What would an 1870-1871 partition of Austria-Hungary look like?

[Falecius]

Didn't Bismarck himself provoke the war with France, though?

Not really. He desired war, but so apparently did France.

Your proposal isn't very different from Grossdeutschland, though.

It is Grossdeutschland, indeed.

Anyway, how does this partition look like: Germany gets Czechia and German Austria (including Burgenland), Italy gets the Italian-majority areas of A-H and perhaps Dalmatia as well, Hungary becomes independent but loses Transylvania (which is annexed to Ottoman-vassal Romania), and Russia annexes both Galicia and Subcarpathian Ruthenia?

Indeed, is that spot-on?

Possible. I doubt that Bismarck would push for Burgenland, and Russia may conversely renounce Transcarpathia (essentially, it depends on what the Hungarians leaders do). Both, however, are possibilities. Also, I see hard for Italy to get all of Dalmatia.

 

[TimTurner]

The people of Austria would rebel hard against any effort for Prussia to annex them right? They wouldn't want to be with Prussia.

 

[Falecius]

The people of Austria would rebel hard against any effort for Prussia to annex them right? They wouldn't want to be with Prussia.

Germans in Austria would happily join the German Empire or stay passive for the most part. They are not going to be annexed by Prussia itself (except some border areas). Bismarck would make Austria a "kingdom" (or two: Bohemia may get a separate treatment) within the German Empire and pick a suitable Habsburg ruler for it, grant it at least as many privileges within the Empire as Bavaria got historically and probably more, and have the new King of Austria offer the Imperial crown to William together with Ludwig of Bavaria (as it was pointed to Ludwig historically, the Imperial title was technically elective, so "Hohenzollern today, maybe Habsburg or Wittelsbach tomorrow). Czechs, Slovenians and other minorities would complain much more, but there is little they can do.
There is, however, the religious sticking point. Kulturkampf is not going to be an option in this Germany, and Bismarck would have to play nice to Catholics in some way. Which is precisely why he did not want Austria within Germany IOTL. If Berlin goes for heavy anti-Catholicism as IOTL, the backlash in Austria would be considerable, though not necessarily in the form of open rebellion.

 

[Saphroneth]

Not really. Being rude to an Ambassador doesn't lead to war unless you are already seeking an excuse for one.

That's kind of whitewashing what he did, though - he edited the Ems telegram specifically so as to provoke a war, and boasted as such.
It's true it takes two to tango, but he did provoke the war and the French did accept the provocation.

 

[Mikestone8]

That's kind of whitewashing what he did, though - he edited the Ems telegram specifically so as to provoke a war, and boasted as such.
It's true it takes two to tango, but he did provoke the war and the French did accept the provocation.

But nothing that would have "provoked" war had the French not already been dead set on having one.

Had the Serbs edited their reply to Austria-Hungary to make it more defiant, would that make them responsible for A/H declaring war on them in 1914?

At worst, Bismarck can be held "responsible" for the FPW breaking out as and when it did. But as he could see that France was looking for an excuse, wasn't he perfectly justified in giving her one at a time that was ideal for him? I suppose you could call it a sort of trap, but neither Bizzy nor anyone else was compelling the French to fall into it.

I'm always slightly baffled at the fuss about the Ems Telegram, when so much less is made about Bismarck's blatantly aggressive war on Austria, for which imnsho he deserved to be hanged. He was far guiltier in 1866 than in 1870, yet for some reason people get more excited about the latter, when he did little more than give the French what they were asking for.

 

[Indicus]

The people of Austria would rebel hard against any effort for Prussia to annex them right? They wouldn't want to be with Prussia.

That's not the issue. The issue is that Prussia didn't want Austria, as it would reduce how Prussia-dominated any Germany would be.

 

[TimTurner]

That's not the issue. The issue is that Prussia didn't want Austria, as it would reduce how Prussia-dominated any Germany would be.

Could a Germany with Austria in it actually be plurality Catholic?

 

[Tapirus Augustus]

In a Prussia/Russia v Austria/France scenario, how plausible is it that Bismark essentially abandons eastern Europe and the Balkans to Russia and its puppets? I've never got the impression that he personally saw much value in any of it, and he might see it as a helpful distraction for Russia that would keep if from messing around in anything actually important to him or his long-term plans.

 

[Indicus]

Could a Germany with Austria in it actually be plurality Catholic?

Probably not.

 

[TimTurner]

Probably not.

what was the religious mix of Germany OTL in 1871?

 

[Saphroneth]

But nothing that would have "provoked" war had the French not already been dead set on having one.

Yes. So?
He deliberately provoked a war, and the French accepted it. Two to tango here.

 

[Mikestone8]

Yes. So?
He deliberately provoked a war, and the French accepted it. Two to tango here.

He did something that the French could treat as "provocation" if they were anxious enough to be "provoked". If the French were dumb enough to attack at a time when they were isolated in Europe, why should he do anything to dissuade them? To do so would not prevent war, only postpone it to a time when the French might be in a stronger position.

 

[Saphroneth]

He did something that the French could treat as "provocation" if they were anxious enough to be "provoked".

