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

[Disraeli2004]

Exams of an Alternate Future:

(Author's note- this is meant to be a fun interlude, given we've hit 10 chapters)

Module: The Wars of German Unification, 1864-1873.

Describe the Provisions of the Treaty of the Second Treaty of Prague (5)

The Second Treaty of Prague mandated France give up territories in Alsace-Lorraine and pay a reparation payment to the Prussian and Russian state. Russia gained Galicia and the Buknovia from Austria and Germany gained the rest of Bohemia. Italy also made minor gains on the Adriatic.

Mark: 3/5- Lacks detail about Italian acquisitions, and fails to mention the reversal of the Treaty of London or the confirmatioon by both France and Austria that they would not intervene in Balkan affairs.

Explain Russia's decision to intervene on the side of the Prussians (7)

Firstly, Russia wanted territorial gains and acquisitions, particularly in Poland, for the Austrian state, and they were rivals in the Balkans. Secondly, the state wanted a strong German ally and state to stand up to the Austrians and were still bitter and resentful about their loss in the Crimean war, and wanted to expand their own power in the Balkans. Thirdly, the Russians saw that the Prussians were about to win the war, and thus wanted to take some territory to maintain the balance of power. The Russians also saw a Prussian victory as a way to block out or counterweight the influence of the British.

Mark: 4/7- Some good reasons given, but no where near enough analytical depth of any of the claims- and some of the arguments you make are highly suspect, phrased sloppily or are factually incorrect- argument 3 is outright wrong, it was the opposite- the Prussians looked like they were about to lose the war, which would bring a strengthened Austria and France who threatened Russian interests in the near-East.

Austria lost crippling amounts of territory between 1859 to 1873, but did not entirely collapse at the Second Treaty of Prague. Why was this? (6)

Russia had set out a series of conditions for their intervention. Russia was fundamentally hostile to the idea of a great German state, as they recognised this would tip the balance of power against them in a way that threatened their own security. Thus, in a series of secret protocols, they demanded the German government leave a rump Austrian government, and instead a spheres of influence arrangement was drawn up- in which Germany had economic and military dominion over Austria and Russia over Hungary- but the much larger Hungarian state would now largely control the empire, giving Russia a perement ally to counterweight the German expansion.

Mark: 5/6- Good and well explained- could have also added there was fear in some corners of the Russian government about the fact that an independent Hungary would be hostile to Russian interests (fears based off the effects of the 1848 revolution as well as Romanians in Transylvania.

'Gladstone was right not to embroil Britain in a war they could not win in the London Conference'- To what extent do you agree with this view?

I completely agree with this view. Britain simply didn't have the manpower to stop the Prussian army, and naval raids wouldn't have changed the course of the war. Moreover, the existence of a German state was not a direct threat to British interests- such fears were whipped up by jingoists at home, like Disraeli, for cynical political purposes. British intervention also wouldn't have stopped the Russian intervention, which was bound to doom Austria and France, and picking a losing side would have hardly been beneficial, indeed humiliating, for Britain.

Mark: 4/10- Some good arguments but again nowhere near enough detail. Other side not considered at all, which has cost you marks- make sure to rebut the other side! A lot of claims aren't substaniuated- how would the threat of British intervention not stopped the Russians, for example?

16/28- Must Try Harder! Nowhere near enough detail or depth in most answers.

 

[Emperordelafayette]

UPDATE 22/11: CHAPTER 1: THE WAR BEGINS:
‘The Balkans aren't worth the life of a single Pomeranian grenadier!’- Otto Von Bismarck, 1866.

Chapter One of the European Tragedy: The Treaty of Prague.

The War with Austria in known as Prussia as the ‘Kriegsprobe’ (War rehearsal) was swift and seemingly decisive, much in contrast of the conflict to come. Engineered by Otto Von Bismarck, this war was intended to drive out Austrian influence in Germany, to make sure that Prussia is not incorporated into some Greater German State. If German unity was to be inevitable, it must unite under Prussia, and not Austria; this war would pave the way for that, whilst making a ‘Kleindeutschland’, where Prussia- and more broadly Prussian Junkers- could dominate, possible. And at first it seemed as if the gamble worked. Although most of the German Confederation lined up against Prussia, Bismarck’s skilful diplomacy kept foreign powers out of the struggle. Prussia’s efficient and disciplined troops crushed the Austrians, already weakened by the 1859, decisively at Sadowa. But it was after that success, only 3 weeks into the war, that ruptures began to emerge.

