The Severest Justice

Good updates.

Waiting for more...:D

Oh! Now this is a glorious POD. And very in-depth so far.

An early Grant Presidency. So,. is it 1866-1870 terms, or is it December 1865-December 1869?

EDIT: oh wait, sorry, found it:


Ok, the former it is then.

Thanks for your support! Yes, his first and perhaps only term is from 1866-1870.

BTW, where's footnote 15 in Chapter 2?

Oh shoot. I must have deleted it while editing 14. I'll add it in a sec.

EDIT: Done.

Hi, this is a nice promising little Reconstruction TL you got here. I do, however, have a few small comments and questions (and criticisms) for you:

1. Why, exactly, would conservatism, as a whole, at least, be called "liberalism" here(unless there's some deeper context not spelled out here)? It just doesn't make any real sense, to be truthful; I mean, sure, there are a few people IOTL who do actually call conservatism "liberal"(usually wacko Ron Paul "Libertarian" types), but even in our reality they are rather on the fringes, and for good reason(including, for one, that social conservatives, overall, have *never* been inclined towards "liberalism" even in the most classical sense). I would honestly suggest, for at least the sake of lack of confusion, if not plausibility as well, that you just leave the basic terms as they are OTL.

The Liberal Republicans were a moderate, if not conservative, party based upon opposition to Reconstruction. Liberalism was used in this era to mean moderatism, but the undeniably conservative Democrats were supporters of the Liberal Party. Therein lies the meaning of "liberalism" described.

In addition, Northerners opposed to radical Reconstruction used the label.

2. Where did you find the term "colour-phobic"? No critique here, but I am genuinely curious, as I've never heard this term before, and I've done a fair bit of reading on the Civil War + Reconstruction myself.

It was used in the Reconstruction era (with American spelling, of course) against Democrats. For instance, look at this article from OTL reconstruction

The Atlantic Monthly said:
It must, indeed, be owned that our author has apparently reverted to an amount of colorphobia which must cheer the hearts of the Hibernian portion of his co-religionists.

On another note, it's interesting how the writer is accusing someone of being racist while calling all Catholics evil.

3. I did have a chuckle at the "one cannot wet a river" footnote. Someone might want to sig that. ;)

It's a good analogy. Lincoln's death shocked the North so much it could not be shocked any further by any more deaths.

0

[/QUOTE]

Yeah, that's certainly a conservative "Liberal Party".

[quote="CaliBoy1990, post: 11811044"]Yes, but I'm talking in a *specific American context*, however, [U]and not just in terms of economics, but *everything*, [B]social/civic aspects included[/B][/U]. Using liberalism for a rightist *economic* context is alright, sure, but one does runs into serious issues when trying to extend the term to include *social* conservatism as well, which, again, hasn't ever embraced "liberal" anything, in that particular regard.

(and, from what I recall, the Liberal Party in Australia wasn't supposed to be so much of a particularly *socially* conservative party, rather more of an economically right-wing "Free Trade" type party.)[/QUOTE]

Economic conservatives will attract general conservatives, as the Australian Liberal Party has shown. Without wanting to spoil anything, I will say a similar process is at play.

[quote="Danderns, post: 11811118"]*Liberalism doesn't have to mean modern American conservatism exactly.[/QUOTE]

[quote="CaliBoy1990, post: 11811179"]Perhaps, but I guess it would help if fjihr could clarify things a bit, if he so chooses, at least.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, I'm not sure exactly what *liberalism should mean. I'll think of it when it comes time to reveal it.
 
Last edited:
On another note, it's interesting how the writer is accusing someone of being racist while calling all Catholics evil.


It's very interesting to study the Thomas Nast cartoons in Harper's Weekly, with particular attention to the portrayal of Irishmen. These are commonly shown as thuggish and simian in appearance, at times recalling (to modern eyes) the portrayal of Jews in Der Sturmer and similar publications.

