If you are avoiding ethnic cleansing, should we then assume the decree against all "non-Christians" in the Empire makes an explicit exception for Jews?
If it doesn't--you've got the Shoah happening right there. Bad enough in Germany--but Reich territories include parts of Poland for instance.
The choices are conversion or death, are they not? Is exile a third option? If so, to where? The last thing imperial overlords making this declaration for purposes of unity and invidious aspersions against the Ottomans would want would be for Europe's Jews to move en masse to Turkey!
If there is an exception clause for Jews, then maybe the declaration would not strike the rest of the world (and even a lot of Germans and other humane people throughout the Empire) as outlandish and barbaric and ominous as all hell. It would definitely be reactionary. I guess that it is illegal to be an avowed atheist in the Empire? And you remark on how one kingdom can't try to convert another--but does this mean that a Protestant kingdom can or even must convert any Catholics who happen to live on their soil? I'd guess of course not... but I would wonder, is the Empire a bunch of zones where one sect or other of Christianity is"official" and everyone else, even if their sect rules back where they come from, has to sort of skulk around. So, Catholics visiting Hanover on business must sneak off to a secret Mass on Sunday, and face rude questions about why they weren't at Lutheran services, whereas Lutherans visiting say Baden must similarly find the hidden, out of sight Lutheran chapel. What do Protestant Germans do when they visit say Milan?
If Jews are not being persecuted, I suppose they have to sneak around everywhere they go. Do they live in ghettos? Or are they in fact banned, with some people having "converted" to save their lives, and living in constant fear someone will accuse them of having made a bad, insincere fake conversion and their being executed for it?
Basically while I had a number of skeptical questions and suspicions this union would be impossible, I was willing to roll with it until we got to:
To begin with, what a wonderfully Orwellian name that is! Evangelical Peace indeed! And the Inquisition is an expression of Christian love of course!
Now, any sect of Christianty--any at all, really? Society of Friends aka "Quakers," they are OK? Wesleyans aka "Methodists," no problem?
What about Latter Day Saints? It always boggles my mind when people suggest they aren't Christian, but lots of people do say that. Would they past muster in the Reich?
Mennonites? Hussites? Are all the little persecuted movements (not to mention the ones that were more or less briefly state religions such as Unitarianism in parts of Eastern Europe) recognized as Christian and left free to practice as they would, wherever they go in the Reich? Quite a few of the ones I listed might seem to only be present in English speaking lands, but certainly central Europe has plenty of domestic sectarians. Indeed the Baptists started there IIRC.
OK, the Act as described gives no latitude for either believers in clearly non-Christian traditions of any kind, or for atheists. As it stands, the Shoah has begun 70 years early, and I think you have your Coalition, your Great War, right then and there, and Imperial victory in it is equivalent to Nazi victory, as far as Europe's Jews are concerned at least..
It seems to me though you are not visualizing this, and have merely overlooked that a small but significant share of the population is Jewish, and if the AEP is not in fact mainly meant to exterminate them, it must mention them specifically as protected.
Now given the reality of Hitler and Naziism OTL, one cannot say that ideological extremism in the form of a reactionary crusade to reinstate Christianity is impossible. I do think that if the authoritarian and culturally monolithic tendencies this Act seems to exemplify are in the cards, still it is very very odd that such a movement would prevail when, where and in the form you have it happening here!
How for instance to reconcile the mutual conflict and suspicions of the two dominant churches of the Germanies, Lutheran and Catholic? I was going to bring up Bismarck's Kulturkampf as evidence that the mutual hostility between Catholic and Protestant was not quite a dead letter yet even in the late 19th century--how then can the northern German states consolidated into a southern-dominated polity accept Austrian hegemony? If the society were moving toward secularism, that might be one explanation--but clearly not, with such an Act. The trouble with adopting a state principle that "Christianity" shall be the universal norm, even if for the moment provision is made that different sects of it can co-exist in the Empire, is the mutual fear of various sects that another sect will take the next step and tighten the definition to mean their sect alone is legitimate. This is why the United States rejected establishment of religion at a Federal level even in the 1787 Constitution (or Bill of Rights, adopted as a condition of ratification set by crucial states). The states themselves could and technically still can establish a religion for themselves, but with the diversity of sects that were established it was plain that allowing a Federal establishment would lead to certain conflict.
The explanation you as author give that it was a cynical political tactic relating to designs on the Ottoman Empire only makes it more problematic.