The fruits of victory were showered too fast onto Prussia. The victory at Konnigratz opened the door to the occupation of Vienna, and after all they’d only been at war three weeks. But Bismarck already agitated for a ceasefire. The terms of this ceasefire would see Venetia ceded to Italy and Austria kicked out of German affairs entirely, but not a foot of territory would be taken from the Hapsburgs. The military and monarchical authorities both questioned this; why should Prussia respond to complete victory with such a tepid peace? Moltke was strongly against it and urged the King to continue on his advance. Bismarck implored, pleaded and supplicated; breaking down into tears and smashing objects in the room, Bismarck insisted that the King would be responsible for a horrible and bloody escalation of the war if he was to continue to advance. In what many consider to be the turning points of Prussia’s fortunate, Wilhelm I did not listen. “Any peace with the Austrians must constitute a victor’s peace, not this strange political concoction. It is insulting to Prussian honour to accept otherwise.”. Thus Moltke won out and Prussia pushed for an annexationist war against Austria and decided to continue onto Vienna, much to the incredulity of the French. Bismarck, traumatised and distraught that Wilhelm I had destroyed his intricate plans, was forced to resign. The war continued.

the war lasted only a month longer, but it set in motion a horrible chain of events. Wilhelm I got his little occupation of Vienna; the Austrians couldn’t muster enough troops to defend the city. The Prussian march through the city, memorably photograph, was to provide a permeant scar on the honour of the Austrian state. The peace treaty was harsh, both to German states that had so fatefully sided with the Austrians and to oppose Prussian expansion. Saxony and Hanover were annexed into the Kingdom of Prussia, along with Hesse-Kassel, Hesse-Darmstadt, Nassau, Saxe-Meiningen, Frankfurt, Reuss-Greiz, and Holstein. States that backed Prussia were forced into the “North German Confederation”. The South was left broadly alone. Prussia also annexed the “Saxon Corridor from Austria- a strip of territory running across Bohemia which included the town of Karslbad and Austrian Silesia. These are annexed into Prussia as the province of "New Silesia"- harking back to the days of Fredrick the Great. Venetia and some of Istria are lost to Italy.

This Treaty caused international outcry. This railroading of tradition and vast annexations suddenly meant that the “lesser Global power” was a threat to national security for the Great Powers, especially France. France was promised a part of the Rhineland which she never received and was infuriated at this vast expansion of Prussian power; although the French army was too weak to intervene in 1866, a series of reforms initiated in 1867 onwards began to stabilise and modernise the army. The Austrian emperor, Franz Joseph, was force to sign the compromise of 1867 under domestic pressure, turning his empire into a dual monarchy. The British were worried by this upstart power too and concerned at the annexation of Hanover. Only Russia seemed to take Prussia’s side; although there were Pan-Slavic objections to this strong German power, their co-operation over Poland had conviced the Tsar that they were a better partner that the Hapsburgs, who had betrayed them in the course of the Crimean War. Moreover the Tsar was more preoccupied with the Balkans that Central Europe, and he knew a weakened Austria would give him a free hand in the Balkans. Prussia and Russia continued to work constructively.

By 1869 the French and Austrians have agreed a mutual defence pact, clearly pointing the empires towards war. The French are dead set on containing Prussia; the domestic troubles convincing Napoleon III that he needs a foreign enemy. The situation in Austria is more complex. The Hungarians lobby against war, but German liberals, who are concerned about the triumph of an illiberal Prussia, and aggravate nationalist minority who want to row back the 1867 compromise and rectify national honur after the humiliation of 1867. It’s a hard decision for Franz Joseph, but the pro-war lobby wins out. The territorial loses are too hard to bare; they will be rectified. The large indemnity payment is also causing economic suffering, fuelling worries about a revolutionary collapse of the empire; the common enemy, Prussia, is needed to bring Austria together.

The Spark for the war comes from Negotations that attempted to form the German Empire in 1870. The background to the Bavarian crisis was the Spanish Crisis, where a Prussia Hohenzollern was nearly crowned King of Spain, before backing down in the face of French pressure. Tensions were still simmering because Wilhelm I had not given a personal guarantee that he'd never endorse a Hohenzollern candidacy again, but the crisis humiliated Prussia. National opinion with Prussia was outraged. As Moltke commented wryly: "How could a nation that could defeat the Austrian Empire in 6 weeks back down to a Napoleon doppelganger's every little demand?". Wilhelm I was growing increasingly frustrated with the Franco-Austrian demands. And this brings us back to the Negotations with the Southern German states. France made it very clear during 1866 that annexations of these states would lead to war, and thus they were not incorporated into the North German Confederation. But Wilhelm I, needing a victory after the Spanish humilliation, re-opened the issue. A communique sent on the 12th September 1870 to Bavaria and the other Southern German states offered some autonomy (greater than the Northern members) if they'd agree to be part of the German Empire. However, France stepped in. France stated that they were willing to guarantee the independence of the South German states, with Austria adding that "The Austrian government, which has always shared a spiritual connection with fellow Southern German states, stands wholeheartedly in defence of Catholic Germany in response to Northern Prussian aggression". As a result, each of the states rejected membership. This was too much for Prussia. Wilhelm I summed the situation up.

"Gentlemen, I will be cowed by the Bonaparte family no longer. For all of my childhood, the French rampaged through our homeland, took our resources and starved us dry. But Prussian honour and ingenuity won the day at the miraculous victories at Leipzig and Waterloo. It was because the German people united together against common aggression, and I believe that spirit still exists. The German people will rise to this challenge. We will not accept Bonaparte's dictat."

