WI Prussia had taken Denmark

The French didn't care one whit about the Poles, and the Russian court knew it. The real danger, which St. Petersburg was well aware of, was the ideals that French republicanism brought to the continent that threatened a multi-ethnic autocratic empire such as Russia (or Austria, or Turkey, or...)

The French certainly cared whits about the Poles, they just weren't able to do anything for them. But even the July Monarchy had passed annual resolutions on behalf of the Polish cause, one of the governments in 1848 demanded war on behalf of the Poles and didn't do much else, and there was actually a lot of frantic chatter about what do during the January Uprising which alarmed the Russians, but nothing came of it.

But even after the January Uprising, when the 'Polish question' ceased to be an international one until the First World War, the educated French public had to be placated by pro-Polish gestures whenever their government moved closer to Russia. One might say Poland was to France then what America is to Israel now: whatever the policy logic (or lack thereof), sticking up for Poland was necessary for a certain kind of French politician, viz, anyone claiming to be from the tradition of the Great Revolution.
 
The French certainly cared whits about the Poles, they just weren't able to do anything for them.

Though of course they would have been had Russia got into war with Austria and Prussia.

If the Austro-Prussians find themselves getting the worst of it (imho unlikely but let it pass for now) Nappy III might offer his assistance for a consideration - say a free hand in Luxembourg for himself, Venetia for his Italian protege, and something done for the Poles. The Austro-Prussians wouldn't have been keen, but if losing badly enough they'd probably have come round.

This is my big problem with wolf_brother's insistance that Russia would go to war rather than let Denmark join the GC. Aside from it being such a loose confederation that her membership makes little practical difference, such a course just looks too darned risky. Since Britain is unlikely to go to war (due to the American situation) and in any case isn't that much of a land power, the Tsar would have to fight alone against a coalition. Even just against Austria and Prussia, he'll probably lose, but if France joins in he doesn't stand an earthly.

He could be facing another 1812 - and all this to guard against a wholly theoretical future danger from a state which has no quarrel with Russia, and indeed is currently about the only European power friendly to her. I know these monarchs could sometimes do incredibly stupid things, but I find that one hard to swallow.
 
Last edited:
RE: France;
Louis-Napoléon hardly had the force available to offer assistance to the Prussians and Austrians in 1864, what with his armies spread from Rome to Algeria to Mexico. Beyond that, why would the Austrians want his help or even stay in the war? The Hapsburg crown knew better than to get involved in a stand-up fight with the Russian bear and would have backed down after the Tsar made his demands regarding Denmark. That, once again, leaves Prussia to go it alone.

Regarding the Poles, some the French people, especially the radicals, might have been interested in military adventures in Poland, but the rest of the rest population and the government was not. Annual resolutions don't add up to a box of squat, and no government in 1848 demanded war on behalf of Poland. Louis-Napoléon certainly wasn't going to go to war with Russia, on behalf of the Poles, to the advantage of the Prussians.

The difference between Franco-Polish and American-Israeli relations, and where your analogy breaks down, is that the contemporary US sends 'aid' to Israel every year in the form of several billions of dollars worth of military equipment which allows Israel to maintain its fighting edge against possible enemies. France in this period did not send arms in any great number to Polish resistors.

RE: Russia;
It would appear to me that instead of looking at this as alternate history and moving forward from the point of divergence some people here seem to be looking backwards from our timeline, and letting our own history filter that view with its various biases and distortions. The situation we're discussing wouldn't be Crimean War II: Electric Boogaloo. There won't be some sort of grand coalition against the Russians. The French have no stake in the matter vis-à-vis Russia, but would look on worryingly about German expansion. Likewise the Austrians wouldn't want to get in a stand-up match with the Russians, and they certainly wouldn't be interested in fighting a war over Denmark that would clearly favor Prussian interest (Prussia had, after all, initiated the Second Schleswig War and the primary German component in many of the battles). The Danish people themselves would be against the move and so there'd be little aid from Denmark to help fight against the Russians. The British would officially disprove of the whole affair and would likely mediate for peace, but anything that keeps both the Russians and the Prussians busy in 1864 would be just fine by the British government, thank you very much. Instead of this grand coalition you seem to envision taking place the entire war will be seen as Prussian over-reach threatening to topple the Congressional System, and a great power willing and able to enforce it. Instead of looking back to 1812 and the French Invasion (which, I'd like to note, still ended in a Russian victory) for an analogy look to 1848 (The First Schleswig War).
 

