WI: WW1 happened in the 1860s/1870s over German unification?

Would Britain intervene in this Great European War?

  • On the side of the Franco-Austrian Alliance

    Votes: 31 30.7%
  • On the side of the Prusso-Russian Alliance

    Votes: 26 25.7%
  • Britain would stay neutral

    Votes: 43 42.6%
  • Other (please specify)

    Votes: 1 1.0%

  • Total voters
    101
  • Poll closed .
How would they be "carving up Europe?

Austria losing a slice of Galicia and a fortress or two in Bohemia and Moravia, while three small German states whuich are already united with Prussia militarily now become united politically as well, hardly turns the world upside down.

What shook people was the Battle of Sedan, which I understood wasn't going to happen on your TL. If the French fight the Prussians to a standstill around Metz or somewhere, Britain will just yawn.

The Austrian Empire was on a state bordering collapse after 1866, even more so in this ATL. Another defeat would leave it as a mere joint vassal state of the Russians and Prussians, using it's continous existence as a bulwark against the other. Perhaps there'd be a sphere of influence agreement in the area. The collapse of the Austrian bulwark frees up the Russians in the East and in the West Prussia can pursue her expansion without French opposition in the event of a Prussian victory. That is, unless Britain intervenes now.

Sedan shook people, yes. But a Russian interference in the war somehow would not? That's seems dubious. The fall of Prague for a second time and the Prussian re-invasion of Austria would also sour public opinion.
 
Sedan shook people, yes. But a Russian interference in the war somehow would not? That's seems dubious.

Russia's intervention would only balance Austria's. Gladstone didn't give a hoot about the Near East, and I doubt if we'd see many Russian troops on the Rhine - unless Prussia looked like losing, which is most unlikely. And a victorious France might cast its beady eyes on Belgium, which is far more important than anything in the Balkans.

Neither Germany nor Russia wants Austria to disintegrate, so they wont push things that far. If A-H is badly weakened, it just has to ally with Germany that much sooner, and things go on much as OTL.
 

Lexijag

Banned
So, possible coalitions...

Column A

Prussia
Russia
United States (maybe)

Column B

Austria-Hungary
France
United Kingdom (maybe)

How might other countries, such as the Ottoman Empire and the nascent Kingdom of Italy, factor into such a conflict, if at all? In the case of the latter, Column A would seem like the only logical team for the Italians, as most of their irredentist claims were against Austria-Hungary and France. I suppose that one could also even things out by placing the Ottomans in Column B.

I can see Prussia and Russia together --- and AH and UK together --- but I think UK would be more likely be with Germany (issues with France and Russia)

OE might be torn between their hate for Russia or AH -- lets say they would come in on AH side to get back at Russia. Italy would go after France (taking "Italian territory in 1859" and the desire for more AH land and more influence in the Balkans.

So OE on AH side -- Italy on German side
 
Lets be sensible , GB at this point is not getting involved in a continental squabble ( as she would see it ). The Prussian Kings heir is married to Queen Victoria's favorite daughter and hopes are high she can help turn Prussia into a more liberal state. The French are GB's naval rival and that matters a whole lot more than any land based considerations, the Empire is all about shipping and control of the sea lanes. Prussia is not a naval threat and relations OTL were improving ( it took Wilhiem II to break them and even he only did that after his grandmother was dead ).

So, unless Prussia declares its annexing Belgium , GB will stay out and offer to mediate. In 1870 nobody actually was wanting to fight to the finish, they were still thinking in terms of limited wars and objectives.
 
Lets be sensible , GB at this point is not getting involved in a continental squabble ( as she would see it ). The Prussian Kings heir is married to Queen Victoria's favorite daughter and hopes are high she can help turn Prussia into a more liberal state. The French are GB's naval rival and that matters a whole lot more than any land based considerations, the Empire is all about shipping and control of the sea lanes. Prussia is not a naval threat and relations OTL were improving ( it took Wilhiem II to break them and even he only did that after his grandmother was dead ).

So, unless Prussia declares its annexing Belgium , GB will stay out and offer to mediate. In 1870 nobody actually was wanting to fight to the finish, they were still thinking in terms of limited wars and objectives.


But..l this isn't a 'continental squabble'! 4 of the world's majors powers are involved! I'm not talking about immediately. It is if the situation continues to detreoiate and there is a real risk of total Prussian-Russian victory. That may be 2 years on from the start of the war.
 