The Republicans may have been "anti racist" as far as negroes were concerned, but were themselves capable of the crudest racism toward ethnic minorities who voted Democratic.
 
Sadly I miss most timelines in pre-1900 forum, but by chance I started reading this.


Most interesting reading, and hence, subscribed! :)
 
Chapter 3
I cannot accept your canon that we are to judge Pope and King unlike other men, with a favorable presumption that they did no wrong. If there is any presumption it is the other way against holders of power, increasing as the power increases. Historic responsibility has to make up for the want of legal responsibility. Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority: still more when you superadd the tendency or the certainty of corruption by authority. There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it.
From: “The Unification of Germany” by Elizabeth Wyndham (1980)

The great emergence of Prussia and its formation of Germany was unexpected. Although Prussia unifying Germany was not totally unexpected, it came as a surprise how quickly it came. The story of its unification by a conservative and militaristic power begins with the appointment of Bismarck as Prime Minister of the Kingdom of Prussia[1] by the reactionary King Wilhelm I, who was opposed to the increasingly liberal Prussian Diet and caused a constitutional crisis when he refused the budget proposed by the Diet.

Although Prime Minister Bismarck was initially distrusted by King Wilhelm, Bismarck was a master manipulator as he proved many times in his lifetime and was able to use his gift to his advantage, gaining a powerful hold of the king that gained him enemies all over the political spectrum. When the Diet decided it could no longer tolerate Bismarck’s policies, when attempting to remove him, it was dissolved by King Wilhelm. Despite the landslide victory of the leftist Progress Party, Wilhelm nevertheless resisted calls to dismiss Prime Minister Bismarck.

In the “Iron and Blood” speech, best captured by the excerpt below, Bismarck unveiled his goals of unifying Germany in a militaristic way rather than the methods espoused by the liberals in 1848: “Prussia must concentrate and maintain its power for the favourable moment which has already slipped by several times. Prussia's boundaries according to the Vienna treaties are not favourable to a healthy state life. The great questions of the time will not be resolved by speeches and majority decisions—that was the great mistake of 1848 and 1849—but by iron and blood.” This speech was ignored by most politicians in this era as being little more than rhetoric. Of course, this would prove to be a mistake that led to the downfall of empires…

The Second Danish-German War[2] in 1864 demonstrated to the world the power of ethno-nationalism. Erupting due to the conflict of whether or not the Duchy of Schleswig (the southern portion of the Jutland Peninsula) was to be annexed by Denmark. Austria and Germany, both on the same side of the conflict, won this brief war and Prussia gained control over Schleswig and Holstein while Austria gained control over Lauenburg. Prime Minister Bismarck was given the title of “Count” for expanding Prussian control over more territory. At this point, Prussia and Austria both vied for influence over the various German states, a situation that would soon come with the eruption of war between the two nations.

From: “Encyclopaedia of the Nineteenth Century” by Zachary Wells (2003)

GERMAN UNIFICATION WAR: A war in 1866 between a variety of European states of an alliance including Prussia, a variety of other German states, and Italy (in the Eastern Front) and an alliance including the German Confederation led by Austria (in the Eastern Front) and France (as part of the Western Front) that culminated with the proclamation of the German Empire. The war is widely considered to consist of two fronts: The Eastern Front, consisting of the battle between the Prusso-Italian alliance and the German Confederation and the Western Front, consisting of battle between Prussia (and other German states) and France. Today, some historians believe that this was not one war, but two wars – the Austro-Prussian War and the Franco-Prussian War. This is largely because Austria surrendered a few weeks after the arrival of France in the war.

The war was caused by a variety of reasons in the long run including most notably German ethno-nationalism, but a certain short-term cause was the desire of Bismarck to unify Germany under Prussian leadership. The difference between the two powers cannot be understated. While Prussia, having been termed “an army with a country” by Voltaire long ago, had an incredibly strong military, stronger than any nation in the nearby vicinity, as this war proved. Its recent military reforms by general-in-chief Helmuth Karl Bernard von Moltke proved to be successful beyond the wildest dreams of the Kaiser and of Bismarck.