Redbeard

Banned
At one time Denmark was doing so bad they tried to give the country away to Prussia. Prussia said fuck off for various reasons. What if they hadn’t?

Denmark would be a republic, but still Denmark.

Had it been known then that the King made such offers to save hos own throne, the monarchy would have been doomed. Parliamentary democracy had been instituted in 1849 and the general sentiment was extremely anti-German.

To include Denmark in some kind of Germany I think we need to go back to 17th century or earlier. Have a strong Prussia PoD'ed out of history and strengthen the already strong bonds between Denmark and various North German provinces. That could easily push the balance of the Kingdom of Denmark towards German/Germany and the Kingdom of Denmark will be a North German Kingdom having taken its name after an originally non-German province - just like OTL Prussia.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard
 
the entire war will be seen as Prussian over-reach threatening to topple the Congressional System, and a great power willing and able to enforce it. Instead of looking back to 1812 and the French Invasion (which, I'd like to note, still ended in a Russian victory) for an analogy look to 1848 (The First Schleswig War).


Why would anyone (outside Germany at least) be worrying in the slightest about "Prussian overreach"?

Prussia, in 1864, was seen as the smallest and weakest of the "great powers" so an increase in her strength would be seen as helping the balance of power, not undermining it. This attitude started to change only after her victory of 1866, and only slowly even then. Thus, when Nappy III learned of her treaties of alliance with the south German states (which gave her the military resources of all Germany in the event of war) he did not object because he saw them as a safeguard against an Austrian revival. Even now he thought of Austria as a bigger problem than Prussia. Four years later, the same attitude held good at his expense. Both Russia and Great Britain in 1870 saw a Prussian victory as creating fewer problems than a French victory would have done. While not greatly loved, Prussia was everybody's "lesser evil".

FTM, this is how Prussia and Austria themselves came to be allies in 1864. Franz Josef, still smarting from the war of 1859, was more concerned about Napoleon III than about Bismarck.

1812 did indeed end in a Russian victory, but only because Nappy I was demented enough to destroy his army by marching on Moscow. That is most unlikely in 1864. A Russian War then will be fought on the borders, as the Crimean War was, and probably with similar results.

As to the First Schleswig War, that took place when all Europe, bar France, was in a panic over revolution - and France was keeping a low profile. So it was possible for Russia and Austria to gang up on Prussia. By 1864, that memory was fading. Russia and Austria were on far worse terms, and Franz Josef was seeking compensation for his losses in Italy. A Polish Kingdom for some Archduke would have done just nicely thank you [1]

King Christian's proposal was not turned down from fear of war, but quite simply because there was nothing in it for Prussia. She would lose her chance of acquiring the Duchies herself, and Bismarck would be unable to use them to force a confrontation with Austria when he was good and ready. The only effect would be to add another middling sized state to the GC, which might well then side with Austria rather than with Prussia in future disputes, as Hanover did.

In any case, it was far too late by now. Had such a proposal been made six months earlier, King Wilhelm might conceivably have gone along, but in July 1864, with two-thirds of Denmark under Austro-Prussian occupation, he was certain to want some tangible gain for Prussia in return for all that effort. In short, it was a non-runner.



[1] Whether he would have got it is another matter. I suspect that Prussia and France would have ganged up against having a Habsburg ruler there. But FJ might have discovered that only too late.
 
RE: France;Regarding the Poles, some the French people, especially the radicals, might have been interested in military adventures in Poland, but the rest of the rest population and the government was not.

You'll note that I said "educated French opinion", which certainly isn't "French opinion". Most Frenchmen lived on the land and were, in common with most Europeans, hardly aware of their nationality and were therefore only "the French" because they happened to have been born there.

Annual resolutions don't add up to a box of squat,

True Scotsman. First the French didn't care about Poland, then I pointed out that for near-on two decades they held an annual grumble-about-Poland celebration in the national legislature, and now apparently most of the French didn't care enough about Poland.

