Russia intervenes on behalf of Hungary in 1848... and betrays the revolutionaries

Well, the way you've been framing the issue suggests that you expect international reactions to range from indifference to outright approval. I submit that even if those are the initial impressions, once the implications of this move set in, there would be more disapproval, and the Russians would be considered the aggressors in hindsight. This in turn will make Britain and France less tolerant of future assertive moves than they would have been IOTL, with all the potential for conflagration that entails.

France was going to start active participation in Piedmont's wars against Austria. There was no love lost between 2nd Republic and Austrian Empire and if Nicholas was a little bit more accommodating, he would manage to get along with Nappy #3 as well (the issue about the Holy Sites could be resolved to everyone's satisfaction).

Unhappiness of the Brits would be practically guaranteed no matter what Russia was doing so it could be safely ignored. What happens in an unidentified future is anybody's guess.
 
France was going to start active participation in Piedmont's wars against Austria. There was no love lost between 2nd Republic and Austrian Empire and if Nicholas was a little bit more accommodating, he would manage to get along with Nappy #3 as well (the issue about the Holy Sites could be resolved to everyone's satisfaction).

Unhappiness of the Brits would be practically guaranteed no matter what Russia was doing so it could be safely ignored. What happens in an unidentified future is anybody's guess.

Yes, but you seem to make no distinction between "fought a limited war with this country for limited territorial gains" and "will cheer their lungs out as all evidence of the rival civilization's existence is ground into dust." Countries in this period tended not to go to war to the knife. And for all you've said already about how nobody liked the Hapsburgs, much the same could be said about Russia with its expansionism, autocracy, secret police and serfdom. To see them violate a basic norm of international relations, that being how no matter how many wars you fight, you've still got to deal with the same neighbors tomorrow, isn't going to endear them to anyone. It may even lead to the Russians suffering a Carthaginian peace the next time they find themselves on the losing side of a war.
 
1848 - 9 was a time of "uncertainty", especially with France becoming a republic. By 1848 the Holy Alliance still existed mostly in Nicholas imagination and even then mostly because of his complete inability to grasp changing reality. Admittedly, in 1848 a proposed action would be slightly too "proactive" (even putting N's personality aside) but, OTOH, at the same time Piedmont was trying to reconquer Italian lands from Austria and few years later France helped it. The Crimean War also was "destruction of a balance" in Europe with which none of the big powers had any problems.

Of course there's uncertainty; there always was. But the goal was to keep it to a manageable level and to insure there wasn't the kind of radical swings in the geopolitical situation that could spiral into another series of costly, destructive, extended wars. Taking this or that province in a limited war was one thing: wholesale dismembering quite another. Hell, the Crimean War was more or less fought to maintain a situation in the east that wasn't conceding to Russian hegemony over half the continent.
 
Of course there's uncertainty; there always was. But the goal was to keep it to a manageable level and to insure there wasn't the kind of radical swings in the geopolitical situation

The goal was fine and lofty but it did not work well in France: you have to agree that a couple revolutions within less that 2 decades closely followed by a coup is not exactly a sign of stability, especially when we are talking about a major power like France. The attempts to kick Austria out of Italy also not exactly minor thing. So why would suddenly Hungary becomes a center of the European attention?


that could spiral into another series of costly, destructive, extended wars. Taking this or that province in a limited war was one thing: wholesale dismembering quite another.

But independence of Hungary would still leave Austria with a big part of its territory and population so your "principle" is more or less in an eye of a beholder. Belgian revolution of 1830 - 31 involved French support (70,000) against opposition of other powers and what? The Kingdom of Netherlands was "dismembered" while France in general and Louis Philippe specifically did not suffer any noticeable consequences. And the Netherlands were more closer to the center of the European affairs than a place on a wrong side of Austrian empire.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Even Palmerston thought Russia crushing the Hungarian revolution was a good thing, and he never wanted anything good for Russia.
 
Yes, but you seem to make no distinction between "fought a limited war with this country for limited territorial gains" and "will cheer their lungs out as all evidence of the rival civilization's existence is ground into dust."

Hungary was a quite civilized country and it retained most of its identity even under Hapsburgs rule. Even without it the Hapsburgs will retain huge territory so I don't quite understand that part about existence being ground into dust.


Countries in this period tended not to go to war to the knife. And for all you've said already about how nobody liked the Hapsburgs, much the same could be said about Russia with its expansionism, autocracy, secret police and serfdom.

All true (you may add that the French did not like the Brits, that the Brits did not like <a long list>, etc.). But what does this have to do with a subject? Hungary declares its independence and chooses a new king. Austria invades, Russia helps Hungary. The war ends and Russia returns to its borders or even gets Galicia (which very few people in Europe would be able to show on the map). Everybody is busy with their own problems. Why would the newly-created 2nd Republic protest reemergence of Hungary as a constitutional monarchy? Why would Prussia protest against it?

As for the future <whatever>, if everyone was concerned about a possibility that successful war may result in the retaliations in the case of a war lost at some point in a future, there would be no wars. Anyway, in 1848 Nicholas I would not seriously entertain a possibility of losing a war.
 