Thus, after the failure of Negotations at London, Wilhelm I sent troops to occupy Munich, overwhelming the Bavarian forces, helped along by popular support. France declared this an attack upon her people and declared war on the 4th October 1870. Austria followed on the 7th October, saying that it would 'defend to the death the kinsmen of the Austrians', despite Hungarian opposition. The Great European War had begun.

If Austria loses territory and is further burdened by war indemnities the desire for revenge among conservative elites will certainly be even higher than otl however, it’s reduced ability to fund military reform/readiness coupled with the fear that another loss might be the end of Austria makes Austrian intervention in the Franco-Prussian war extremely unlikely, if not impossible. Its military was already operating on a smaller budget after the compromise of 1867, personal feuds and political fighting over military authority plagued its development of military plans, estimated mobilization time was at least 6weeks in our 1870(Prussia mobilized in 18 days), strategic railways in Bohemia and crossing the Carpathian Mountains had not yet been completed, it was notably short of uniforms and horses, and was unprepared to fight during the winter of 1870. With indemnities and a weaker Austrian position in the compromise of 1867 with the Hungarians, the reduction of finances available to the military and civilian opposition to intervention make Austrian entrance into another war so soon after it’s defeat in 1866 very questionable. Civilian governments in Austria and Hungary wanted neutrality so they could focus on internal developments. Even if you could get it in the war it might collapse on itself before accomplishing anything noteworthy as just the cost of mobilization and readying fortifications was too much for them to sustain. Prussia invading a German state here is also nearly impossible. If Bismarck resigned or, more likely, is just ignored in 1866 he is still the most capable diplomat in Europe and has a stranglehold on the Prussian diplomatic office regardless of what anyone says. It’s also probable that Bismarck acts to keep France neutral following the decision to march on Vienna. Perhaps emboldened by lack of French intervention in 1866 during your timeline and a desire to recover prestige, Bismarck secretly pushes harder for Leopold to actually make it to the Spanish throne. Otto von Bismarck would not just fall out of the game.

 

[alexmilman]

If Austria loses territory and is further burdened by war indemnities the desire for revenge among conservative elites will certainly be even higher than otl however, it’s reduced ability to fund military reform/readiness coupled with the fear that another loss might be the end of Austria makes Austrian intervention in the Franco-Prussian war extremely unlikely, if not impossible. Its military was already operating on a smaller budget after the compromise of 1867, personal feuds and political fighting over military authority plagued its development of military plans, estimated mobilization time was at least 6weeks in our 1870(Prussia mobilized in 18 days), strategic railways in Bohemia and crossing the Carpathian Mountains had not yet been completed, it was notably short of uniforms and horses, and was unprepared to fight during the winter of 1870. With indemnities and a weaker Austrian position in the compromise of 1867 with the Hungarians, the reduction of finances available to the military and civilian opposition to intervention make Austrian entrance into another war so soon after it’s defeat in 1866 very questionable. Civilian governments in Austria and Hungary wanted neutrality so they could focus on internal developments. Even if you could get it in the war it might collapse on itself before accomplishing anything noteworthy as just the cost of mobilization and readying fortifications was too much for them to sustain. Prussia invading a German state here is also nearly impossible. If Bismarck resigned or, more likely, is just ignored in 1866 he is still the most capable diplomat in Europe and has a stranglehold on the Prussian diplomatic office regardless of what anyone says. It’s also probable that Bismarck acts to keep France neutral following the decision to march on Vienna. Perhaps emboldened by lack of French intervention in 1866 during your timeline and a desire to recover prestige, Bismarck secretly pushes harder for Leopold to actually make it to the Spanish throne. Otto von Bismarck would not just fall out of the game.

This was actually not me but @Disraeli2004 🥺

 

[Disraeli2004]

This was actually not me but @Disraeli2004 🥺

Yes, I can confirm I wrote that!

 

[Disraeli2004]

If Austria loses territory and is further burdened by war indemnities the desire for revenge among conservative elites will certainly be even higher than otl however, it’s reduced ability to fund military reform/readiness coupled with the fear that another loss might be the end of Austria makes Austrian intervention in the Franco-Prussian war extremely unlikely, if not impossible. Its military was already operating on a smaller budget after the compromise of 1867, personal feuds and political fighting over military authority plagued its development of military plans, estimated mobilization time was at least 6weeks in our 1870(Prussia mobilized in 18 days), strategic railways in Bohemia and crossing the Carpathian Mountains had not yet been completed, it was notably short of uniforms and horses, and was unprepared to fight during the winter of 1870. With indemnities and a weaker Austrian position in the compromise of 1867 with the Hungarians, the reduction of finances available to the military and civilian opposition to intervention make Austrian entrance into another war so soon after it’s defeat in 1866 very questionable. Civilian governments in Austria and Hungary wanted neutrality so they could focus on internal developments. Even if you could get it in the war it might collapse on itself before accomplishing anything noteworthy as just the cost of mobilization and readying fortifications was too much for them to sustain. Prussia invading a German state here is also nearly impossible. If Bismarck resigned or, more likely, is just ignored in 1866 he is still the most capable diplomat in Europe and has a stranglehold on the Prussian diplomatic office regardless of what anyone says. It’s also probable that Bismarck acts to keep France neutral following the decision to march on Vienna. Perhaps emboldened by lack of French intervention in 1866 during your timeline and a desire to recover prestige, Bismarck secretly pushes harder for Leopold to actually make it to the Spanish throne. Otto von Bismarck would not just fall out of the game.

