.

To placate Paris and London (and let them save face), Bismarck gives Cyprus, Egypt and Kuwait to Britain, and Lebanon to France. While Italy gets Tunisia and Libya.

Then, the Ottoman Empire drifts to the Anglo-French Entente, despite the sore spot of Cyprus and Lebanon.

Then at some point you get WWI between Entente (UK, France, Ottomans, Japan, and likely Belgium same as OTL) and Triple Alliance (Russia, Germany and Italy, with Hungary and other Balkan states following).

Would (and could) France and Great Britain intervene in favour of the Ottomans? Sort of like a Crimean War 2.0/WW1 0.5. What would result of that?

 

[Koprulu Mustafa Pasha]

So, for whatever reason Bismarck is convinced to annex the german parts of Austria into Germany (maybe the king forces him to accept it or something, it really doesn't matter). To prevent rhe backlash that surely would come from neighboring nations if such thing happened, he tries to involve as many of them as he can. With this in mind, he:

• Promises to Russia Galicia, Bukowina, Krakow and a (more or less) joint control of an "independent" Kingdom of Hungary, with russian-influenced duchies in Slovakia. Also promises support against any possible future war agains the Turks.
• Promises to Italy the Veneto (which they already occupied), Dalmatia and support against France regarding former italian Savoy and Tunisia.

At least at first glance this alliance is a win-win for everybody.
Russia would gain a buffer and ally agains the British for in case anything in Central Asia goes to hell. Also, she would lose his main enemy in the Balkans, gain acces to the Hungarian Plain and in a *San Stefano after the future war against the Turks (who couldn't hold agains Russia, much less against Russia-Italy-Germany) could extent his influence to the Agean and Constantinople.
Italy would win also. In a *Franco-Prussian war, Italy would probably get Savoy back and maybe even recognition of the sovereignity over Tunisia. Yes, she would lose Trento but she won Dalmatia to compensate that and, after the eventual dismantling of Turkey, maybe influence in Albania.
And lastly, Germany got the big prize. She gained control of Central Europe, annexing Austria and Bohemia-Moravia. She eliminated the possibility of a two-to-three front war, secured the Baltics (which, through influence over Denmark, were pretty much closed to anyone who Germany didn't want to get in and now that the only major power (apart of Sweden, which was AFAIK pro-German anyway) that has any presence in it is an allied one even more) and won the support of Russia (and Italy) against the eventual Franco-British (and maybe even Turkish) Entente.

So, the thing is:
Is this plausible at all? Even if not, which would be the Frenc/British/Turkish/etc reaction to such an alliance dismantling Austria?

Didn't see that... it is unlikely. Neither France would support it, nor the Ottomans, Nor Romania, not even Serbia. This places Russia in a difficult position among the Slavs and Eastern Orthodox. Can't even see Bismarck giving Russia more.

 

[Koprulu Mustafa Pasha]

Would (and could) France and Great Britain intervene in favour of the Ottomans? Sort of like a Crimean War 2.0/WW1 0.5. What would result of that?

No Franco-Prussian War would help. The British really depends on. The Straits are a red line.

 

[El_Presidente]

I can only think about the horrors resulting of this...

Is Transylvania also Hungarian? Then the Romanians are pissed and won't likely allow Russians to move troops there. Other than I can't think of a good reason for Russia to support Catholic Hungary over Orthodox Romania...

Russia had an Orthodox Bulgaria to influence but they were not interested in Russia meddling with them. I doubt Hungary would like to work together too much.

And dismantling a large state as Austria is a catastrophic thing. It won't he forgotten for some decades. Hell it might even forget the rebellion in Herzegovina and Bulgaria.

Well, regarding Transylvania yes, it would be Hungarian. All of pre-Trianon Hungary would remain in hungarian hands, except Dalmatia (to Italy), the german bits of western Hungary and Pressburg (to Germany) and Croatia (under joint influence of Italy and Germany, like Hungary itself with Russia and Germany). That would be nominal Hungary, with various nationalities theoretically under Hungarian control, but in truth listening to other powers (germans in Transylvania and Banat following orders from Berlin, Slovaks and Romanians listening to the Tsar and Budapest and the hungarians being controlled equally by the two parts).
Regarding Romania, at that time there was no Romania to give Transylvania to, there were the duchies of Wallachia and Moldova, which were under Ottoman suzerainity. Bulgaria at the time was a province of Turkey, and they are not in a position to choose if they want to listen to Russia or not; they would surely accept a Russian prince as a king, if that is what it takes to be free from Constantinople.

 

[TimTurner]

No Franco-Prussian War would help. The British really depends on. The Straits are a red line.

Yeah, dismantling Austria might be possible...taking the Straits is just biting off more than one can chew.

 

[Koprulu Mustafa Pasha]

Yeah, dismantling Austria might be possible...taking the Straits is just biting off more than one can chew.

It depends on what is important for the British. Having a Russian Navy close enough to threaten the future Suez Canal or preventing Austria to be dismantled. Both would be a red line in my opinion. To help Austria France must be a part on the Austrian side.

I hardly see this is possible to begin with.

 

[Tibi088]

I disagree. I think that the territorial exchange will go as you say however Hungary will remain entirely a german puppet likely under a Habsburg ruler. In exchange Russia will get free hand in the Balkans.

 

[El_Presidente]

No Franco-Prussian War would help. The British really depends on. The Straits are a red line.

Could those conflicts merge into a big one? Say, Great Britain abandons it's policy of non-commitment at the moment this block stretching from Genoa to Vladivostok appears, and allies with France. France though doesn't risk a war over Spain, and the NGF unifies Germany without A-L and Luxembourg. Later Russian ambitions on the Balkans clash with Turkish ones, and the Triple Alliance of Germany, Russia and Italy goes to war against the Turks. When the Straits seem to be about to fall in Russian hands (and the Russians refuse to accept an armistice) the British intervene, and France follows to remove the Savoy/Hohenzollern in the Spanish throne.
How would that develope?

 

[El_Presidente]

I disagree. I think that the territorial exchange will go as you say however Hungary will remain entirely a german puppet likely under a Habsburg ruler. In exchange Russia will get free hand in the Balkans.

What would Russia want in this scenario? Specifically, what would happen to Macedonia and Bosnia? Would Bosnia go to Serbia or remain independent (or partitioned with Croatia)? And Macedonia would go to Greece, Bulgaria or Serbia?

 

[Richthofen]

Regarding Romania, at that time there was no Romania to give Transylvania to, there were the duchies of Wallachia and Moldova, which were under Ottoman suzerainity.

Romania not only did exist in 1866, but it also got a Hohenzollern prince on the throne the very same year. A Romanian Transylvania is very much possible if the GPs decide Austria should be gone.

 

[El_Presidente]

It depends on what is important for the British. Having a Russian Navy close enough to threaten the future Suez Canal or preventing Austria to be dismantled. Both would be a red line in my opinion. To help Austria France must be a part on the Austrian side.

I hardly see this is possible to begin with.

But how would the British intervene? They are simply not capable to do so, at least not without France, and the french didn't intervene OTL against the Germans and Italians; I don't see them going to war against Russia too.