There's really a limit to how much Wilhelm I would be able to do if it totally outraged popular opinion. He wouldn't risk anything that could put the Kaiserist regime in jepordy. The role of public opinion is as always of importance here.
WI: WW1 happened in the 1860s/1870s over German unification?
- Thread starter Disraeli2004
- Start date
There's really a limit to how much Wilhelm I would be able to do if it totally outraged popular opinion. He wouldn't risk anything that could put the Kaiserist regime in jepordy. The role of public opinion is as always of importance here.
I have no idea what this has to do with what I wrote about the Russian motivations in 1848/49 and Russian/Hungarian mutual feelings (or rather their absence) prior to that intervention.
Anyway, in the 1860s Prussia is pretty much the only Russian ally and there were no indications of a future animosity. It is also on a record that Russia had nothing against creation of the German Empire in 1870.
Why would Russian government have any negative sentiments toward independent Hungary and its loyalty/disloyalty is also anything but clear: situation simply did not exist in OTL and there are no relevant facts to either back up or disprove your theories.
Why would expanding Prussia want to annex distinctively non-German Hungary or Bohemia is one more big question.
.
I don't think I ever said Germany wanted Hungary. In terms of Bohemia, that's kind of explained by the TL- they annex it early on in the war as a way of raising morale and giving the impression that they are winning the war to raise morale, I think it's explained more in Part 3 or 4 if I remember correctly. I do think I answered the thrust of your question, about why Hungary wouldn't be separated from Austria- as earlier explained it's part of the mechanics of the TL as well as a way to prevent the German annexation of Cislethia, as well as trying to maintain Hapsburg power to some degree to buttress German ambitions. Russia certainly had the impression of Hungary that her people resented the Russian invasion in 1848 and thus an occupation would be difficult and antagonistic- and thus it'd be better to keep it under the somewhat known structure within the Habspburg empire rather than attempt to grant it complete independence.
In terms of where this TL is going....
Part 9 is going to be abot the revolution in France. Presumably because Paris hasn't been under siege the Paris communal revolt doesn't happen, but perhaps something similar to the June days would occur? Would the revolution be republican in character? How would it differ from the OTL? If any of you have any ideas I'd be more than happy to listen.
Part 10 is about the peace settlement. Most of this is in earlier sections but it's just going to be solidified here- the only question in my mind ATM is about who negotiations for France, if it's in revolutionary tumult, and perhaps the host city.
I will then think of a fun interlude- perhaps a mock history test, I've seen that before, or an alaysis of what different historians have thought about the events so far, then move onto section 2 of the TL, which is about the interwar years. This is not some lame attempt to mimic WW1 and WW2, but remember Disraeli is in power, who had a rather different attitude to Gladstone, from 1874 onwards and tensions between Russia and Britain almost boiled into war in the OTL, in the ATL this is even more intense- so the Bulgarian crisis may well escalate in the end. It's quite grim to have two conflicts in close range, but I think it's probable in this ATL. I still haven't decided who would win a Russo-British war, wether Germany would help their ally, betray them or stay neutral (remember Germany has no Bismarck, who maintained the alliance with Russia, and the AH peace settlement is unstable and will be unpopular, to be covered in Part 10) and whether France could get involved. I'm happy to open consultation here about this and would love to hear your ideas
Part 9 is going to be abot the revolution in France. Presumably because Paris hasn't been under siege the Paris communal revolt doesn't happen, but perhaps something similar to the June days would occur? Would the revolution be republican in character? How would it differ from the OTL? If any of you have any ideas I'd be more than happy to listen.
Part 10 is about the peace settlement. Most of this is in earlier sections but it's just going to be solidified here- the only question in my mind ATM is about who negotiations for France, if it's in revolutionary tumult, and perhaps the host city.
I will then think of a fun interlude- perhaps a mock history test, I've seen that before, or an alaysis of what different historians have thought about the events so far, then move onto section 2 of the TL, which is about the interwar years. This is not some lame attempt to mimic WW1 and WW2, but remember Disraeli is in power, who had a rather different attitude to Gladstone, from 1874 onwards and tensions between Russia and Britain almost boiled into war in the OTL, in the ATL this is even more intense- so the Bulgarian crisis may well escalate in the end. It's quite grim to have two conflicts in close range, but I think it's probable in this ATL. I still haven't decided who would win a Russo-British war, wether Germany would help their ally, betray them or stay neutral (remember Germany has no Bismarck, who maintained the alliance with Russia, and the AH peace settlement is unstable and will be unpopular, to be covered in Part 10) and whether France could get involved. I'm happy to open consultation here about this and would love to hear your ideas
If Bohemia is removed from a defeated Austria to Prussia, and Galicia is removed to Russia, it seems to me that this would leave a rump Hapsburg empire where Hungary is the dominant unit. It is not at all clear to me that Hungarian pressure for self-government would not build if there was a second, more disastrous, military defeat. With Austria so badly diminished, it is also unclear to me that it would be in any position to restrain Hungary.