I also feel that people are taking a too narrow view of Blightly- that they only care about Belgium and Battleships. That's just not true, and is far more reflective of the Britain of the 1910s. Britain throughout the mid-19th century worked tirelessly to maintain the balance of power to elevate themselves as arbiters of the dispute. SUre, Gladstone wasn't an adventurist, but there'd be a hell of a load of pressure if Russia took Budapest. There's only a limit of how far Britain would sit back and watch the world burn. In 1848 they prevented the Prussian acquisition of Schwelsig and Holstein- they didn't do so in 1866 because both Prussia and Austria was involved. My point is Britain IS concerned about the balance of power. Crimea was a war fought to contain the Russians. The repudiation of the Treaty of Paris combined with Russian advancing armies creates an intolerable condition for the Britain. They threatened intervention in 1878, this crisis seems far worse and I think they'd at least do so again.
 
I can see Prussia and Russia together --- and AH and UK together --- but I think UK would be more likely be with Germany (issues with France and Russia)

OE might be torn between their hate for Russia or AH -- lets say they would come in on AH side to get back at Russia. Italy would go after France (taking "Italian territory in 1859" and the desire for more AH land and more influence in the Balkans.

So OE on AH side -- Italy on German side

THe problem with putting Italy on a "side" is that they needed to digest their gains. Remember they took ROme in the course of the war. Unless one side is clearly romping home to victory, Italy's not intrested in the minor irredentist afterthoughts until it can secure diplomatic recognition for her conquests.
 
Russia's intervention would only balance Austria's. Gladstone didn't give a hoot about the Near East, and I doubt if we'd see many Russian troops on the Rhine - unless Prussia looked like losing, which is most unlikely. And a victorious France might cast its beady eyes on Belgium, which is far more important than anything in the Balkans.

Neither Germany nor Russia wants Austria to disintegrate, so they wont push things that far. If A-H is badly weakened, it just has to ally with Germany that much sooner, and things go on much as OTL.


1) There would certainly be, let's say disquiet, if Gladstone did a big fat 0, if the Russians start to win. The repudiation of Paris already causes ruptures- remember it was negotiated under Lord Aberdeen, a Whig. If Austria begins to fall apart these voices would get louder and louder. Disraeli would certainly adopt a pro-War stance (in line with his ideological views and political intrests) to paint Gladstone as weak and vacillating. If the political pressure moves, he might start with a token measure, such as sending a warning battleship. He may be pushed into intervention by domestic pressure, but it's very hard to predict the dynamics here. I was reading up about it a bit The 1874 election, which would probably return a conservative government as in our timeline, would certainly see Britain intervene at that point. If you know very much about the foreign policy of Gladstone, I'd be glad to hear it and I can adapt. I'm willing to bar British intervention until 1874 if I really think there's 0 chance of Gladstone moving on this issue, but I still cannot for the life of me envisage advancing Russian armies, Russian fleets in the Black Sea and the Balkans under threat whilst Britain is sitting back enjoying owning India and stuff ;)

I also thought of something else- perhaps Germany annexes Bohemia and there are Czech nationalist protests which are crushed by the army? That'd certainly sour opinion. This is more tangential, but the broader point I'm trying to make is that unless Prussia is firmly on defence, public opinion wouldn't be geared against them as in the same way as if they are on the attack. Because they'd probably decide to knock Austria out of the war, and certainly if Russians begin to advance. The French Empire is liberalising and count win liberal opinion if they are fighting a controlled defence. It's unlikely the public are going to be very sympathetic.
2) The A-H dynamics would be very Intresting, and relevant to the TL. You are probably right about the German alliance, but if Germany annexes Bohemia, that's more of a central part of the empire than Galicia. Given that both Russia and Prussia would want to use the propped-up Austrian Empire against each other in inevitable tensions that would come, Austria might be more likely to plump for Russia as a partner? But this is relevant for when I do finally get onto the later stages of the timeline. One more thing; to survive, it would have to be propped up, as the empire was already nearly coming apart at the seams in 1866. I'm not doubting this would happen for reasons you've previously mentioned, but it's worth keeping in mind.
 