Austria does really poorly at the beginning of the war in 1870 and ultimately loses the entirety of Bohemia due to the gap you mention, so that has been factored in (the Prussians plan a Schlieffen style plan to knock out Austria in the TL for this reason) In terms of the point about the desire for civilian retrenchment, the idea was that the defeat of Prussia looked self-evident. Most people thought that France was the supreme land power in Europe, which meant their victory seemed assured- this meant that Vienna came very close to intervening in our OTL. The concession in the alternate treaty of Prague was just great enough to alienate Austria, taking a large swath of land called 'New Silesia'm without leaving them totally immobilised and unable to intervene. This meant that the emperor would have seen the war as a relatively safe bet in order to recover a large amount of lost territory- in which Austria had been more humilliated by the treaty than in the OTL- is factored in which pushes them towards war. Without Otto Von Bismarck, I don't assume the Spanish Candidacy doesn't happen- the scheme was fostered on the royal family by the prince, and certainly won't be the cause of war without him, however he does make a comeback- he is, in my TL, assigned to his old post as ambassador to Russia to secure the Russian entrance into the war on the side of the Prussians. Instead, in my TL I make planned negotiations to form a unified German states- in which both France and Austria have vested interests in preventing a German takeover, and in which building Prussian resentment against what they see as foreign interference in Germany pushes them towards war.

Does that answer your concerns? Also keep in mind Austria feels, due to the exceedingly harsh nature of the treaty, that Prussia represents an existnetial threat to their sovreingity, and that a Prussian victory over France would likely lead to them being the next target of Prussian aggression.

 

[raharris1973]

OK- very interesting world you've set up here:

Are you sure the butcher's bill in Europe still remains under a million?

How are business cycles in Europe and globally effected? Is the world set up for the Panic of 1873 and the Long Depression/Deflation from that time?

I wonder how the British economy has done. Continental trade has been disrupted, grain prices on the continent are up, but demand for British manufactures on the continent is up.

Two full years worth of German and Austro-Hungarian emigration to the United States and other destinations is messed up by war. Does this slow down the settlement/admission of any US western states, like Colorado in 1876? Or any of the later western states like the Dakotas in the 1880s?
Does it effect the American factory sector in those years? Do factory owners look elsewhere, to black southerners, for factory labor?

What does the severer war effort and mobilization and absorption of Bohemia do to German postwar politics? This war was far more expensive and costly than OTLs. What pension obligations has the state(s) taken on? What are non-Bismarck politicians going to think about pensions and welfare, Kulturkampf, etc.?

Can Germany and Russia stick to their sphere of influence agreements or will suspicion of the other big guy on the block get the better of them?

 

[Darknick]

Can Germany and Russia stick to their sphere of influence agreements or will suspicion of the other big guy on the block get the better of them?

It depends on both Germany and Russias political development following this. If Germany maintains a Bismarkian-esque foreign policy, then they should be able to avoid conflict of interest. The biggest issue is if Austria and Germany maintain a relationship. If they fought a second war in 6 years, I think Russia and Germany will continually be allied to counteract France and Austria. Eventually, I feel Germany and Russia will dismantle A-H for their own spheres. They will likely stay together to stand against Great Britain and break into Britains sphere of influence.

 

[Disraeli2004]

OK- very interesting world you've set up here:

Are you sure the butcher's bill in Europe still remains under a million?

How are business cycles in Europe and globally effected? Is the world set up for the Panic of 1873 and the Long Depression/Deflation from that time?

I wonder how the British economy has done. Continental trade has been disrupted, grain prices on the continent are up, but demand for British manufactures on the continent is up.

Two full years worth of German and Austro-Hungarian emigration to the United States and other destinations is messed up by war. Does this slow down the settlement/admission of any US western states, like Colorado in 1876? Or any of the later western states like the Dakotas in the 1880s?
Does it effect the American factory sector in those years? Do factory owners look elsewhere, to black southerners, for factory labor?

What does the severer war effort and mobilization and absorption of Bohemia do to German postwar politics? This war was far more expensive and costly than OTLs. What pension obligations has the state(s) taken on? What are non-Bismarck politicians going to think about pensions and welfare, Kulturkampf, etc.?