The way that Czech nationalism will develop, meanwhile, will be interesting. Question: Are all the lands of the Bohemian Crown going to be taken by Prussia?
Yes- but this is meeting significant resistance (see Part 4)- plan to have some autonomy settlement but no independence.
Part 9- Revolution in France
"Napoleon I conqueared the world. Napoleon III was conquered by the world"- Prince Bismarck
Part 9- Revolution in France
Napoleon III hoped that the tentative peace that he had achieved would enable him to recall soldiers in order to crush the dissenters at home, and that the peace would bring some relative stability to France and save his regime. However, the situation had deteriorated to the point at which Napoleon III could no longer control the course of events. Discontent with the absolutist regime had been simmering for years. Napoleon III was seen as the figurehead of a corrupt status quo, endemic to the system, built of imperial greed and willing to risk French lives. Napoleon's gamble to boost his prestige at home, embarking on the Franco-Prussian war, had ended in disaster, and thousands upon thousands of French lives had been wasted as the domestic situation and the economy deteriorated. The failures in war were blamed on a corrupt and useless military and political elite, and the shortages in food that had become commonplace during 1872 only added to the growing sense of revolution and discontent. The news of the collapse of the French army throughout November proved too much for most Parisians, as the war that had consumed so many lives had been lost, because, as many saw it, of the bumbling and corrupt incompetence of French officials. Napoleon III suing for peace was also seen as a treacherous move, designed so that he could use his army against his own people and the enemy. Many feared to what extent Napoleon III was willing to sell out his country in order to preserve his regime. Napoleon III also lacked the energy to vigorously shape the narrative or defend himself. Napoleon III had been in significantly declining, on account of kidney diseases and goat, and he had been plunged into a state of despair as his war collapsed around him. As the tensions and riots on the streets grew more and more pronounced, Napoleon III decided to attempt to escape to a small estate near Caen in order to re-group and escape the Parisian mob until his army arrived- Napoleon had watched in 1848 as Louis Phillipe had failed to escape from revolutionary Paris, forcing him to capitulate. However, this flight was a strategic misjudgement. Not only was it instantly compared with the flight to Vaneeress that doomed Louis XVI, and seen as an abdication of responsibility. It also induced panic, as it seemed to confirm that Napoleon III was going to use military coercion to crush dissent within the capital. A day after the announcement of the flight, armed mobs seized key governmental buildings around the capital and a provisional revolutionary government was proclaimed. The news of the fall of Paris was combined with news of widespread mutinies within the army- the soldiers believed that they had been sold out by the imperial authorities, and Napoleon III would find crushing the revolution with the remains of his decimated army impossible. Collapsing in senile despair, Napoleon III agreed to abdicate the throne on December 6th, 1872, bringing to an end over twenty years of rule. On the same day Leon Gambetta, a French statesman who had often championed the causes of the lower classes, proclaimed the Third Republic at the Hotel de Ville. His reign, marred by corruption and defeat abroad, both in Mexico and in Europe, is regarded as a sad chapter in French history, and one that is forever unfavourably compared with the conquests of his uncle.
Gambetta's provisional government still faced difficulties. Although Gambetta championed the working classes, radical working class feeling on the streets was still present and the government had little army to defend themselves with or assert themselves. This was compounded by strong reactionary opposition, mainly in the form of the monarchists, who distrusted Gambetta's left republican stance. The collapse of the army through the twin blows of the Prussian invasion and the French mutinies had weakened the French position further, and made the possibility of re-opening the war for a populist defence of the fatherland quite impossible. Gambetta's government would still have to submit to the peace Negotations scheduled for that January- an agreement to engage in these negotiations was followed by swift recognition by the great powers of his government, securing her short term stability. But Gambetta could already see the writing on the wall for the regime- these peace negotiations would likely torpedo his popularity at home, and lead to significant electoral victories for the monarchist forces organising for the elections in February. Gambetta thus found himself only in loose control of a country in a thoroughly uneviable condition, with little long term hopes for his success.