But..l this isn't a 'continental squabble'! 4 of the world's majors powers are involved! I'm not talking about immediately. It is if the situation continues to detreoiate and there is a real risk of total Prussian-Russian victory. That may be 2 years on from the start of the war.
1870, people think different. No one will believe the war will not end after a few months and some small adjustments in borders. Britain has no interest in getting its hands dirty in a land war in Europe, its pretty isolationist and knows its no land power.
 
1870, people think different. No one will believe the war will not end after a few months and some small adjustments in borders. Britain has no interest in getting its hands dirty in a land war in Europe, its pretty isolationist and knows its no land power.

But my point is it still is way, way too entrenched in European politics to stay out of it forever. It can't just sit back, that risks international isolation. It's a war for the surrival of a truly independent Austrian Empire and for the containment of the Prussians. See my point about Belgium and Battleships earlier
 
But my point is it still is way, way too entrenched in European politics to stay out of it forever. It can't just sit back, that risks international isolation. It's a war for the surrival of a truly independent Austrian Empire and for the containment of the Prussians. See my point about Belgium and Battleships earlier
Yes , it can. Britain spent most of its time from 1815 trying to get in a position that it would not have to fight land wars except as colonial skirmishes Why would it be any more isolated , if it stays neutral, its what all four of the other powers expect it to do. It would think, with good reason, that none of the four want any of the others to be greatly strengthened. This is the Great Game, Russia and Prussia may be allies today but rivals tomorrow and both know it. Britain will therefore expect any war goals to be tempered by this.

Russia and Prussia are always going to be long term rivals , Britain knows both have claims on former Polish lands the other has, Russia does not want Prussia to rise too far , Prussia sees Russia as a sleeping giant that one day will industrialize and be a great threat. Neither want to awaken nationalism in the Balkans as they fear the example will affect their own territories. All the markers would be for a test of strength with minor changes on the chessboard.

Belgium and Battleships comes up because Britain is all about trade in this period, its primary goals are to ensure Antwerp is not controlled by a rival and no one can affect its merchant shipping. Its favored weapons are mercantile, the Golden Cavalry of St George and control of the Sea. It will try soft power rather than join in. In 1914 even with the HSF tilting the balance the decision to join in or not was closer than many think.
 
Yes , it can. Britain spent most of its time from 1815 trying to get in a position that it would not have to fight land wars except as colonial skirmishes Why would it be any more isolated , if it stays neutral, its what all four of the other powers expect it to do. It would think, with good reason, that none of the four want any of the others to be greatly strengthened. This is the Great Game, Russia and Prussia may be allies today but rivals tomorrow and both know it. Britain will therefore expect any war goals to be tempered by this.

Russia and Prussia are always going to be long term rivals , Britain knows both have claims on former Polish lands the other has, Russia does not want Prussia to rise too far , Prussia sees Russia as a sleeping giant that one day will industrialize and be a great threat. Neither want to awaken nationalism in the Balkans as they fear the example will affect their own territories. All the markers would be for a test of strength with minor changes on the chessboard.

Belgium and Battleships comes up because Britain is all about trade in this period, its primary goals are to ensure Antwerp is not controlled by a rival and no one can affect its merchant shipping. Its favored weapons are mercantile, the Golden Cavalry of St George and control of the Sea. It will try soft power rather than join in. In 1914 even with the HSF tilting the balance the decision to join in or not was closer than many think.

I agree that Prussia and Russia would long term rivals. But in the short to medium term, Russia still receives a carte blanche for expansion, which threatens British trade industries and thus it's mercanies armies. Who's going to stop them if they decide to march on the Ottoman Balkans? Germany, hideously isolated after it's vast expansion, isn't going to backstab Russia immediately especially considering it has alienate British public opinion through it's vast expansion and any alliance with them would be rickety and insecure, and Russia would probably extract guarantees from Prussia about the Balkans in exchange for an alliance. France has been eviscerated and thus there'd be no revival of the Crimean Coalition. British naval power alone cannot break the Russian Empire; French infantrymen did the majority of the work in Crimea. That leaves Russia open to pursue expansion in Constantinople and perhaps give it access to Egypt through Ottoman territories. That means that they could build the Suez canal and plausibly threaten India. That would have been a very real prospect if the Russians had won and the British would have knew it. Hoping Germany would be nice if they stay neutral is hardly going to work, and feeding the Russian expansion by allying with them and Germany would also carry huge risk. Remember the German-Russian animosity would not be instant- they were two reactionary regimes fighting for their survival in a hostile world. THe alliance held until 1890 in OTL.
 