Following a string of Prussian victories that culminated in the decisive Battle of Sadowa[3], a number of German states surrendered to Prussia, Austria seemed to be close to defeat. In its wake, large crowds of protestors chanted “Revanche pour Sadowa”, meaning “Revenge for Sadowa”, events that foreshadowed the irredentism that defined France in the wake of the War. The Emperor of France, Napoleon III, decided that an expansion of Prussian power was a threat to French power (which it most certainly was) and, as he was an absolute monarch, declared war on Prussia the eighth of July…

From: “The Rise and Ascent of Germany” by Helmut Kohl (1992)

Napoleon III was repetitively advised not to declare war on Prussia so soon after his defeat in Mexico[4]. Nevertheless, his absolute power meant he was able to declare war despite the idiocy of this declaration that went against the advice of his advisors, a move that remains a token demonstration of how power has a tendency to corrupt. France never had any wonder weapon and its military was weary in the wake of On the other hand, Prussia had a strong military and strong diplomacy accomplished by the efforts of General Helmuth von Moltke and Prime Minister Otto von Bismarck. Although it surprised many in this era that Prussia was able to defeat two military powers at once, to virtually every historian who looks back at this with hindsight, this was obvious. France had ineffective leadership, while Prussia’s was very effective. It was this that made the German Unification War such a rapid war.

Nevertheless, the French entry into the war scared many in Prussia and led to the collapse of peace talks with Austria for the time being. Kaiser Wilhelm I was angry at Bismarck for allowing for such an intervention to occur. Although this (very much righteous-felt) anger faded away, at the time dismissal was even considered, a possibility that was quickly dismissed as it was remembered that the liberals would win control over the Diet if such a situation occurred. It was this and only this that kept Bismarck’s position secure. Wilhelm and Bismarck, not wanting to surrender, decided a military plan would have to be created. This was how the the famous Moltke Plan was birthed…

From: “The Book of Military Strategies” by Otto Wels (2011)

MOLTKE PLAN: A plan created by General Helmuth von Moltke in reaction to the entry of France into the German Unification War and the collapse of peace talks with Austria in its wake. With Bismarck realizing creating a peace beneficial to Prussia was slowly becoming impossible, victory hinged upon the military. General Moltke created a plan in which the French would be kept at bay by a part of the Prussian reserve army (which had equal size to the active army), while the other forces were to attack Austria as quickly as possible so as to force its surrender. Once this was accomplished, these troops would then attack France with full force, by which point the conflict would be much easier to win.

The resounding success of the Moltke Plan led to it becoming the model for the German war plan in the Great War…

From: “Encyclopaedia of the Nineteenth Century” by Helmut Kohl (1992)

BATTLE OF STOMFA[5]: A battle between Austria and Prussia during the German Unification War. With peace talks between Austria and Prussia having collapsed in the wake of the entry of France into the war, the Moltke Plan required a resounding defeat to occur to convince the Austrians to surrender. It ultimately ended with a grand victory for the Prussians. This victory convinced Austria to sign a peace with Prussia, one that was far less harsh than the Austrians feared[6]…

From: “War in Europe” by Bernard Sanderson (1999)

The Battle of Froeshwiller[7] was the first battle of the Western Front. Occurring in Lorraine along the Franco-Prussian border, despite being extremely minor, the battle had important effects on the entire war effort. The outcome of the battle foreshadowed the outcome of the war. With the Prussians easily outnumbering the French by many thousand, the battle ended with the Prussian capture of the city and a continued Prussian advance, an advance which would culminate in the capture of Paris…

From: “Encyclopaedia of the Nineteenth Century” by Helmut Kohl (1992)