Part 9- Revolution in France
Napoleon III hoped that the tentative peace that he had achieved would enable him to recall soldiers in order to crush the dissenters at home, and that the peace would bring some relative stability to France and save his regime. However, the situation had deteriorated to the point at which Napoleon III could no longer control the course of events. Discontent with the absolutist regime had been simmering for years. Napoleon III was seen as the figurehead of a corrupt status quo, endemic to the system, built of imperial greed and willing to risk French lives. Napoleon's gamble to boost his prestige at home, embarking on the Franco-Prussian war, had ended in disaster, and thousands upon thousands of French lives had been wasted as the domestic situation and the economy deteriorated. The failures in war were blamed on a corrupt and useless military and political elite, and the shortages in food that had become commonplace during 1872 only added to the growing sense of revolution and discontent. The news of the collapse of the French army throughout November proved too much for most Parisians, as the war that had consumed so many lives had been lost, because, as many saw it, of the bumbling and corrupt incompetence of French officials. Napoleon III suing for peace was also seen as a treacherous move, designed so that he could use his army against his own people and the enemy. Many feared to what extent Napoleon III was willing to sell out his country in order to preserve his regime. Napoleon III also lacked the energy to vigorously shape the narrative or defend himself. Napoleon III had been in significantly declining, on account of kidney diseases and goat, and he had been plunged into a state of despair as his war collapsed around him. As the tensions and riots on the streets grew more and more pronounced, Napoleon III decided to attempt to escape to a small estate near Caen in order to re-group and escape the Parisian mob until his army arrived- Napoleon had watched in 1848 as Louis Phillipe had failed to escape from revolutionary Paris, forcing him to capitulate. However, this flight was a strategic misjudgement. Not only was it instantly compared with the flight to Vaneeress that doomed Louis XVI, and seen as an abdication of responsibility. It also induced panic, as it seemed to confirm that Napoleon III was going to use military coercion to crush dissent within the capital. A day after the announcement of the flight, armed mobs seized key governmental buildings around the capital and a provisional revolutionary government was proclaimed. The news of the fall of Paris was combined with news of widespread mutinies within the army- the soldiers believed that they had been sold out by the imperial authorities, and Napoleon III would find crushing the revolution with the remains of his decimated army impossible. Collapsing in senile despair, Napoleon III agreed to abdicate the throne on December 6th, 1872, bringing to an end over twenty years of rule. On the same day Leon Gambetta, a French statesman who had often championed the causes of the lower classes, proclaimed the Third Republic at the Hotel de Ville. His reign, marred by corruption and defeat abroad, both in Mexico and in Europe, is regarded as a sad chapter in French history, and one that is forever unfavourably compared with the conquests of his uncle.
Gambetta's provisional government still faced difficulties. Although Gambetta championed the working classes, radical working class feeling on the streets was still present and the government had little army to defend themselves with or assert themselves. This was compounded by strong reactionary opposition, mainly in the form of the monarchists, who distrusted Gambetta's left republican stance. The collapse of the army through the twin blows of the Prussian invasion and the French mutinies had weakened the French position further, and made the possibility of re-opening the war for a populist defence of the fatherland quite impossible. Gambetta's government would still have to submit to the peace Negotations scheduled for that January- an agreement to engage in these negotiations was followed by swift recognition by the great powers of his government, securing her short term stability. But Gambetta could already see the writing on the wall for the regime- these peace negotiations would likely torpedo his popularity at home, and lead to significant electoral victories for the monarchist forces organising for the elections in February. Gambetta thus found himself only in loose control of a country in a thoroughly uneviable condition, with little long term hopes for his success.