Can Germany and Russia stick to their sphere of influence agreements or will suspicion of the other big guy on the block get the better of them?

Hi guys! First off, I am going to write Update 11 soon, maybe tomorrow, so stay tuned!
To answer your specific queries:

1. I don't have enough knowledge of the 1873 crash to answer that properly. I'll try and do some research. Certainly the prolonged war would have damaged the economy more than the OTL and the uneasy state of affairs won't be doing wonders for consumer confidence. As you suggest this will have particularly done a number on the British economy and brought the boom to an end earlier than in the OTL.
2. The American perspective here is interesting. Perhaps one can argue the converse though? The state of post-war deprivation especially in Austria after a decade of constant turmoil may well INCREASE immigration and there may will be a large postwar wave. I'd appreciate your thoughts on the affects of a potentially larger wave of German immigration. Bu
3. This will have a lot of impact. There was a sustained rise in Czech Independent movements during the war which I enumerated in some of the updates and the Prussians remain an occupying force. I plan for them to grant some autonomy but have significant and sizeable unrest still in Bohemia, which causes international tension.
4. Probably not. The sphere of influence agreements are inherently unstable as they will be constantly fighting for influence in a post-war Austria, and that will be compounded by growing tension in the Balkans (the Bulgarian revolt will still happen, leading to the potential destabilisation of Ottoman control). This will begin to erode and breakdown the alliance

 

[Disraeli2004]

‘We have been borne down in a torrent of gin and beer’- William Ewart Gladstone

Part 11- Reactions and the Election of 1874.

The momentous second Treaty of Frankfurt had deeply mixed or negative reactions across most of Europe. The treaty was only broadly positively received across Russia, although there was some grumbling about the increase in the Polish populations. The treaty was seen as overcoming the unbearable humiliation of the Treaty of Paris in 1853, and Russia, by weighing in decisively on the side of the Prussian government, had shown that it was now a foremost global power again. Italy was also satisfied with the confirmation of its unification and the acquisition of former Austrian territorites, although some irredentists mumbled that the Dalmatian cost remained firmly in Austrian hands. The success against the Hapsburgs also had helped to stir in Russia within the empire growing pan-Slavist sentiment among its upper class, especially as the Empire began to contemplate the future of Hungary, still ruled de jure by the Austrian emperor but now practically independent from Vienna under Russian control. Reactions to the treaty were far less popular across most of Europe. In the newly-affirmed German Empire the treaty received a mixed reaction. Despite establishing the new German State as the pre-eminent power in Central Europe, confirming its unification and adding Bohemia to its borders, the treaty had under Russian and international pressure stopped short of absorbing the Austrian rump state into German borders, instead opting to maintain the Hapbsurg realm, although under economic and political domination of the new German state. After sparring with Austria twice in the past decade, powerful currents had emerged demanding a pan-German state, including a powerful pan-German league during the second war with Austria that drove propaganda for a regime that at times seemed to be faltering. The failure of the regime to deliver Pan-German unity triggered outrage from the nationalist sectors of German society and broad allegations of betrayal from the central government. This stirred nationalist fervour throughout the new German state, with powerful sectors of the population agitating for the annexation of Austria and a confrontation of Russian influence, which was perceived to be blocking the realisation of the pan-German state. Anti-Semitic conspiracy theorists also seized the moment to spread hatred, leading to a noticeable increase in anti-semitism, and anti-semitic organisations. The Pan-German Nationalist Party performed strongly at the Reichstag elections of 1873, winning 54 seats, although coming third behind Zentrum who won 64 seats and the National Liberal Party who won 98 seats. Strong resistance to Prussian rule continued in Bohemia, as authorities pondered how to implement- or whether to implement- the promised autonomy, as calls for Czech independence raged in Prague. The nationalists were in favour of total annexation with no autonomy, whereas more liberal voices were pushing for the granting of autonomy and recognition of Czech as a national language in the region. The situation in the former Austrian regions was volatile and in some cases violent. In Hungary, there was widespread popular outrage at the failure to achieve independence and agitation against the Russian troops who were stationed across the country. The Russian authorities stationed in the region had the task of coming up with a new consitution and governance system for the region, which preserved the emperor but placed control in the hands of Russian-backed Hungarian politicans. The agreement reached was that the Emperor could appoint the Prime Minister (but only with the consent, and in reality picked by, the Russian government. The parliamentary franchise would remain strictly limited and weighted by land, and the Prime minister didn’t have to have the confidence of the body. The Russians picked devout conservative Pal Sennyey to be the first Prime Minister on the 7th Septmber 1873. This offended the majority of the populace, both because it was clear domestic affairs had been shifted from the hands of the Austrian to Russian government, and that government had no intention of granting them democratic rights of affording them independence. Reaction to the news quickly turned the Hungarian people against their occupiers, leading to clashes in so-called ‘bloody September’, in which protestors demadning democracy, land reform and independence. 43 protesters and 11 Russian soldiers died in the fighting. The Russian government retaliated by re-imposing Marshall law around Bratislava and Budapest and delaying the return to civilian government. It would be the start of a relationship marred by violence and acrimony.