SIEGE OF STRASSBURG[8]: A major battle in the Western Front of the German Unification War. In the wake of multiple French defeats, Prussia was able to slowly advance into Lorraine. However, one notable town remained in French hands – Strassburg. To that end, Emperor Friedrich III, then Crown Prince Friedrich, ordered troops to capture it. On the twenty-third of July, the city was first under siege by Prussian troops. Rather than a protracted siege of starvation, the Prussians decided to bombard the city into submission. With the Prussians significantly outnumbering the French troops in charge of the city, with most civilians having been evacuated during the early days of the siege, on the twentieth of August, when it was evident that the French were too busy training troops to use the newly invented Chassepot rifles to provide men to help break the siege, the French troops within the town surrendered what remained of it to Prussia.

This bloody battle marked the continued Prussian ascendance and substantially lowered morale. In many regards, it was also much like the Siege of Verdun, except at a far smaller scale. It also marks the end of the phase of the conflict prior to the introduction of the Chassepot rifle…

“Superiority: An Essay on our War with Prussia” by Philippe Durand (1915)[9]

Today, when asked what led to the great chaos of France in recent times, one conflict is pointed to by historians and schoolchildren alike. This conflict is, of course, the Prussian War[10] – more specifically, the Western Front, the front that led to our great humiliation at the hands of the barbaric Prussians and forced us into an era of civil war. The reason why we lost so resoundingly was not because, as others have said, because our military was inferior or that they had excellent generals, far better than “our over-cautious ones”. We were defeated by one thing only – by the inferior weapons of our enemy. I repeat – by the inferior weapons of our enemy.

When the war opened, we had no doubt of our ultimate victory. We were allied with our fellow great power, the Austrian Empire, and Prussia, being a minor power that was easily crushed by the bloody and inefficient regime that was Revolutionary France a century ago, had in effect already lost. However, our overconfidence led to some unexpected minor setbacks in Lorraine after Austria unexpectedly was resoundingly defeated again at Stomfa and dropped out of the war, as demonstrated in the Siege of Strasbourg and Prussia coming close to capturing the important city. This came to a surprise. Our overconfidence was eliminated and replaced with minor shock of the rapid capture of a minor border town. We needed a weapon to win this war more quickly.

Enter Monsieur Chassepot. He recently developed his eponymous rifle[11]. Demonstrating it to Emperor Napoleon – the idiot, not the Jacobin – he amazed him. It had more accuracy and – most importantly – had a range two times that of the needle rifle. This last point especially amazed him and his advisors. It was believed it could end the war far quicker than before – and with more glory, too. He convinced the Emperor and his advisors that the reason we were not winning the war as quickly as before was because our weapon design was stubbornly conservative. To that end, they ordered the production of a large amount of Chassepot rifles. This resulted in a major decline in war offensives. Our army continued to be pushed out of our rightful lands in Lorraine as production of Chassepots led to fewer ordinary rifles being provided to our men leading to a stalling of military offensives, especially required to dislodge the occupying Prussian forces from Lorraine.

However, the situation slowly began to become dire. Advancing northward from Lorraine, encountering very little resistance, as we were too busy being trained to use Chassepots, the Prussians were able to put the city of Verdun[12] – an extremely important city, as it was along the path to Paris – under siege. If it were to be lost, the Prussians would gain a clear path to Paris, a possibility that scared many Frenchmen, nationalist and communard. With a large number of French battalions armed with Chassepots attempting to converge on the sieging Prussians and liberate it, a number of things went wrong. The hastily designed and manufactured nature of the rifles meant that many of them got jammed due to both unrefined design and bad construction and others simply fell apart.

There were also fewer of them than we had needed to make as it also took time to teach the factories how to produce them. If we had more time, we certainly could have done a better situation… but in a war situation that was increasingly growing direr, we did not. While we were creating our superior Chassepots, the Prussians were sending more men to break the siege. This was unexpected, as it was believed that its army could not get much larger. But, as the radical author Voltaire once said long ago, “Prussia is an army with a country”. We saw a totally unexpected, crushing, and demoralizing defeat at Verdun.

With that, by the December of 1866, the Prussians captured Paris and declared the unification of the “German Empire” after annexing our rightful lands in Lorraine. It was unexpected by everyone, even by Prime Minister Bismarck and General Moltke, that Prussia reached Paris, and did so before Christmas, but because we chose to use a rifle not yet optimized for war, we were defeated by a military indisputably inferior to ours. In the wake of our humiliating defeat, we were thrust into an era of civil war, as radicals, communards, Orleanists, Bonapartists, and proud Frenchmen fought for control over France. Naturally, the most virtuous side was victorious.

Now, before it was obsolete, the Chassepot was a good rifle and worked well in our successful attempts to civilize the African peoples, but we attempted to use it too early before it was a right time to do so. When the glass peace[13] between the two great alliances of the world shatters – and it will shatter – we must remember that superior and unorthodox weaponry does not ensure victory. We must focus not on producing new weaponry that have unforeseen consequences, but we must refine what we already have and make more of it than what the enemy – most likely the Germans – have. If we do this, we will be able to march to Berlin like how the Prussians marched into Paris – and will extract vengeance – the severest justice possible – and regain our honour, and we will do this before the Christmas of that year!

From: “Encyclopaedia of the Nineteenth Century” by Helmut Kohl (1992)

SIEGE OF VERDUN: A battle between Prussia and France on the eleventh of September. During the shift of French weapons policy to the Chassepot, the Prussians were able to advance scarcely hindered, seeing victory after victory as the French were too busy training their men to use Chassepots. The great range of the rifle and its many other advantages over the needle rifle led to French morale, hurt after the great Prussian victory in Strassburg, improving heavily. Despite a few jamming errors here and there and the fact that the rifles were made of low-quality metal as they had to be rushed through production, they seemed to be excellent, especially for a future battle. Prussia was able to advance northward to the city of Verdun, where the Chassepot-carrying Frenchmen were ready to meet the Prussians, directly led by Crown Prince Friedrich.

However, as the battle began, it was apparent the French were overconfident about the battle. The Chassepots were not the miracle weapons the French believed them to be. Although it did indeed inflict heavy casualties on the Prussians, it was not to the extent hoped by the soldiers and the government. They were quickly forced into the nearby city of Verdun (with most civilians being evacuated at this time), where, largely due to hasty design, many Chassepots got jammed and others, due to the cheap materials used in their construction, fell apart due to extended use. The continued Prussian bombardment of the city led to major casualties, as the 100,000-large French force (still smaller than the Prussian one) was slowly being gutted away. With Crown Prince Friedrich ordering the city to be bombarded to avoid a long siege, French morale continued to lessen as more and more Chassepots failed to work. Finally, on the twenty-third of September, France surrendered what remained of Verdun[14] to Prussia.

The sheer size of this battle demonstrates how involved the two powers were in this great conflict. The civilian casualties of this conflict came to a shock to virtually everyone; no one was expecting 20,000 non-combatants to die in the whole war, much less one single battle. With it being hard to justify destroying the destruction of aa once wondrous and beautiful city, this battle brought the futility of war to the masses, although, as the Great War, showed, not to a large enough extent. With both sides having around one hundred thousand people fighting in this battle, it demonstrates the magnitude of the conflict like no other battle does. The failure of the Chassepot also remains to this day an argument for weaponry conservatism, especially during the war, and how having superior weaponry does not mean that side will win battles. The battle also marked the end of the Second Empire…

From: “War in Europe” by Bernard Sanderson (1999)

In the wake of the great French defeat at Verdun, protests against the Second Empire emerged. With a devastating defeat rather than the resounding the government said would happen, there were mutinies within the army and the chants outside of the Tuileries Palace turned from pro-war to anti-war [15]. It came to no surprise that one night (the sixteenth of September), Emperor Napoleon III chose to flee from the Palace with General Louis Trochu in a scene that, ironically, was reminiscent of the flight of Louis XVI during the First French Revolution.