And?
He deliberately and explicitly altered the Ems dispatch so as to provoke the French. I'm concerned by your seeming wish to absolve him of any agency in starting the war by (apparently) contesting this point, and by implying that to not alter the dispatch would be "doing something to dissuade" the French.

Note that I'm not saying the French were innocent - far from it - but that I'm saying Bismarck provoked the war and said as much privately. To dispute this you have to dispute his own words on his motives.

 

[Falecius]

Could a Germany with Austria in it actually be plurality Catholic?

AJP Taylor says so, but I had never checked the numbers. A rapid check, however, suggests a slight Protestant plurality would be the outcome. Of course, Catholics would have a much more important role in the Empire here.

 

[Jürgen]

And?
He deliberately and explicitly altered the Ems dispatch so as to provoke the French. I'm concerned by your seeming wish to absolve him of any agency in starting the war by (apparently) contesting this point, and by implying that to not alter the dispatch would be "doing something to dissuade" the French.

Note that I'm not saying the French were innocent - far from it - but that I'm saying Bismarck provoked the war and said as much privately. To dispute this you have to dispute his own words on his motives.

How many wars was started between European powers in the 19th century over a letter, he'll how many war was started over similar "insults" in the 18th century? It's really hard to take it serious that Bismarck misrepresenting the French position at a point where France had sought provocation after provocative against Prussia, Bismarck misrepresenting the French government position in the press was a legitimate reason for war and somehow Prussia being the warmongers instead of Paris.

 

[Saphroneth]

It's really hard to take it serious that Bismarck misrepresenting the French position at a point where France had sought provocation after provocative against Prussia, Bismarck misrepresenting the French government position in the press was a legitimate reason for war and somehow Prussia being the warmongers instead of Paris.

Yes, and if that's what I'd said then you'd have a point.

But what I said was in reply to the claim that Bismarck did not provoke the war. He certainly did, because that was what he was trying to do with the Ems dispatch - which he altered so as to provoke a war, and boasted as such.

If the French hadn't been wanting to go to war, certainly there would have been no war. But if Bismarck wasn't vital to causing the war, it was only because he tried unnecessarily.
As I've made repeatedly clear, both sides wanting a war was necessary to produce the war. Not just Bismarck, not just the Prussians in general, and not just the French.

 

[Jürgen]

Yes, and if that's what I'd said then you'd have a point.

But what I said was in reply to the claim that Bismarck did not provoke the war. He certainly did, because that was what he was trying to do with the Ems dispatch - which he altered so as to provoke a war, and boasted as such.

If the French hadn't been wanting to go to war, certainly there would have been no war. But if Bismarck wasn't vital to causing the war, it was only because he tried unnecessarily.
As I've made repeatedly clear, both sides wanting a war was necessary to produce the war. Not just Bismarck, not just the Prussians in general, and not just the French.

The Prussians rudely answered a rude demand. That could just as well be interpreted as the Prussians telling the French to stop the bullshit, they kept pulling. If Bismarck really had had such a master plan, I suspect he would have started the conflict earlier to ensure a Hohenzollern Spain.

 

[Saphroneth]

The Prussians rudely answered a rude demand. That could just as well be interpreted as the Prussians telling the French to stop the bullshit, they kept pulling.

I think we must be talking at cross purposes. My point is that the Prussians (specifically, Bismarck) specifically doctored the Ems dispatch so as to provoke a war - you can argue that the French deserved some of the blame all you want, and I'll agree with you, but I think it's troublesome that people are willing to deny Bismarck's direct statements about his own intentions in rephrasing the Ems dispatch (to whit, that he was trying to cause a war).

If Bismarck really had had such a master plan, I suspect he would have started the conflict earlier to ensure a Hohenzollern Spain.

I'm not saying Bismarck had some kind of master plan to trick France into war, or indeed trying to paint France as the innocent party. I'm saying that we should accept Bismarck's statement on why he altered the Ems dispatch at face value: that it was done to provoke a war, as a "red rag to the French bull".

 

[Saphroneth]

Had the Serbs edited their reply to Austria-Hungary to make it more defiant, would that make them responsible for A/H declaring war on them in 1914?

Incidentally, this is a false analogy - the true structure of a direct analogy would be (say) "if Pašić altered the Serbian reply to Austria-Hungary to make it more belligerent". In that case, then he would indeed bear some responsibility as he would have reduced the chance of a diplomatic resolution compared to an unaltered dispatch, and done so by subverting the intent of the people he represented.

Of course, in this hypothetical we would also need Pašić to state that he was deliberately trying to provoke a war.

 

[Mikestone8]

I'm not saying Bismarck had some kind of master plan to trick France into war, or indeed trying to paint France as the innocent party. I'm saying that we should accept Bismarck's statement on why he altered the Ems dispatch at face value: that it was done to provoke a war, as a "red rag to the French bull".

Why should we accept his statement? After all, the war had ended in a smashing victory, so naturally he claimed that it was all his work from start to finish. That's what people like him do.

Not that it really matters. As noted earlier, his actions in 1866 were more than enough to justify stringing him up - those of 1870 are reasonable by comparison. Even though it might have come too late to avert war, I shall always regret the failure of the attempt on his life in May '66. It would have been exactly what he deserved.