Part 10- The Second Treaty of Prague
Part 10- The Second Treaty of Prague
I shall go down as a failed monarch. Venetia, Lombardy, Prague, Galicia, the Bukovina... the list of territories I have lost is countless. I took over duties from poor Ferdinand, but I cannot help feeling that even he in his madness would have not brought this disaster upon the Austrian people- Franz Joseph (private remarks)
The war in Europe was over, and the victors had a lot of matters to discuss upon the defeat of France and Austria. Of the two defeated powers, Austria received almost no representation at the conference, held in Prague in December 1872 and January 1873. Most of the matters relating to the defeat of Austria had been secretly agreed between the Russian Empire and the German Empire prior to the conference in a series of secret protocols. The general thrust of these agreements was that the German annexation of Bohemia would be to be confirmed (although the London conference had seen Prussia pledge autonomy in the province), and in compensation Russia would receive Galicia. The Russian Empire was to have a sphere of influence over Hungary, which included the right to garrison troops and economic concessions and political influence, and Austria joining Germany's sphere of influence (although not being annexed), with the rights of garrison and economic concessions reflected. The powers of the Hungarian legislature would further increase, although Francis Joseph would remain emperor of both his realms, such control was limited to free trade between the two areas and foreign policy autonomy. Such foreign policy autonomy, however, was severely compromised; the foreign policy at Budapest was inevitably tied up with the heavy Russian influence there and likewise with Germany at Vienna, and Franz Joseph was forced to sign a humiliating treaty forbidding any further Austrian interference in the Balkans. Given how close the empire was to total implosion, the empire now had to rely exclusively on their foreign sponsors to keep itself alive. Austria-Hungary was no longer a great power in any sense of the word, some 7 centuries after the rise of the Hapsburgs.
The delegates, however, did fight over the precise nature of the territorial sentiment. Crushing losses on the Austrian half of the Empire were already agreed before the conference. The German Empire had proclaimed an annexation of the whole of Bohemia, not just the "New Silesia" area taken in the First Treaty of Prague, at the beginning of the war, and this annexation was confirmed. Russia, to maintain some sort of balance of power, had demanded Galicia in these secret treaties- that too was confirmed. Both of these annexations were in the long run not beneficial for the occupying powers- for Germany, it brought in a new and heightened problem of Czech resistance to the state, and for Russia, it compounded their existing problems with Polish resistance to occupation that had been ongoing since the construction of Congress Poland under Russian rule in 1815. But the late entrance of Italy compounded the tensions at the conference. The secret treaties had not planned to give away much more of the Austrian sector, given the crushing territorial loses, to make the German influence in the remaining parts of the empire still significant. But the late entry of Italy into the war had upended that, as they were now in occupation of the city of Trieste, the Tyrol and the Dalmatian cost. Irredentists in Rome demanded that they must keep full possession. With Russo-German tension already rising, Russia pushed for a generous compensation of Italy, being given all of North Tyrol, the port of Trieste and the Dalmatian coast, whereas Germany sought to limit Italy's gains to small gains in Istria, to maintain the Austrian influence over the crumbling empire and to keep the wealthy ports of Dalmatia under their sphere of influence. When the conference was increasingly deadlocked, some German and Italian diplomats began pushing for a joint partition of the Austrian section, in which Germany annexed the remnants of Austria in return for a full recognition of the Italian claims. This horrified the Russian diplomats, who had joined the war on the express understanding that this would not occur to preserve the Habsburg empire as a malleable bulwark against further German encroachment, and bitter disputes broke out. After days of fractious exchange, an understanding was reached in which Italy could annex Northern Tyrol, Istria and the city of Trieste (which was declared open to foreign shipping), and have some naval rights in Dalmatia without annexing the province. The net effect of this is that Hungary made no territorial concession, whereas Austria was crushed and decimated- rebalancing the empire around the Hungarian half and vastly increasing the influence of Hungary within it.
The settlement with France revolved around whether the treaty would be accepted. There were fairly few diagreements in the settlement with France. Germany pushed for a modest annexations in the former French provinces of Alsace and Lorraine- including the cities of Strasbourg and Metz, and France had to recognise the unification of Germany. France would renounce her title as protector of Christians in the Balkans and formally recognise Russia in that role, and disavow any intervention in the Balkans- a huge loss of prestige. A reparation payment would be exacted, to be payed in instalments over ten years to the Russian and Prussian government, with an occupation force in Northern France there to ensure it's payment. Gambetta, however, would not accept these terms. The demands for territorial compensation and the crushing humilliation caused uproar at home and demands to resist the occupation. France was not in a position to enforce her protests. When Gambetta continued to obstruct, the French and Russian armies mobilised- the French army was not in a position, after 3 years of war, to resist the demands and backed down with a minor adjustment to reparations, to huge uproar at home. The treaty was eventually signed in a small ceremony in Prague on the 21st February, 1871, bringing to a formal end the most deadly and broad conflict since the end of the Napoleonic Wars.