Make up your mind.

and no government in 1848 demanded war on behalf of Poland.

I was referring to the very brief provisional government declared by Blanqui and the gang which, as I said, did hardly anything else.

Louis-Napoléon certainly wasn't going to go to war with Russia, on behalf of the Poles, to the advantage of the Prussians.

Of course not. Lamartine, a much more romantical figure, wasn't going to either and said so.

But to claim based on this that the French didn't care about the Poles is silly. Are we going to claim that because for the most part imperial Russian policy did nothing much for the southern Slavs, Russian educated opinion cared bugger all about them?

The difference between Franco-Polish and American-Israeli relations, and where your analogy breaks down, is that the contemporary US sends 'aid' to Israel every year in the form of several billions of dollars worth of military equipment which allows Israel to maintain its fighting edge against possible enemies. France in this period did not send arms in any great number to Polish resistors.

The possibility of sparking an insurrection in Poland (the essential element of the so-called "war of peoples") was urged on Louis Napoleon by at least one of his advisors during the Crimean War, though, and as I said there was the vague agitation for Something To Be Done in 1863.

But anyway, analogies are not supposed to be perfect matches, only to highlight broadly similar patterns as an aid to understanding. To point out that an analogy isn't exact is to point out that it's an analogy.
 
You'll note that I said "educated French opinion", which certainly isn't "French opinion". Most Frenchmen lived on the land and were, in common with most Europeans, hardly aware of their nationality and were therefore only "the French" because they happened to have been born there.

Even 'educated' French opinion hardly cared about the Poles. Again, the radicals, especially those who hearkened back to the Revolutionary Period, were all for another war of expansionist war to 'liberate' Europe, but there were very much a minority even within their own political circles. Most French republicans in 1848 and throughout the Second Empire were interested in establishing a non-Monarchist, non-Imperial state, and didn't care about foreign affairs. Indeed, when Louis-Napoléon sent troops to Italy to crush the short-lived Roman Republic the French radicals protested not because they cared a great amount for the Romans, but because in doing so Louis-Napoléon had violated both a resolution passed earlier in the year by the Assembly, and the Constitution of France, and thus had set himself on the path towards an imperial restoration. The 'issue' wasn't foreign affairs, it was a constitutional crisis.

True Scotsman. First the French didn't care about Poland, then I pointed out that for near-on two decades they held an annual grumble-about-Poland celebration in the national legislature, and now apparently most of the French didn't care enough about Poland.

Make up your mind.

No, you're (quite purposefully) misreading what I stated. It's not that they didn't care enough, its that they didn't care. Like I already said, annual resolutions are worthless. If the French had been the 'patrons' of Poland, as you've claimed, and had a comparable relationship to the Poles as the US does to Israel, then France would have been sending in weapons by the wagonload throughout the 19th century. It didn't happen; it never happened; the French didn't care.

I was referring to the very brief provisional government declared by Blanqui and the gang which, as I said, did hardly anything else.

By 'government' you mean the brief instance were Blanqui, as one of the leading orators of the radicals, called for war on Poland's behalf before the National Assembly - which was immediately drowned out by chants from the gallery's onlookers to instead speak of the Massacre of Rouen where just a few months previously French soldiers had fired on rioting workers.

Or by 'government' you mean the short-lived gathering of Blanqui, Barbès, Louis Blanc, Ledru-Rollin, Caussidière and Albert, who, fed up with the National Assembly, retreated from the Assembly to the Hôtel de Ville and began issuing orders for a few short hours previous to their arrest.

But to claim based on this that the French didn't care about the Poles is silly. Are we going to claim that because for the most part imperial Russian policy did nothing much for the southern Slavs, Russian educated opinion cared bugger all about them?

The fact that Imperial Russia was at least involved, with a dedicated foreign policy, in the Balkans and Southeastern Europe points to a concrete fixation on the South Slavs. France had no such policy regarding Poland, and indeed took no actions there until WWI and after.

But anyway, analogies are not supposed to be perfect matches, only to highlight broadly similar patterns as an aid to understanding. To point out that an analogy isn't exact is to point out that it's an analogy.