The prevailing French reaction to the treaty was widespread indignation and explosive anger. Gambetta’s decision to sign the treaty politically doomed him. The treaty, which signed away key border towns like Strasbourg, was seen as an unbearable betaryal. Riots across Paris in March forced Gambetta to resign, leading to a period of extended chaos throughout France. Wracked by economic devastation and political unrest, widespread anarchy and chaos ensued. Left-wing milita groups demanding the establishment of a commune across France seized control of much of the city, forcibly opposed by the army through months and days of bitter streetfighting and violence. The collapse of public order, especially with the unacceptable scenes across the capital,further convinced many Frenchmen that democracy would only lead to a continuation of the dangerous and violent state of unrest and acrimony across the country, and that any further equivocation would lead to a radical left wing government that most Frenchmen would abhor. This resulted in a large majority for the combined Monarchist forces- winning 68% of the popular vote and 439 seats to the Republicans 30% of the vote and 184 seats, with Bonapartists winning just 2% of the popular vote and 15 seats overall. Despite this, radical republicans topped the polls in Paris, continuning to fuel fears of further revolution. The monarchist forces also disagreed about the nature of the restoration, with significant splits about whether the monarchist restoration should go to Henry V, the Bonapartist heir, or to the House of Orleans. Given the pressing nature of the situtation, a compromise was reached- Henry V, who was childless, would become monarch under a constitutional monarchy with significant parliamentry power, but the line of succession would go to the House of Orleans. There were some worries about whether Henry V would accept, as he initially made untenable demands that the government could not fulfill, such as changing back the French flag, but the pressing nature of the situation as Paris continued to be gripped by lawlessness and milita activities, which had a danger with it of radical overthrow before he could accept, convinced him to accept the throne, with or without an altered flag. Thus on November 9th 1873 Henry V was crowned King of France, after a vote in the affirmative through the French legislature. His tenure would be marked on a focus on public order, but also a return to reaction that had marked previous Bourbon reigns.

The British reaction to the second treaty of Frankfurt was also overwhelmingly negative, partly because Britain was denied a voice in the negotiations and because it represented a triumph of Britain’s perceived enemies and the death of traditional British policy of attempting to maintain a balance of power within Europe, with Britain now powerless to stop a growing and expanding Russian Empire and a German Empire. To add insult to injury, the Russian government had revoked the clauses prohibiting a naval build up in the Black Sea in the Treaty of London, which revived fears of Russian control of the straits as well as anti-Russian sentiment. The serious failings of the Gladstone administration to negotatie a peace terms in the failed London Conference had also jepordised Britain’s international reputation as an arbiter of disputes. The result was a serious decline in Britain’s power and influence over European affairs, which produced outrage and indignation at home. This was happening concurrently with a weakening of the Liberal-Whig Conensus that had governed Britain since the corn laws. The Liberal Party had been increasingly demoralised and deflated not only as a result of foreign policy failures, but overplaying their hand domestically. The hated licensing act had helped Disraeli’s attempts to convert working class voters to the Conservative party, as well as the effect of new boundary and enfranchising laws that in fact provided benefit to the conservatives and the Home Rule League in Ireland (the secret ballot allowed tenants in Ireland to vote for the Home Rule League without fears of reprisals). The immediate trigger for the election was a fight over the Irish University system in 1873, seeking to establish secular universties, but was defeated by 3 votes due to opposition from the Catholic Church in Ireland. Gladstone sought to bolster his own power by re-taking the role of Chancellor and promising retrenchment, by drawing down military expenditure and expenditure on colonial expansion and abolishing income tax. To seek a renewed mandate for this bold plan, Gladstone called for snap elections to be held in February 1874. Gladstone had vastly overestimated his hand, not least because the Liberal apparatus was not ready for another election and couldn’t field candidates in over 100 constituencies, but also because he overestimated the popularity of his scheme to abolish income taxes- Disraeli and other conservatives lambasted the attempts at retrenchment as a continuation of the course of humiliation and declining influence that had been set in motion after Gladstone’s capitulation at the London conference. The campaign itself was nasty- Gladstone accused Disraeli of wanting to start wars across the continent, and Disraeli accused Gladstone of deliberate weakness and cowardice. The result was a miserable and historic defeat for the Liberals, ushering in the first conservative majority government since the collapse of Peel’s government due to the corn laws. The Conservatives won 367 seats to the Liberals 218 and the Home Rule’s 67, a majority of 82. The Result was particularly disasterous for the Liberals, who despite narrowly winning the popular vote lost over 160 seats, setting the clock back on generations of progress. Disraeli, who was in favour of a bolder stance of realpolitik and a shift to more directly confront Russian aspirations across the Balkans. Gladstone resigned as leader as the liberals in 1875 and returned to the opposition backbenches, his premiership torn down by a serious of miscalculations. The effects of a Disraeli premiership would become more apparent when conflict returned to the Balkans during his tenure.

 

[SomeFollowTheStars]

Dalmatian cost remained firmly in Austrian hands

I assume you mean coast.

Disraeli? Why does that sound familiar? 🤔

 

[Disraeli2004]

OK- very interesting world you've set up here:

Are you sure the butcher's bill in Europe still remains under a million?

How are business cycles in Europe and globally effected? Is the world set up for the Panic of 1873 and the Long Depression/Deflation from that time?

I wonder how the British economy has done. Continental trade has been disrupted, grain prices on the continent are up, but demand for British manufactures on the continent is up.

Two full years worth of German and Austro-Hungarian emigration to the United States and other destinations is messed up by war. Does this slow down the settlement/admission of any US western states, like Colorado in 1876? Or any of the later western states like the Dakotas in the 1880s?
Does it effect the American factory sector in those years? Do factory owners look elsewhere, to black southerners, for factory labor?

What does the severer war effort and mobilization and absorption of Bohemia do to German postwar politics? This war was far more expensive and costly than OTLs. What pension obligations has the state(s) taken on? What are non-Bismarck politicians going to think about pensions and welfare, Kulturkampf, etc.?

Can Germany and Russia stick to their sphere of influence agreements or will suspicion of the other big guy on the block get the better of them?

In terms of the panic of ‘73, it is simply delayed by two years. What pushed the global financial system over the edge towards disaster was speculation following the conclusion of the Franco-Prussian war from 1871 to 1873. Thus, the date of the collapse is pushed two years backed, but may well be worse due to deeper ravages of war.

In terms of the general German situation, i have been far too vague, and plan to make my next update dedicated to the internal situtation after the fall of Bismarck in 1866, reactions to the incorporations of Bohemia and a ‘Kulturkampf’ equivalent. I hope my last update does, however, adqueatly explain the internal situation in the UK, Hungary and France.

Just as a brief side note to justify France diverging from the OTL, the idea is that Henry V is far more likely to accept because the threat of further and more radical revolution is heightened due to the chronic instability raging in Paris for many months, worse than the OTL due to even worse economic suffering, which makes it far less likely Henry V would be pre-occupied with flags, as the monarchist majority and system of government could collapse at any moment, thus adding time constraints. The Orleanist compromise is the same as in the OTL.

 

[Disraeli2004]

Sorry for forgetting about this- Part 12 on the internal German situation, economy, politics and the reaction within Bohemia to the German annexation coming tomorrow.

 

[Disraeli2004]

Part 12- The Fragmentation of German Politics

The New German Empire is a paper tiger- it poses extraordinary threats from an outsiders' perspective, due to its raw strength and side- but is too wracked by international divisions to become a serious threat to our interests.- William E. Gladstone

Germany had, in the period of a decade, gone from being a loose confederation of associated states, with Austria and Prussia predominating, to a single state, and that transformation had been marked by bloody confrontation between Austria and Prussia in 1866 and between 1870 and 1872. The result of this was simultaneously the popularisation of 'pan-Germanism', the rise of militarism and nationalism across Germany, and a much sharper religious divide than before the conflict in 1866. The combination of the catholic alliance of Austria and France and the protestant-orthodox alliance of Prussia and Russia had sharpened religious divides- Austrian war propoganda in particular had painted the struggle as a struggle to preserve Catholicism from being submerged under a protestant dominated union. Attacks on protestants within the south and Catholics within the north became common- the Rhineland was nicknamed 'the bleeding Rhine' by some observers due to a flare-up in anti-Catholic violence by Prussian troops fighting the French there, and attacks on protestants in Austrian territories were ramped up by local catholic militias. This resurgence in secterian violence would dog attempts to construct a feasible union. After the war, the Prussian authorities found themselves in control of the southern South as well as Bohemia, an area that had posed a significant insurgency challenge during the war and desired independence.

In the settlement, the Prussian authorities decided to depose King Ludwig II and demote the status of Bavaria to a 'grand duchy' to try and reduce Bavarian autonomy, although he allowed Ludwig to remain in that position, as well as creating the Grand Duchy of Bohemia, under strict marital law by Prussian troops. The Emperor also sought conscious of the violence that had gripped the nation, to bring a more moderate tone and approach to politics, and to help with the integration of the new citizens into the state- this lay behind the appointment of Otto Graf Zu Stolberg-Wernigrode as Chancellor on March 8th 1873, a fresh and young face from Hanover who pledged to provide the unifying energies need to calm the forces unleash in wartime. Circumstances would not be so kind. The first sign of trouble would be the disastrous result of the first Reichstag elections done during the course of April 1873. The conservatives flopped to a humiliating third place, whilst Bohemian and Polish parties won hundreds of thousands of votes, the catholic party (Zentrum) established itself as the official opposition, and the liberals that demanded a sharp departure from the conservative consensus that had dominated Prussian politics won a clear plurality in parliament.