How for instance can the Reich make Persia an ally? It was bad enough before reading that Act, since the European powers who actually have access to Persian borders would be as OTL, just Russia and Britain. There is nothing the Reich can do for Persia except perhaps declare war on one or both of them and then fight their way to make contact, so as to be able to materially aid their ally. With Russia instead an ally, the larger coalition can aid Persia against Britain--but on Russian terms primarily! Even if the Reich, at the time of impending global crisis of 1910, has good reason to claim dominance, and has by then indeed fought its way to physical contact with Iranian controlled territory (Persia reaches into OTL Iraq and the Reich claims the OTL territory of Jordan as part of the Kingdom of Jerusalem), still the Reich got there with Russian help presumably, and until that stage of Reich growth had been reached only Russia had contact with Persia. Persia might now prefer to appeal to the stronger power within the alliance, the Reich, to offset Russian dominance.
But how can they when first of all this discriminatory Act is on the books declaring any ambassador they may send to Vienna an unwelcome "heathen?" How can they with the example of a genocide you admit to happening next door in the Levant and indeed far inland toward Mesopotamia?
And I have to ask again--what about the European Jews?
It occurred to me you might have somehow forgotten about them, but I'm here to remind you. The Act, as presented to us with no fine print exemptions other than the very odd case of granting a dispensation to Shintoists who aren't even Abrahamic, for the sake of a political alliance, enacts the Shoah for Europe's Jews. It is a nasty legacy in dealing with desired potential conquests in the Islamic sphere at large.
It also signals extreme reaction in the context of 19th century European politics. The old order Napoleon overturned with his emancipation of Jews was not so extreme, outside of places like Spain, as to forbid Jews to hold to their old religion outright, though it did impose disabilities on them. Going back to that is reactionary enough; adopting a Crusader mentality and enforcing it with the power of a 19th century state is a profoundly disturbing and ominous move even in the context of the times. Today of course we recognize it as genocide.
This aspect cannot stand, unless you are prepared to defend a state quite as horrifying and ruthless as Hitler's, explain how it could arise to hold such sweeping territories, and accept that this Act if not something earlier will signal the start of general war, not in 1910 but in the 1870s at the latest. Even assuming the mere attempt to liquidate Judaism in Hapsburg-controlled Europe will not shatter the Reich before it can properly form, the refugees streaming out will surely both alarm and strengthen the resolve of the outside states. A Franco-British alliance seems certain to develop and to fight.
Since your very thread title solicits our opinion--here's mine. Ditch the Act, and have Vienna distinguish itself by savvy politics that sends a clear message that the Empire is not bigoted in the matter of religion. That will be more effective at corroding Ottoman power than signaling that the Reich means to exterminate Islam, and makes much more sense of the general map of power you have drawn.
Also--your decision to have the Act in the first draft casts an enormous cloud of suspicion over what your own intentions are. An all-Catholic Hapsburg state that incorporates the southern German kingdoms as well as Italian and Balkan territory would be one where one might get away with postulating such an Act, focused solely on Catholicism. In the 19th century context, generic "Christendom" is pretty strange. As others have observed.
On paper your Reich is a weak federation, but it seems to be being ruled by some Austrian clique that is both cynical and monstrous. I can't believe the 50 separate kingdoms of the Reich all just roll over without making a lot of noise about the more infamous aspects of Reich policy.
Thank you very much for this extremely detailed problem about why the AEP won't work, and I must admit I really wasn't thinking in that much of details when writing this.
I must admit I really forgot about the Jews, the Act was meant to be an anti-Muslim one, I never thought a miss of such small detail would cause so much trouble. The Reich had a lot of help from Jewish capitalists back in Austro-Franco war. I never, ever thought about recreating another shoah.
I was hoping this Act would mend the conflict between Lutheran and Catholic as much as possible. What I had in mind was an Act that more or less "Let's not dwell on sect rivalry anymore, Christian should unite together to repel Ottoman from Europe. I don't care what sect you are practising so long it's Christianity", I really wasn't having any other religions in mind when writing that, huge mistake on my part. The "forbidden to convert citizen of other member states" part was meant to forbid religion conflict between member states, they are not obliged to convert their own citizen, and surely cannot persecute citizens from other member states that came visiting.
It really strike me now about the Persia part, what I had in mind was " Let's crush the Turks together, and resume killing and raping each other after we meet up at Dardanelles Strait, just like our ancestors 2000 years ago." I was expecting when The Reich were killing Arabs in Jerusalem, Persia would do the same in Iraq since in my knowledge, Iranian and Arab just don't mix. But it seems like the alliance was blocked by AEP.
Imperial court was plagued by reactionists (including the protagonist, which was the Chancellor) that wish to overthrow Napoleon's new order and return back to the time when there are no nationalists and everyone were loyal to the church, it's a dream that was destined to be crush.
I do think you are right about ditching this Act, it really doesn't do much good.
(P.S. I actually had to look up Orwellian, nice sarcasm by the way.)
Last edited: