WI: Bismark Attacks Russia instead of France?

What if Bismark picked Russia as the target of his diplomatic wranglings post the war with Austria?

1) could the Prussia/German Confederation start and subsequently win a quick war with Russia?
2) if so what territory could it gain, and would it be able tobunite germany?

If not, what would be the immediate fallout?
 
How the hell do people keep making this mistake?:confused:

Easy, read something in one forum, read something in the second forum , go away for a while for some reason and forget you left the first forum. Or you have both forums open at the same time and mixed up which tab you are on.
 
Literally why would he do it?

Russia is a friendly nation, with a non-aggression above all, unlike France it was neutral in 1866 with no treats, also it was France that was blocking the unification, hereditary enemy and all.
 
Literally why would he do it?

Russia is a friendly nation, with a non-aggression above all, unlike France it was neutral in 1866 with no treats, also it was France that was blocking the unification, hereditary enemy and all.

Pretty much this part. France had designs on German territory (the Rhine border being popular) and was much more concerned about a united Germany. Russia was on one of those inward looking bouts, and any war with Russia would give France and Austria incentive to intervene. Winning in Russia might gain some territory (presumably the remainder of Poland or bits of the Baltic) but would leave Prussia with two enemies in the east and no closer to uniting Germany (as the likes of Bavaria did not fear/hate Russia like they did France.
 
If Bismarck was going to attack Russia in this general period, it would seem to me to be a far better idea to do it after the Franco-Prussian War, when the French are crippled by the defeat and indemnity and Germany would therefore be free to concentrate on the east without worrying about France attacking.
 
If Bismarck was going to attack Russia in this general period, it would seem to me to be a far better idea to do it after the Franco-Prussian War, when the French are crippled by the defeat and indemnity and Germany would therefore be free to concentrate on the east without worrying about France attacking.

Wouldn't that upset the British policy of keeping the balance of power?
 
Wouldn't that upset the British policy of keeping the balance of power?

In the 1870's? They'd just be happy that the Russians wouldn't be able to threaten India with this going on. Keep in mind that they had fought the Crimean War only 15 years before, and would have two additional war scares with Russia in the 15 years after. Also, given their record, they wouldn't catch onto the troubling implications of Prussia attacking France and then Russia and beating both until later.
 
What if Bismark picked Russia as the target of his diplomatic wranglings post the war with Austria?

1) could the Prussia/German Confederation start and subsequently win a quick war with Russia?

After the war with Austria the German Confederation was dissolved, so the war would just be Prussia against Russia. Now if it would be quick war Prussia could win it easily, the question is whether Russia would let it become a quick war or if they would keep fighting (Prussia has no way of occupying enough territory to force them to give up). Given the fact that Russia kept fighting in the Crimean War for three years, the answer is likely no.

And that is bad news for Prussia because in a long war France would certainly intervene as Napoleon III wanted to annex the Rhineland and would try to capitalize on the opportunity.

2) if so what territory could it gain, and would it be able tobunite germany?

The point is that there were no German territories under Russian rule, so any gains would not help to unify Germany. The states still missing were all in the south and would not be tempted to unify with Prussia because of a war in the east.

Of course this is exactly the reason why Bismarck attacked France and not Russia, and attack on Russia would gain him nothing but the potential costs (especially in case of a french intervention) were very high.
 

Perkeo

Banned
Bismarck wasn't sorry about the French DOW, that much is true, but he didn't attack anyone:

France threatened war over a possible Spanish-Prussian alliance that was no less justified and no less legal that the Franco-Russian entente was 33 years later.

After Prussia had yielded to all French demands, the dispute had been settled. It is hard to explain that the French ambassador making even further demands short of France explicitely trying do provoke a DOW or seeking an excuse to DOW themselves.

The only thing that Bismarck did was spreading the rumor the rejection of those French demand was harsher than it was. Since I suppose the French government recieved word from their own ambassador sooner than from foreign newspapers, there is no possibility of misunderstanding.

BTW, even if the King had made a harsh rejection of a hilariously greedy demand, does this fulfill your definition of a legitimate casus belli???
 
Bismarck wasn't sorry about the French DOW, that much is true, but he didn't attack anyone:

France threatened war over a possible Spanish-Prussian alliance that was no less justified and no less legal that the Franco-Russian entente was 33 years later.

After Prussia had yielded to all French demands, the dispute had been settled. It is hard to explain that the French ambassador making even further demands short of France explicitely trying do provoke a DOW or seeking an excuse to DOW themselves.

The only thing that Bismarck did was spreading the rumor the rejection of those French demand was harsher than it was. Since I suppose the French government recieved word from their own ambassador sooner than from foreign newspapers, there is no possibility of misunderstanding.

BTW, even if the King had made a harsh rejection of a hilariously greedy demand, does this fulfill your definition of a legitimate casus belli???

This, so much this.
Leaking an edited dispatch to the press letting Napoleon III look stupid... Even in the 19th century it would maybe warrant a harsh diplomatic note, not more. It would be an equivalent of Turkey declaring war on Germany now over Jan Böhmermann.
 
It would be an equivalent of Turkey declaring war on Germany now over Jan Böhmermann.

Do not give Erdogan ideas...

Anyway, the OP premise is vanishingly unlikely. Firstly, a quick victory against Russia is not possible. In the 19th century, any war against Russia lasts as long as Russia wants it to last, and the government knows they can outlast Prussia. The whole military system is geared to quick wars, the country can't economically or politically survive a long one. Even IOTL, 1870/71 was hard on Berlin, and they were unequivocally victorious here.

Secondly, there is no animus against Russia in Germany. Sure, generalised resentment against despotism on the left, but nothing like the visceral hatred people had for France. A war against Russia, even if Bismarck could get the Russians to declare it, would be unpopular with a lot of people.

And finally, it is hard to imagine anyone in St Petersburg being dumb enough to declare a war they're going to lose against a power that has only ever been their reliable friend and ally.
 
Do not give Erdogan ideas...

Anyway, the OP premise is vanishingly unlikely. Firstly, a quick victory against Russia is not possible. In the 19th century, any war against Russia lasts as long as Russia wants it to last, and the government knows they can outlast Prussia. The whole military system is geared to quick wars, the country can't economically or politically survive a long one. Even IOTL, 1870/71 was hard on Berlin, and they were unequivocally victorious here.

Secondly, there is no animus against Russia in Germany. Sure, generalised resentment against despotism on the left, but nothing like the visceral hatred people had for France. A war against Russia, even if Bismarck could get the Russians to declare it, would be unpopular with a lot of people.

And finally, it is hard to imagine anyone in St Petersburg being dumb enough to declare a war they're going to lose against a power that has only ever been their reliable friend and ally.
Plus the South German states would hardly see Russia as big of threat as France.
 
Anyway, the OP premise is vanishingly unlikely. Firstly, a quick victory against Russia is not possible. In the 19th century, any war against Russia lasts as long as Russia wants it to last, and the government knows they can outlast Prussia. The whole military system is geared to quick wars, the country can't economically or politically survive a long one. Even IOTL, 1870/71 was hard on Berlin, and they were unequivocally victorious here.
Actually this.

And adding to the risks involved... generally winters in Russia are colder than in area around Paris. But sometimes at the most undesirable moment they are truly unbearable.
Kaiser Wilhelm II was just lucky with Russian winters. Napoleon and Hitler were not.
Bismark didn't look like trying his luck.
 
Top