So you purposefully created a false analogy to misdirect the discussion? :confused:
Nothing is perfect, but you could at least make an analogy that had some basis in fact.
 
@ Mikestone8:
All true; however you've been listing Franco-German relations in OTL - not Russo-German relations, and not considering the POD and consequences of ATL. Otherwise I actually agree with your general assessment; the Russo-Prussian War would be fought primarily on Russian's borders (specifically Poland), & IOTL Christian IX's proposal was turned down because it gained Prussia little. I will note however that;

1) The war would be an Russo-Prussian one, as the Austrian still had no reason to become involved. Why would Franz Joseph wish to tackle the Russian bear in support of Prussia, to obviously further Prussian gains? Where had Prussia been, as a supposed ally in the Confederation, when French and Sardinian armies had rolled over Venetia? This new war would be seen as a time for Austria to lick its wounds, prepare for the next round, and sit back while Prussia took a trashing that would equalize the projected power status of Prussia and Austria, especially within the GC.

2) Somewhere (much earlier in the discussion) someone had suggested a possible POD of Bismark dying earlier (1862 I believe it was) so that he wouldn't be able to influence William I. As Bismark had been the staunchest opponent of Christian's plan it would be possible, without his influence, for the OP's scenario to go forward.
 
@ Mikestone8:
All true; however you've been listing Franco-German relations in OTL - not Russo-German relations, and not considering the POD and consequences of ATL. Otherwise I actually agree with your general assessment; the Russo-Prussian War would be fought primarily on Russian's borders (specifically Poland), & IOTL Christian IX's proposal was turned down because it gained Prussia little. I will note however that;

1) The war would be an Russo-Prussian one, as the Austrian still had no reason to become involved. Why would Franz Joseph wish to tackle the Russian bear in support of Prussia, to obviously further Prussian gains? Where had Prussia been, as a supposed ally in the Confederation, when French and Sardinian armies had rolled over Venetia? This new war would be seen as a time for Austria to lick its wounds, prepare for the next round, and sit back while Prussia took a trashing that would equalize the projected power status of Prussia and Austria, especially within the GC.

Conceivable, but I think you're crediting the Austrians with more smarts than they had.

Franz Josef had lost face by his defeats in Italy, and had to find compensation somewhere. So he'd be open to persuasion. After all, look at the mess he got into after 1864. A wise man would just have sold his share in Schleswig-Holstein to the Prussians, since geographically it was of no benefit to Austria. But that wasn't "honourable" enough for FJ. He'd lost territory, so he had to gain territory, hence he kept asking for Prussian land which Wilhelm would never concede even in the unlikely event of Bismarck having advocated it. Had he been offered territorial gains from Russia, he might well have fallen into the trap.

Mind you, the Tsar was just as bad. Since 1856 his hang-up had been the clauses in the Crimean peace treaty forbidding Russia to have a Black Sea Fleet, and he more or less ignored all other international issues except insofar as they provided oppotunity to wipe that blot off his escutcheon. Of course, when he finally did so, he got no benefit from it, as Russia could not afford to build a BSF, but that wasn't the point. It was another affaire d'honneur.

And as for Napoleon III, obsessed with Venetia to the near total disregard of the really important events further north - - - well, I take it you get the picture. This was the great secret of Bismarck's success - being the one-eyed man in the country of the blind.


2) Somewhere (much earlier in the discussion) someone had suggested a possible POD of Bismark dying earlier (1862 I believe it was) so that he wouldn't be able to influence William I. As Bismark had been the staunchest opponent of Christian's plan it would be possible, without his influence, for the OP's scenario to go forward.

That was me. The incident to which I referred was in August 1862 and appeared in several newspapers in 2006 - see

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/aug/22/germany.lukeharding

The timing - only weeks before Bismarck's appointment as Minister-President - seems almost eerie.
 
Even 'educated' French opinion hardly cared about the Poles.

What kind of benchmark are you using? You seem to think that unless the French were actually using magic to send weapons into the territory of another state, they "didn't care". How many weapons did the pan-Slavists in Russia ever deliver to Bulgaria or any other Slavic country? "Cared a whit" does not mean "cared enough to put the country beyond the pale by the century's standards for no gain". Opinions are hardly ever all-or-nothing.

You also contradict yourseld within the post: first they hardly care, then they don't care at all.

Again, the radicals, especially those who hearkened back to the Revolutionary Period, were all for another war of expansionist war to 'liberate' Europe, but there were very much a minority even within their own political circles.

Is that radicals being a minority of political Frenchmen or people who cared about Poland being a minority of radicals? You're playing fast and loose with words here: "the French" don't care, but some of them do. Who exactly are these people "the French" or "they"?

Most French republicans in 1848 and throughout the Second Empire were interested in establishing a non-Monarchist, non-Imperial state, and didn't care about foreign affairs.

Everybody cares about foreign affairs sooner or later.

Indeed, when Louis-Napoléon sent troops to Italy to crush the short-lived Roman Republic the French radicals protested not because they cared a great amount for the Romans, but because in doing so Louis-Napoléon had violated both a resolution passed earlier in the year by the Assembly, and the Constitution of France, and thus had set himself on the path towards an imperial restoration. The 'issue' wasn't foreign affairs, it was a constitutional crisis.

Why does it have to be one or the other? Certainly I have read that Louis himself was balancing pragmatic (get in before the Austrians) and political (buy favour with clerical conservatives), so why not his oponents? Blacks and whites again.

And of course we are apparently able to read their minds in the interests of the debate...

No, you're (quite purposefully) misreading what I stated.

...Not to mention my mind.

It's not that they didn't care enough, its that they didn't care.

Except that apparently they "hardly cared", and some of them were "all for" some sort of foreign adventure.

Mind. Make it up.

Like I already said, annual resolutions are worthless.

They never killed a Russian, but what we're discussing is not whether the French achieved anything for Poland (not bloody much between 1814 and 1914) but whether Poland was a place in which they had a sentimental interest. Annual resolutions in the legislature tell you a lot about the importance of the issue in rhetoric back home.

If most Frenchmen right of Blanqui didn't care, where did the resolution get its votes? If they didn't care, they wouldn't have voted the resolution.

And it did bother the Russians, so much that they were actually agnostic about the coming of the republic.

If the French had been the 'patrons' of Poland, as you've claimed, and had a comparable relationship to the Poles as the US does to Israel, then France would have been sending in weapons by the wagonload throughout the 19th century. It didn't happen; it never happened; the French didn't care.

Comparable just means they can be compared, not that they're the same. I never intended to suggest that the relations were exactly the same, because that never happens. Israel was and is an actually existing state and Poland was just the idea of one, so of course they weren't. And without a state, where would these weapons - once we've got over all the hundred other problems with chucking weapons about before WW1 - going to be sent?

Or by 'government' you mean the short-lived gathering of Blanqui, Barbès, Louis Blanc, Ledru-Rollin, Caussidière and Albert, who, fed up with the National Assembly, retreated from the Assembly to the Hôtel de Ville and began issuing orders for a few short hours previous to their arrest.

My, a short-lived radical government in 1848 of all years! They called themselves a government, and I would have thought my rather facetious reference to them would have established from the start that I wasn't talking about a body with any authority in the country at large: like I said, demanding Something be Done for Poland was about all they had time for.

Further evidence that "the French" "didn't care". I suppose.

The fact that Imperial Russia was at least involved, with a dedicated foreign policy, in the Balkans and Southeastern Europe points to a concrete fixation on the South Slavs. France had no such policy regarding Poland, and indeed took no actions there until WWI and after.

Except that during the first Bulgarian adventure there were those in the Russian diplomatic service - the ambassodor in London was one of them, Izvolsky, I think his name was - working against the ideas of the pan-Slavs, which they regarded as dangerous. And not long after that Russia got into demanding the Ottomans invade Bulgaria and generally being not-so-dedicated.


So you purposefully created a false analogy to misdirect the discussion? :confused:
Nothing is perfect, but you could at least make an analogy that had some basis in fact.

It does have some basis in fact: both are cases of a small country's fate being disproportionately discussed and worried about in a large country.

Obviously you don't accept the interpretation that Poland was an important symbol and rallying cry on the French and European left at this time; fine. But to insist that my rhetorical tools are invalid because they don't conform to your reading of the facts is a nonsense way to have a debate.
 
Look, IBC, I respect you, but if you continue playing the 'putting words in my mouth' game then this discussion has essentially run its course; never mind the fact that we've come a long way from the OP as is. You can't, or rather shouldn't have to, resort to attacks on my person and insults to my intelligence in order to advocate your position. If you can't limit yourself to the facts on hand (Fact: France didn't send aid to Poland, etc.) then the debate is done.

EDIT: I'd like to point to how Mikestone8 and I continually debated and discussed a topic we didn't initially agree upon until finally come to a resolution while staying civil as an example of 'doing it right.'
 
Look, IBC, I respect you, but if you continue playing the 'putting words in my mouth' game then this discussion has essentially run its course;

Which words did I put in your mouth? The things in quotation marks I took straight from your post.

never mind the fact that we've come a long way from the OP as is.

Threads generally do.

You can't, or rather shouldn't have to, resort to attacks on my person and insults to my intelligence in order to advocate your position.

I didn't insult your intelligence, I asked you to stop claiming that you knew why I said what I said. In my experience, imagining that they know what other people think is a characteristic vice of the intelligent. :p

What did I say that was so terrible? "Nonsense way to have a debate"? "What a nonsense" is a phrase I apply to bus fares, the drinking age, war, cultural capitalism, the timing of the SQA history examination, and the Guardian's policy of saying 'actor' instead of 'actress'. Those was yesterday.

If you can't limit yourself to the facts on hand (Fact: France didn't send aid to Poland, etc.) then the debate is done.

There's lots of other facts on hand, viz: there was no Poland for the aid to be sent to; the Russian government did not pursue a consistent or determined policy to help southern Slavs in spite of the obvious pre-occupation the Russian intelligentsia had with them; the July Monarchy kept voting to grumble about Poland and there must have been some reason for it to grumble about Poland and not about, say, Italy.
 

Kosta

Banned
What would happen to the Danish West Indies if Denmark joined Prussia/Germany/North German Confederation? Would America pitch a bitch about the transfer of land in the Americas to another European power and take the islands by force?
 
What would happen to the Danish West Indies if Denmark joined Prussia/Germany/North German Confederation? Would America pitch a bitch about the transfer of land in the Americas to another European power and take the islands by force?

As I recall but I'll look it up in the books later the offer of Denmark exchanging the West Indies for Schleswig post 1864 was stomped by the US as a violation of the Monroe doctrine.

Though if Denmark joins as an "independent" Kingdom it wouldn't on the surface at least be a transfer of land thus it could probably keep the islands.
 
I doubt the US could do that much about the Danish West Indies in 1864; they won't be happy about it, but they are still in the middle of a civil war, and I would think dealing with the French invasion of Mexico and Spanish invasion of the Dominican Republic would be far more urgent Monroe Doctrine concerns than the transfer of a few unimportant islands to Prussia.
 
A few weeks agol I read about this: In 1864 the Danish king, an ethnic German, came after the war to Bismarck and even offered Denmark to be part of the North German Confederation, the predecessor of the German Reich. Bismarck only refused as he didn't want another minority. What, if Bismarck didn't do so?

Adler
I think you are getting confused between the North German Confederation (founded in 1866) and the German Confederation (a very loose organisation that included Austria).
 

Anderman

Donor
BTW Holstein was part of the Deutscher Bund/German Confederation and the Kind of Denmark had 3 votes in the Bundesversammlung because of Holstein.
 

Perkeo

Banned
A few weeks agol I read about this: In 1864 the Danish king, an ethnic German, came after the war to Bismarck and even offered Denmark to be part of the North German Confederation, the predecessor of the German Reich. Bismarck only refused as he didn't want another minority. What, if Bismarck didn't do so?

My guess is: Generations of Germans will wish he hadn't, just as they wish they had listened to Bismarck about Alsace-Lorraine.

Germany neither needs ethnic minorities nor can it afford to mess with it's neighbors.
 
Top