Dementor

Banned
The Gladstone point has been giving me some concern though and is very valid. He's not exactly pro-Ottoman, his speech on Bulgaria in 1877 was with extremly strong condemnation of the Turks:

"Their Zaptiehs and their Mudirs, their Bimbashis and their Yuzbachis, their Kaimakarns and their Pashas, one and all, bag and baggage, shall, I hope, clear out from the province they have desolated and profaned"


So clearly Gladstone is quite unlike Disraeli in the sense in which he sees the containment of Russia as secondary to human rights in the Ottoman Empire. My overall point is that PM Gladstone in 1870 is not one to get paranoid fits about Russia and India, which does rather throw a spanner into the works of my Timeline. Thoughts?
I wonder to what extent this was just populist posturing. The Ottoman Empire was very unpopular after revelations about the Bulgarian massacres had come out and Disraeli's pro-Ottoman policy was a convenient pretext for Gladstone to attack him. It's not certain that Gladstone in power in 1876 would be much different from Disraeli, considering that his policy didn't differ much from Disraeli in OTL.
 
I wonder to what extent this was just populist posturing. The Ottoman Empire was very unpopular after revelations about the Bulgarian massacres had come out and Disraeli's pro-Ottoman policy was a convenient pretext for Gladstone to attack him. It's not certain that Gladstone in power in 1876 would be much different from Disraeli, considering that his policy didn't differ much from Disraeli in OTL.

I think he did have some pretty strong convictions surrounding ethnic cleasning in a way Disraeli didn't seem to in this instance. My worry was is that he doesn't seem paranoid about Russian influence in the near-East or India in the way Disraeli was, and he's in power in 1871. Therefore, it's difficult to invisge him declaring war on Russia.
 
Part 3- Moltke's Grand Plan
Part 3: Moltke's Plan (NEW!)

The odds where against Prussia. The government had the good sense to realise that continuning looses would mean that more and more powers would pick over the Prussian corprse. A bold plan was hatched.

Austria was much weakened by her defeat in 1866. As much as they had attempted to revoer in 4 years, the defeats to France in 1859 and more decisively to Prussia in 1866 meant the Austrian army was nowhere near the strength of the French.

But time was the enemy. Every month Austria remained in the war, the stronger relatively they would get. They would become more and more of a hindrance.

A bold plan was hatched. Moltke would use most of his troops to march on Vienna and knock Austria out of the war, as they would be forced to sue for peace. It would certainly have the benefit of a significant degree of surprise. It was expected that the Prussians would mobilse defensively against the French. The Austrians, therefore, would be caught totally off guard. With the Austrians dealt with in the South, all the forces could be dealt with against Napoleon. In the meantime, the Prussians would occupy Baden and pressure Bavaria and others to join the war to help against the French, but try and hold a defensive line until the freed up forces arrived. If necessary, supplementary advances would be made towards Budapest, perhaps to inspire revolt.

It would be an almighty gamble with bad optics; a defensive war looks immediately like an invasion.

But the King was willing, fatefully, to roll the dice.
 
Part 4- Prelude to Stalemate
Chapter 4: Triumph and Disaster.

'Those Prussians and Austrians! When are they going to get over the seizure of Silesia? I didn't think diplomacy was so much like a children's playground!'- Benjamin Disraeli

Napoleon III expected a decisive French confrontation on the border. When he heard the news that the Prussian army was mainly marching towards Austria, he burst out laughing and split his coffee over his trousers. He shouldn't have been so happy.

Emperor Franz Joseph wasn't nearly so jubilant. He had overseen, carefully, preparations to seize New Silesia and re-take Karlsbad, applying himself with the usual diligence. The news of a full-blown attack on his country wasn't so welcome. He put on a brave face, but expressed grave doubts about what this meant. 'This may have been a mistake', he said, 'But I hope it's a mistake that doesn't destroy my country entirely.