However, Trochu was secretly resentful of Napoleon III, a man who he saw as incompetent (for good reason). To that end, while they were fleeing, Trochu arrested Napoleon at gunpoint and took him as prisoner. Taking control of the government alongside other resentful soldiers, what is today known as the National Emergency Government, led by General Trochu, was formed to lead the French forces in the concurrent war. Naturally, this decision angered many who believed the war should come to an end…

From: “Encyclopaedia of the Nineteenth Century” by Helmut Kohl (1992)

SIEGE OF PARIS: With confusion over the regime change in place and soldiers divided between being pro- or anti-war, the Prussians were able to win a string of battles that led to them venturing ever northward, capturing places such as Versailles[16]. On the third of December, they met demoralized French forces just outside Paris. Wanting the war to end before Christmas, General Moltke forwarded direct orders to Crown Prince Friedrich. With the (French) President of the National Emergency Government, Louis Trochu determined to keep Prussia from capturing Paris in a defeat he knew would lead to the unravelling of the National Emergency Government, he ordered the National Guard as well as army regulars to attack the invading Prussians head on.

Together, they made up 240,000 men. They were slightly overshadowed by the 250,000 Prussians, who were tempted to bring in reserves to this battle in a wish to keep this war from getting any longer but decided not to as it was feared it would ruin their advantage of having an army made up of regulars[17].

These vastly powerful armies met in battle. However, with Prussia having a better-trained and a more unified army and one with vastly better morale, the French were slowly pushed back to Paris. Despite the Chassepots having been officially replaced by needle rifles, many still remained in the hands of militiamen who were attracted to its perceived advantages. These militiamen were quickly swept away, the vast majorities of their rifles failing in one way or another and others defeated due to their lack of good training. With their numbers reduced and the French increasingly being pushed into the walls of the city, the battle began to more closely resemble a siege, with Prussia having the upper hand over what remained of the French. The desperate French army led students to man the fortifications[18]. The battle became a siege.

On the twentieth of December[19], President Trochu surrendered to the resoundingly victorious Prussians. The Treaty of Versailles was signed a few days later…

From: “War in Europe” by Bernard Sanderson (1999)

The Treaty of Versailles, signed on the twenty-third of December of 1866, the day prior to Christmas Eve, ended the state of war between France and Prussia and proclaimed the creation of the German Empire, with Wilhelm I as its emperor (Kaiser) and Otto von Bismarck as Imperial Prime Minister (Reichministerpräsident)[20]. France was forced to pay reparations and to cede Lorraine to Germany[21]. These reparations and this cession were directly responsible for the tensions in France during the Winter of Discontent. Perhaps more importantly, the German Empire was proclaimed. It did not include Austria, Luxembourg, Bavaria, Württemberg, Baden, or Hesse[22], but it did include the rest of the German-speaking lands of Europe, that is, what was once known as northern Germany.

The hefty reparations France had to pay led to an increase of taxes, which led to substantial anti-government resent, which played a role in initiating the Winter of Discontent[23]. Above all, this conflict shattered the balance created in the Congress of Vienna. Many nations was scared of Prussia, a nation that proved itself to defeat two great powers at once and the world would never be the same…