Well, it all depends upon the logic and principles alt-Nicholas is choosing at each specific moment. ;)

In this case he is opting for supporting the people who are legitimately revolting against the illegal usurpation of their rights by someone who is not even their legitimate ruler (using armies of their vassals to attack them). Of course, this would need a substantially different Nicholas I.



Yes, it would remove all existing issues regarding influence on the Danube and Austria would not be able to stab Russia in a back as it did in not too remote future.




And greeted by quite a few as well.



My friend, you are seemingly ignoring what I wrote in my previous post: it will be cheered in France and Piedmont and either openly or silently appreciated in Prussia.



Taking into an account that Austria was historically either impediment or an open obstacle to these "desires", I don't see any logic in this assumption.



So the Ottomans would disapprove but I don't think that in 1848 this would escalate to any noticeable action.

The only great power to cheer it is Prussia for well known reasons. Sardinia Piedmont is not a Great Power yet but would support is as well. All the way up to Trieste and Split can be theirs.

France will by no means cheer Austria's demise. By 1848 France and Russia are rivals over Jerusalem. Austria gone means Russia, another rival, has one less threat gone. You don't seem to know how foreign politics work. France wanting Austria out of Italy doesn't mean they should be destroyed. The power that kept both Prussia and Russia in check.

Like Jürgen said, Russia aggressively invading Austria taking Galicia from them means isolation in Europe. Even without destroying Austria Russia faced the UK and France in the Crimean War. Imagine what would happen if Russia wrecked Austria. It won't be the UK and France alone. So Russia declaring war on the Ottomans is either butterflied away or a new coalition since the Battle of Navarino against them.
 
The only great power to cheer it is Prussia for well known reasons. Sardinia Piedmont is not a Great Power yet but would support is as well. All the way up to Trieste and Split can be theirs.

France will by no means cheer Austria's demise. By 1848 France and Russia are rivals over Jerusalem.

But well before this "rivalry" (not sure how serious it was in 1848) will led to the Crimean War France was fighting Austria in Italy which should tell you something about the French priorities.

Austria gone

The premise above is 100% wrong: even with Hungary regaining its independence Austrian empire retains a huge territory with a big population and economic potential (Hungary was not the most developed part of it). Its status of the Great Power is not lost. Your further analysis is based upon a false assumption.
 
But well before this "rivalry" (not sure how serious it was in 1848) will led to the Crimean War France was fighting Austria in Italy which should tell you something about the French priorities.



The premise above is 100% wrong: even with Hungary regaining its independence Austrian empire retains a huge territory with a big population and economic potential (Hungary was not the most developed part of it). Its status of the Great Power is not lost. Your further analysis is based upon a false assumption.

Based upon all the lost manpower and revenue from the Kingdom of Hungary and Galicia. Economic potential won't save them from Prussia uniting Germany. Austria won't remain a Great Power without its borders on the Balkans and Italian Lands.

And you're once again forgetting about what I said. Being at war with Austria doesn't mean France wants Austria lose Hungary or Galicia to the Russians. War or not, Austria kept Prussia and Russia in check which worked out well up until 1866.
 
Based upon all the lost manpower and revenue from the Kingdom of Hungary and Galicia. Economic potential won't save them from Prussia uniting Germany. Austria won't remain a Great Power without its borders on the Balkans and Italian Lands.

Nothing personal but you are confusing too many things in just two sentences. :)

To start with, Prussia circa 1848 was NOT looking for unification of Germany because its king was fearing that within a greater Germany Prussia will be losing its independence. Then, I ca't figure out the logic following which Prussia, if it was intended at that time to unify Germany, would be against weakening of Austria, its main rival in the German-speaking lands. Third, following this logic everybody should be raising to the defense of 1st Austria and then France when Germany really started unification process because one hardly could imagine a greater challenge to the balance of powers in Europe. Somehow, this did not happen and Russia, specifically, was quite sympathetic to Prussia in both cases while France did nothing to prevent Austrian defeat by Prussia. Finally, independence of Hungary had absolutely nothing to do with the Austrian possessions in Italy lost of which did not remove Austria from the list of the Great Powers. Neither would independence of Hungary (without Serbia and Banat) eliminate Austrian "borders on the Balkans".

And you're once again forgetting about what I said. Being at war with Austria doesn't mean France wants Austria lose Hungary or Galicia to the Russians. War or not, Austria kept Prussia and Russia in check which worked out well up until 1866.

Austria would not lose Hungary to the Russians, Hungary in that scenario is independent constitutional monarchy. Nobody in Europe would care about Galicia (I don't think that a realistic scenario would include Russian occupation of all of it). Prussia in 1848 is not a threat to France and if the balance would be easily broken in 1866, there is no reason why this could not happen in 1848. Actually, 1848 would be even better because it was a time of the revolutions and France just had one of its own. Support of the Hungarian revolution by Nicholas would only improve his image in the liberal circles.
 
Top