The reaction to the treaty was overwhelmingly negative. Pan-German newspapers were outraged that Germany did not commit herself to an annexation of Austria, and saw it as a heartless sellout to the Russian government, fuelling violent reactions at home and stirring up vast anti-Russian sentiment. The French and Austrians saw the treaty as an intolerable humilliation, and in Austria that was accompanied by disappointment that free determination of peoples had not been accomplished, leaving Hungary still not technically independent and denying an Austrian union with Germany. Only in Russia was the reaction mainly positive; pan-Slavist activists at home were pleased at the free hand Russia had gained, although the reaction in Galicia, a newly annexed province of the Russian Empire, was particularly violent. Much of Galician identity had been around loyalty to the Austrian state (Galician peasants had crushed an attempted insurrection in 1846), and the legacy of Joseph II meant many in Galicia saw the emperor as a fundamentally benevolent figure who would fight for their lives. The replacement of the emperor of Austria with the emperor of Russia caused fear, panic and anger within Galicia, leading to insurrection that would continue in years to come.
The treaty remains one of the most defining documents of international history. Despite Germany's dissatisfaction, this process confirmed the unification of Germany into a single state (underway in a series of conflicts from 1864) under Prussian control, and transformed the geopolitical landscape of Europe by confirming the existence of a central European hegemon in the form of the greater German state. The treaty also confirmed the end of the containment of Russia after their defeat in Crimea in 1853-1856, leading to a series of geopolitical changes in the Balkans, a remarkable turnaround for a nation so comprehensively defeated. Although this treaty would not be particularly stable, especially in regards to the unworkable compromise of the 'spheres of influence' in Austria, it went down in history as one of the most significant diplomatic documents since the congress of Vienna. Historians have also pointed to the treaty as a key moment in the decline in British, French and Ottoman influence on the world stage.
Map of Europe, February 21st 1873
I shall go down as a failed monarch. Venetia, Lombardy, Prague, Galicia, the Bukovina... the list of territories I have lost is countless. I took over duties from poor Ferdinand, but I cannot help feeling that even he in his madness would have not brought this disaster upon the Austrian people- Franz Joseph (private remarks)
The war in Europe was over, and the victors had a lot of matters to discuss upon the defeat of France and Austria. Of the two defeated powers, Austria received almost no representation at the conference, held in Prague in December 1872 and January 1873. Most of the matters relating to the defeat of Austria had been secretly agreed between the Russian Empire and the German Empire prior to the conference in a series of secret protocols. The general thrust of these agreements was that the German annexation of Bohemia would be to be confirmed (although the London conference had seen Prussia pledge autonomy in the province), and in compensation Russia would receive Galicia. The Russian Empire was to have a sphere of influence over Hungary, which included the right to garrison troops and economic concessions and political influence, and Austria joining Germany's sphere of influence (although not being annexed), with the rights of garrison and economic concessions reflected. The powers of the Hungarian legislature would further increase, although Francis Joseph would remain emperor of both his realms, such control was limited to free trade between the two areas and foreign policy autonomy. Such foreign policy autonomy, however, was severely compromised; the foreign policy at Budapest was inevitably tied up with the heavy Russian influence there and likewise with Germany at Vienna, and Franz Joseph was forced to sign a humiliating treaty forbidding any further Austrian interference in the Balkans. Given how close the empire was to total implosion, the empire now had to rely exclusively on their foreign sponsors to keep itself alive. Austria-Hungary was no longer a great power in any sense of the word, some 7 centuries after the rise of the Hapsburgs.