________________

[1] IOTL, this position is known as “Minister-President”. Although the German word is the same, in English the term is known as “Prime Minister”, which means the exact same thing as “Minister-President”.
[2] The Second Schleswig War is named as such ITTL.
[3] Known as the Battle of Konnigratz IOTL.
[4] IOTL, the Franco-Prussian War was not considered to be a faux pas by his advisors. This is because the fading away of the memories of the Mexican intervention have not faded away yet and most importantly the Chassepot, a rifle superior to the needle rifles used by the Prussians (but with its superiority over-estimated) has not been invented yet.
[5] IOTL, Stomfa was captured by the Prussians without a fight during the final days of the Austro-Prussian War.
[6] Less harsh than IOTL. This is largely because Bismarck wanted to end the war quickly, so rather than OTL’s treaty that allowed Prussia to directly exclude Austria from a future Germany and annex a number of states like Hanover, this exclusion is implied and Prussia has only gained hegemony over those German states.
[7] A battle occurred at Froeshwiller IOTL. The first battle of any Franco-Prussian conflict will probably
[8] Known as Strasbourg IOTL.
[9] Note: This is a biased text, made by a nationalistic and reactionary Frenchman ITTL.
Second Note: This passage has been inspired by the short story “Superiority” by Arthur C. Clarke.
[10] This author is obviously somewhat nationalistic, so he has named the German Unification War the “German War” to imply that Germany is the aggressor.
[11] The Chassepot was invented slightly earlier than IOTL because the defeats in the Western Front convinced Mr. Chassepot to rush its invention.
[12] IOTL, Prussia captured Verdun during the Franco-Prussian War in the wake of the Battle of Gravelotte.
[13] A term analogous to “cold war”. This term exists because a “glass peace” is seen as so delicate it can be shattered by any small event.
[14] Verdun is not as totally and utterly in ruins as it was IOTL in the wake of the First World War.
[15] Rather similar to the effects of the Battle of Sedan in the Franco-Prussian War.
[16] This is all very similar to OTL’s Franco-Prussian War.
[17] This battle is actually smaller than IOTL, in which France had 200,000 regulars and 200,000 militia men and Prussia had 240,000 regulars
[18] As OTL.
[19] Much shorter than IOTL, due to the weakened nature of France due to the alternate nature of this war
[20] Unlike IOTL, in which he was known as Imperial Chancellor (Reichkanzler).
[21] Unlike IOTL, in which France had to secede Alsace and Lorraine (or Alsace-Lorraine, as many called it).
[22] Essentially, it is OTL Germany without its southern portion, its absence being a result of the alternate situation of its declaration leading France to be widely seen as an ally of the southern German states rather than a potential invader as IOTL.
[23] As what happened in the Franco-Prussian War IOTL.
 
Gotta say that I really like what you've written so far, and you've got yourself a new sub.

Interesting little essay concerning the state of the French military and their weaponry. More importantly, it seems that the alliance system that dominated the late 19th and early 20th century is right on schedule. But with the defeat of both the French and the Austrians during the German Unification War, how does that change the OTL alliance systems?

Is Bismarck going to attempt to create the League of the Three Emperors? Especially with a more hostile France and a potentially more hostile Austria?
 
So the German Empire is pretty much the North German Confederation?

Yep. However, its internal borders are different, as Prussia still has its pre-1866 borders, so states like Hanover still exist.

Loving this.

Thanks.

Gotta say that I really like what you've written so far, and you've got yourself a new sub.

Interesting little essay concerning the state of the French military and their weaponry. More importantly, it seems that the alliance system that dominated the late 19th and early 20th century is right on schedule. But with the defeat of both the French and the Austrians during the German Unification War, how does that change the OTL alliance systems?

Is Bismarck going to attempt to create the League of the Three Emperors? Especially with a more hostile France and a potentially more hostile Austria?

Perhaps. I won't be telling what's happening, but the Great War is far in the future.
 
Wait, Alsace is mostly Germanic, but Lorraine is mostly french speaking (the Prussians didn't actually annex very much of it in otl).

I don't get it?
 
Wait, Alsace is mostly Germanic, but Lorraine is mostly french speaking (the Prussians didn't actually annex very much of it in otl).

I don't get it?

Alsace does not actually border Germany as the nation is smaller ITTL.

Germany only annexed the OTL portion of Lorraine.
 
Top