The Prussian army advanced quickly. The Austrians had been denied the strategic mountain passes on account of their loses in 1866 and the element of surprise was nearly swift and decisive. The Prussians struck deep before the Austrians had fully mobilised, blitzing through remaining fortifications. The Prussians assembled their forces on the outskirts of Prague and attempted to engage the Austrians in a decisive battle. After some minor skirmishes, the Austrians decided instead to abandoned the city until they could fully mobilise and fled south towards Vienna. Prague fell just 8 days after on the 15th October, as the Prussians marched through the city for the second time in the week. The news was a huge boon for the Prussians and jingoism increased on every side. An intended consequence of this apparently vast success was an unfortunate increase of pan-nationalism. Although Prussia still committed herself to a kleindeutschland solution, in which the Austrians maintained a chunk of German territory, the two wars with Austria had convinced many German thinkers that this was the true moment of unification, exciting many liberals. The so called 'October-manifesto' was circulated widely and caused a stir, which declared:

'By the grace of God, Prussia will defeat this traitorous Habspburg menace and the evil spectre of French encroachments. This October is the true hour of German reckoning! We will end the German question, and by God, Germania will triumph! No peace can be acceptable unless both than Habspburg and Bonapartist fiends are vaniqushed and the great King of the Prussians becomes ruler of all Germans!'

The British, Russians and Americans saw the war differently as a result of the invasion of Austrian. Disraeli blasted the 'Prussian menace' and grilled PM Gladstone about his plans. It rather looked like this war was offensive, and not defensive.


In the West, the plans had not gone as expected. Although the small Prussian contingent marched on Freiburg, the retreating Badenese troops met up with a larger French contingent and began to push the invaders back. The Battle of Freiburg (October 14th 1870), the first major battle, saw 5,000 Prussians clash with nearly 9,000 Frenchmen on the outskirts of the city as the Prussians attempted to advance. The French triumphed over the 2 day battle, but the Prussians were able to retreat inside the city, marking the start of the siege of Freiburg. Elsewhere, the outnumbered Prussians were defeated, but not decisively. At the battle of Saarbrucken, the French drove the Prussians out and advanced towards the Rhineland. The French advance, although contained, was still dangerous and the troop numbers strained. Without more re-inforcements, generals warned of the 'repeat of the mistake of 1806' and wholesale French occupation of the Rhineland. Reluctantly, Moltke shifted some troops from the Austrian to the French front.

The Austrians needed action to prevent a second defeat- and fast. The plan began desperate. The first plank was an attempt to incite revolt against Prussian troops in Bohemia. The Emperor issued what is known as the 'October decree', which proclaimed:

'I hereby grant, within my Kingdom, autonomy for Bohemia. The Three Crowns of my empire will be separate and autonomous. Henceforth, there shall be full freedom for the people of Bohemia. This is your choice. Tortue and slavery under Prussia, or freedom under my empire'.\

Hungarians were incandescent as they were levelled to the same level as Bohemia, but the sense of emergency prevented uprising in Hungary. The decree worked. The 'Committee for the liberation of Bohemia' was formed in Prague and a provisional army formed. Huge protests erupted in Prague as the Austrians smuggled arms across the border. The protest, scheduled from the 29th of October, had 15,000 march against the Prussians and demand to be returned to the Austrians. Scuffles broke out with the thinly spread Prussian forces (many had gone southwards to Vienna) which escalated to open warfare. On the 30th October, the Prussians fired on a contingent of peaceful protestors, driving more and more to the streets, marking the beginning of the Bohemian revolt. The growing state of insurrection meant Prussians troops had to be called back from the outskirts of Vienna, slowing the advance drastically. It also turned public opinion. Even Gladstone remarked privately:

'I cannot help but contrast the brutishness and thuggery of the Prussian army with that extradorinaiy bravery of the Bohemians.

By late November, 110,000 Prussian troops had assembled on the outskirts of Vienna near Krems. The Austrians had slowly increased their numbers to 130,000. The Prussians engaged the Austrians on December 4th 1870, sparking the Battle for Vienna. The fighting was tough, and at times close, but the Prussians were undersupplied as their supply lines were harassed by Bohemian partisans and demoralised from insurrection. The Prussians lost the battle, retreating back across into Bohemia and losing 20,000 men to Austria's 15,000. The Prussian war machine had been ground to a halt. But it was wounded, but by no means finished.

This marked the start of a long struggle and then end of the more limited war. The stalemate provided the impoteous for escalation.
 
Also @Mikestone8 I'm dangerously close to accepting your idea of not having Britain intervene.

I may be convinced (after thinking about it for a long time)

Also- I used to be Taxationistheft. Changed my name because it caused a few issues, as you might imagine.
 
Last edited:
Top