The delegates, however, did fight over the precise nature of the territorial sentiment. Crushing losses on the Austrian half of the Empire were already agreed before the conference. The German Empire had proclaimed an annexation of the whole of Bohemia, not just the "New Silesia" area taken in the First Treaty of Prague, at the beginning of the war, and this annexation was confirmed. Russia, to maintain some sort of balance of power, had demanded Galicia in these secret treaties- that too was confirmed. Both of these annexations were in the long run not beneficial for the occupying powers- for Germany, it brought in a new and heightened problem of Czech resistance to the state, and for Russia, it compounded their existing problems with Polish resistance to occupation that had been ongoing since the construction of Congress Poland under Russian rule in 1815. But the late entrance of Italy compounded the tensions at the conference. The secret treaties had not planned to give away much more of the Austrian sector, given the crushing territorial loses, to make the German influence in the remaining parts of the empire still significant. But the late entry of Italy into the war had upended that, as they were now in occupation of the city of Trieste, the Tyrol and the Dalmatian cost. Irredentists in Rome demanded that they must keep full possession. With Russo-German tension already rising, Russia pushed for a generous compensation of Italy, being given all of North Tyrol, the port of Trieste and the Dalmatian coast, whereas Germany sought to limit Italy's gains to small gains in Istria, to maintain the Austrian influence over the crumbling empire and to keep the wealthy ports of Dalmatia under their sphere of influence. When the conference was increasingly deadlocked, some German and Italian diplomats began pushing for a joint partition of the Austrian section, in which Germany annexed the remnants of Austria in return for a full recognition of the Italian claims. This horrified the Russian diplomats, who had joined the war on the express understanding that this would not occur to preserve the Habsburg empire as a malleable bulwark against further German encroachment, and bitter disputes broke out. After days of fractious exchange, an understanding was reached in which Italy could annex Northern Tyrol, Istria and the city of Trieste (which was declared open to foreign shipping), and have some naval rights in Dalmatia without annexing the province. The net effect of this is that Hungary made no territorial concession, whereas Austria was crushed and decimated- rebalancing the empire around the Hungarian half and vastly increasing the influence of Hungary within it.
The settlement with France revolved around whether the treaty would be accepted. There were fairly few diagreements in the settlement with France. Germany pushed for a modest annexations in the former French provinces of Alsace and Lorraine- including the cities of Strasbourg and Metz, and France had to recognise the unification of Germany. France would renounce her title as protector of Christians in the Balkans and formally recognise Russia in that role, and disavow any intervention in the Balkans- a huge loss of prestige. A reparation payment would be exacted, to be payed in instalments over ten years to the Russian and Prussian government, with an occupation force in Northern France there to ensure it's payment. Gambetta, however, would not accept these terms. The demands for territorial compensation and the crushing humilliation caused uproar at home and demands to resist the occupation. France was not in a position to enforce her protests. When Gambetta continued to obstruct, the French and Russian armies mobilised- the French army was not in a position, after 3 years of war, to resist the demands and backed down with a minor adjustment to reparations, to huge uproar at home. The treaty was eventually signed in a small ceremony in Prague on the 21st February, 1871, bringing to a formal end the most deadly and broad conflict since the end of the Napoleonic Wars.
The reaction to the treaty was overwhelmingly negative. Pan-German newspapers were outraged that Germany did not commit herself to an annexation of Austria, and saw it as a heartless sellout to the Russian government, fuelling violent reactions at home and stirring up vast anti-Russian sentiment. The French and Austrians saw the treaty as an intolerable humilliation, and in Austria that was accompanied by disappointment that free determination of peoples had not been accomplished, leaving Hungary still not technically independent and denying an Austrian union with Germany. Only in Russia was the reaction mainly positive; pan-Slavist activists at home were pleased at the free hand Russia had gained, although the reaction in Galicia, a newly annexed province of the Russian Empire, was particularly violent. Much of Galician identity had been around loyalty to the Austrian state (Galician peasants had crushed an attempted insurrection in 1846), and the legacy of Joseph II meant many in Galicia saw the emperor as a fundamentally benevolent figure who would fight for their lives. The replacement of the emperor of Austria with the emperor of Russia caused fear, panic and anger within Galicia, leading to insurrection that would continue in years to come.
The treaty remains one of the most defining documents of international history. Despite Germany's dissatisfaction, this process confirmed the unification of Germany into a single state (underway in a series of conflicts from 1864) under Prussian control, and transformed the geopolitical landscape of Europe by confirming the existence of a central European hegemon in the form of the greater German state. The treaty also confirmed the end of the containment of Russia after their defeat in Crimea in 1853-1856, leading to a series of geopolitical changes in the Balkans, a remarkable turnaround for a nation so comprehensively defeated. Although this treaty would not be particularly stable, especially in regards to the unworkable compromise of the 'spheres of influence' in Austria, it went down in history as one of the most significant diplomatic documents since the congress of Vienna. Historians have also pointed to the treaty as a key moment in the decline in British, French and Ottoman influence on the world stage.
Map of Europe, February 21st 1873
The conflict over the Bulgarian dispute is going to be occurring in much heightened international tension due to the expansion of Russia, which may lead to an escalation of the conflict.