WI: no French and Indian war?

What if the French and British were able to avoid the French and Indian war? In 1754 and 1755, they unsuccessfully tried to negotiate a settlement. Hand wavium allows them to succeed.

Right around this time, Austria is looking to recover Silesia, realizes Britain isn't going to help and goes looking for an ally. they find one in Russia, who is concerned about the growing power of Prussia. The diplomatic revolution of 1756 finds Austria allied to traditional enemy France, while Britain allies with traditional enemy Prussia. IMO, the revolution was partially driven by the French and Indian War. Both France and Britain recognize they're about to declare war and are looking for backside protection. Eliminate this and it's likely that the revolution becomes more of an evolution. Bottom line, I doubt the reversal of alliances happens quite so abruptly.

So, no formal alliances in 1756. OTL, Britain saw their alliance as a way to keep the F and I war confined to North America, while Prussia saw it as a green light to act aggressively and expand, which held the high likelihood of bringing in Austria. So, if no formal alliances, Prussia probably doesn't act so aggressively.

So, I'm thinking things putter along for a few years. Frederick in Prussia is still ambitious. Maria Theresa is planning for a recovery of Silesia. 1762 rolls around. Elizabeth in Russia dies, Peter takes over. without the shocking retreat from war at the moment of victory, his opponents lose a major opportunity to portray him in poor light to the populace. He's still going to be unpopular with tenuous support and aggressive enemies, but he gains a little bit of lease on life. If I recall correctly, his discovery of Catherine's plot against him causes her to move up the timeline. In this TTL, butterflying away being in the midst of a war at the time of his ascension to the throne causes the plotting and personnel movement to alter in details.

scenario A: Peter manages to defeat the coup. He cozies up to Prussia. Russia goes to war with Denmark to recover schleswig-holstein, while Prussia takes on Saxony. Austria naturally takes on Prussia. France would likely side with Austria. Prussia was an ally in the past, but their growth is now a threat. I'm told that Russia easily taking Denmark is no sure thing, so I'm guessing things get muddled, and this is likely a long war. So, it's basically Austria/France vs Prussia/Russia. Where does Britain fall? they don't have any direct irons in the fire, but they want to keep a balance of power in Europe, plus there's strategic locations in Denmark that they'd prefer to keep out of the hands of the Russians. If they join, their main contribution is going to be monetary, as their sea power isn't of much use in a continental war. Although, if they go up against France, would the French and Indian War, and the battles for India, be back on? In prior continental wars, did Britain take the fight to the colonial sphere? If Peter is as unpopular/inept as he's normally portrayed, another coup attempt is likely. How does the war turn out?

Scenario B: Catherine's coup succeeds. general war is averted. How does Maria Theresa go about getting Silesia?
 
I don't think they could. The difference in populations were so huge that there would always be pressure from some land-hungry settlers from the 13 colonies.

The only way to avoid the war would be to have much more french settlers west of the Ohio and Appalachians. If then were 700.000 instead of 70.000, then It would deter the american settlers to try conquering lands in the french area.
 
matteo,
the immediate cause of the French and Indian War was a boundary dispute. I don't disagree that long term problems will ensue, but there was no pressure from land hungry population of the 13 colonies in 1774. they hadn't even gotten to the boundaries as claimed by France. If France had said, sure take Ohio, take eastern Kentucky/Tennessee, or if both sides had compromised, there would have been no war at that time. Neither side was in a mood to compromise. If France hadn't been so aggressive in building a line of forts and if Dinwiddie hadn't been so aggressive in sending Washington to the region, there would have been no war. Britain was a rising nation intent on continuing the rise and willing to fight the predominant world power to do so. France was the predominant world power ready to knock Britain down a peg. Conflict at some point was quite likely, but it was certainly not inevitable for the mid 50's timeframe. that's the object of this WI.
 
France probably would have had some time to consolidate its alliance network in India.
If the French can get those alliances right and solid, they can kick the brits out or at least keep balance there. Long term that means India won't be the jewel of the Empire. Since GB won't be able to siphon India's wealth, they won't get that powerful as well as having less justification for such a powerful navy.
Such things would also prevent interesting things as the rise of British industry, "Wealth of nation" and could prevent capitalism :D
 
I just don't see how a compromise on Ohio and Kentucky would have prevented a war between France and Britain.

It was quite likely for a conflict to break out in Europe, as alliance-building between major powers made the diplomatical situation particularly tense with every of them not only willing to push its interest trough war but that war was unavoidable anyway.
If war breaks out between Prussia and Austria, Britain and France would be involved (with or without the Diplomatic Revolution)

Eventually, North America would have been another theater of this war, between these two colonial powers; and giving that (again for all players involved) SYW was considered as a conflict that had to settle most of the contentions points, I don't see military and political strategies would be significantly different ITTL.
 
Top