Results

Party	Votes	%	Seats
National Liberal Party	1,241,461​	28.83%​	110​
Centre Party (Zentrum)	812,141​	18.86%​	72​
Conservative Party	467,894​	10.87%​	42​
Pan-German nationalists	450,411​	10.46%​	40​
German Progress Party	342,841​	7.96%​	30​
Bohemian National Awakening	204,411​	4.75%​	18​
Polish Party	181,141​	4.21%​	16​
Social Democratic Workers' Party	151,423​	3.52%​	13​
German Hanoverian Party	51,841​	1.20%​	5​
Danish Party	26,311​	0.61%​	2​
German People's Party	19,411​	0.45%​	2​
Others	79,121​	1.84%​	7​
Invalid/blank votes	277,676​	–	–
Total	4,306,083​	100​	382​

The vacillating Stolberg had little chance of controlling this diffuse parliament or preventing the further radicalisation and fragmentation of the situation. Worse still, there was an imminent fiscal crisis on the horizon. Whilst growth in the first half of 1873 benefited from the resumption of peace and the expanded German customs union, concerns about the plans to pay down the vast debt accumulated over the course of a decade of on-and-off conflict began to mount. The plan put forward by the chancellor was rejected overwhelmingly by the chancellor amid stiff landed opposition, as well as causing a widespread backlash among the landed elites. As the summer dragged on into winter, it became increasingly clear that a major political fight over the debt plan reduction would occur and that no immediate fiscal solution would be present. Widespread panic among investors ensued and Germany became one of the first major economies to go into recession in late 1873, destroying the nascent recovery. Whilst the Bismarck precedent allowed for the collection of regular taxation, negotiations about how to raise taxes or cut spending to plug the emerging fiscal whole continued to collapse, spurring further downturns. This made for a difficult job for tax collectors across Germany, who were subject to violence and attacks. As the economic situation deteriorated further, the violence began to ratchet up. The residents of Bohemia, incandescent over the broad denial of autonomy given to the region, began to revolt against the German troops stationed there, with a ratcheting up of activity of the wartime Provisional Army of Bohemia (PAB) as thinkers in exile continued to pressure for the independence of the region. An attack on a German army barracks in Brno left 9 German soldiers dead on November 4th (marking the beginning of the Czech insurgency); the German government responded by massively tightening martial law. Widespread violence began to break out between the German inhabitants in Bohemia and the Czech inhabitants- widespread violence would claim in excess of 200 words and further galvanise German nationalism. Sectarian tensions began to erupt. A anti-government protest in Munich was fired on by panicked soldiers stationing there, killing 4- which prompted widespread indignation and fury in the Catholic world. Resulting sectarian tensions would lead to sporadic outbreaks of violence- Catholics would become even more disillusioned with the state and thought their fears that the new Germans state would be a greater protestant project were realised, and protestants became increasingly angry with the chancellor for failing to get a solid hold on the insurgency and increasingly intolerant of Catholics within their own communities. In the meantime, the deteriorating fiscal solutions It looked like that despite victory, Germany was hurtling towards crisis and towards the past. The winter of discontent in Germany from 1873 to 1874 reached its peak with a major terrorist attack in Prague on German headquarters. 4 Germans and 9 Czechs were later convicted of planting explosives in the headquarters, which detonated on January 14th 1874, causing 31 soldiers to lose their lives. The result was outrage and indignation across Germany- resulting in a terrible surge of both anti-Czech violence, anti-Semitic violence (2 of the attackers in the Prague Terrorist Attack were Jewish, and conspiracy theories spread rapidly). German atrocities and brutality committed during the occupation increased in the aftermath- attracting international negative attention, including the establishment of the Society for Czech Liberation (SCL) in both London, and most corrosively for German interests, across sections of Russian society. It looked like Germany was taking the express lane to fragmentation, isolation and financial crisis.

In the aftermath of the attack in Prague and the resulting chaos, Wilhelm I dismissed Stolberg in disgrace. Wilhelm I now faced a choice- cave to growing liberal pressure or try and re-assert conservative dominance. The first option seemed extremely threatening, because he feared that liberals would use the financial crisis as a lever for him to cede more authority. Few candidates volunteered given the grave state of affairs. The King, however, chose to appoint an old chancellor. Bismarck had been appointed in the backdrop of similar fiscal crisis and looming international isolation and had managed to steer the ship of state back on course, and fit the bill for being an ardent defender of conservative values and thought. There was an issue. Bismarck had been dismissed in disgrace in 1866 for opposing the King's plans to expand deeper into Austrian territories and had been in political exile of sorts, confined to being ambassador to Russia. But his proven record for turning around the country in moments of crisis meant the King was going to give Bismarck another punt. Bismarck became chancellor of the German Empire on February 17th 1874 amidst a backdrop of apparent disaster.

Authors N.B.- Sorry this instalment took so long- basically I've been very busy with starting a levels and coming out and stuff, so I haven't really had time- I'm in self-isolation now so I thought I'd post an update!