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

[Disraeli2004]

How is that correct?

This is what Disraeli said. I’m inclined to agree- the collapse of that balance created an angry colonial power in Germany and the long term effects of that total collapse-WW1- exhausted Britain.

"Let me impress upon the attention of the House the character of this war between France and Germany. It is no common war, like the war between Prussia and Austria, or like the Italian war in which France was engaged some years ago; nor is it like the Crimean War.

This war represents the German revolution, a greater political event than the French revolution of last century. I don’t say a greater, or as great a social event. What its social consequences may be are in the future. Not a single principle in the management of our foreign affairs, accepted by all statesmen for guidance up to six months ago, any longer exists. There is not a diplomatic tradition which has not been swept away. You have a new world, new influences at work, new and unknown objects and dangers with which to cope, at present involved in that obscurity incident to novelty in such affairs. We used to have discussions in this House about the balance of power. Lord Palmerston, eminently a practical man, trimmed the ship of State and shaped its policy with a view to preserve an equilibrium in Europe. [ . . . ] But what has really come to pass? The balance of power has been entirely destroyed, and the country which suffers most, and feels the effects of this great change most, is England.”"

 

[RMcD94]

This is what Disraeli said. I’m inclined to agree- the collapse of that balance created an angry colonial power in Germany and the long term effects of that total collapse-WW1- exhausted Britain.

Let me impress upon the attention of the House the character of this war between France and Germany. It is no common war, like the war between Prussia and Austria, or like the Italian war in which France was engaged some years ago; nor is it like the Crimean War.

This war represents the German revolution, a greater political event than the French revolution of last century. I don’t say a greater, or as great a social event. What its social consequences may be are in the future. Not a single principle in the management of our foreign affairs, accepted by all statesmen for guidance up to six months ago, any longer exists. There is not a diplomatic tradition which has not been swept away. You have a new world, new influences at work, new and unknown objects and dangers with which to cope, at present involved in that obscurity incident to novelty in such affairs. We used to have discussions in this House about the balance of power. Lord Palmerston, eminently a practical man, trimmed the ship of State and shaped its policy with a view to preserve an equilibrium in Europe. [ . . . ] But what has really come to pass? The balance of power has been entirely destroyed, and the country which suffers most, and feels the effects of this great change most, is England.”

Had they pitted themselves against France and Russia I think they would have suffered significantly less don't you think?

A strong Germany isn't dangerous at all for the UK, unlike a strong France which could threaten an invasion very easily as well as many parts of the Empire and would be difficult to blockade and a strong Russia which is almost an autarky and would threaten India. Even a strong Germany is incapable of doing anything like that, in fact we have evidence enough of WW2 proving that even complete domination of the European continent isn't enough to take down the UK. Imagine if Europe had been divided between France and Russia instead, I think the UK wouldn't have survived that war.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

I don't see why people are assuming that the US would be involved. It was on the other side of the world, had little in the way of power-projection abilities, and had no reason to get involved in a Franco-German conflict. You might be able to arrange a simultaneous US-UK war while the Franco-Prussian war is going on, but that would be a situation with two wars happening at the same time, not a world war.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

Have Russia back the US over the UK

Why would they do that, when they didn't IOTL? America's actions during the Trent affair were widely perceived to violate international law, and it's not as if Russia would get anything from taking the US side.

 

[M79]

Why would they do that, when they didn't IOTL? America's actions during the Trent affair were widely perceived to violate international law, and it's not as if Russia would get anything from taking the US side.

https://www.rbth.com/politics_and_s...le-did-russia-play-in-the-us-civil-war_823252

 

[Fabius Maximus]

https://www.rbth.com/politics_and_s...le-did-russia-play-in-the-us-civil-war_823252

Per that article, the main thing Russia gained was making its navy harder to destroy by stationing part of it in another country. But it could, and did, get this benefit without supporting the US in the Trent affair, whereas wading in on Lincoln's side would worsen relations with the UK and the rest of Europe (which was solidly on Britain's side over the matter). Basically, getting involved in Trent would bring no real extra benefits, and potential extra costs, so there was no reason for Russia to do so.

 

[Disraeli2004]

Had they pitted themselves against France and Russia I think they would have suffered significantly less don't you think?

A strong Germany isn't dangerous at all for the UK, unlike a strong France which could threaten an invasion very easily as well as many parts of the Empire and would be difficult to blockade and a strong Russia which is almost an autarky and would threaten India. Even a strong Germany is incapable of doing anything like that, in fact we have evidence enough of WW2 proving that even complete domination of the European continent isn't enough to take down the UK. Imagine if Europe had been divided between France and Russia instead, I think the UK wouldn't have survived that war.

The issue Disraeli among others were identifying is the general state of a harmonious balance of powers was good for Britain, and Germany, by it's very nature, ruptured the balance beyond repair. Britain had played an important role as arbitor and honest broker in international crises- and European powers resorting to resolve them through iron and blood thus took away a plank of British influence. More simply, there are these problems with a unified Germany:
a. Stronger commercial Germany weakens markets for British exports
b. Strong Germany gives Britain another colonial power to contend with
c. Prussian expansionism, as it was seen, would be hard to sell when it came down to intervening on their side, and public opinion was firmly against the Prussians. This would be even more so if the war broke out over the Spanish succession itself, and not the Ems dispatch (as I think an escalation would require, as it would outrage monarchical opinion- Austria being significantly humbled, perhaps with a concession of Czechia in 1866, would have also ensured the Austrians would intervene at the first possible opportunity).
c. RUSSIA- Russian ambitions had made Britain perennially nervous (Crimea the most obvious example). A Prussian-Russian coalition would have still unnerved Britain, especially as Russia would have used the opportunity to expand Westwards in Austria.

My guess, for these reasons, is that Britain would adopt a position of armed neutrality if the war escalated (like they did before it did) or begrudgingly intervene on behalf of the French. Napoleon III's expansionism was feared, yes, but Britain and France were on relatively good terms and had fought a war together in Crimea, also against Russian expansionism. For these reasons, Britain would weigh down on the side of France, if it was to at all. A unified Germany would be a threat, a swelled Russia even more so.

 

[M79]

Per that article, the main thing Russia gained was making its navy harder to destroy by stationing part of it in another country. But it could, and did, get this benefit without supporting the US in the Trent affair, whereas wading in on Lincoln's side would worsen relations with the UK and the rest of Europe (which was solidly on Britain's side over the matter). Basically, getting involved in Trent would bring no real extra benefits, and potential extra costs, so there was no reason for Russia to do so.

Also from article statement from 1862 from Imperial Russia about keeping the Union together etc.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

Also from article statement from 1862 from Imperial Russia about keeping the Union together etc.

Yes, but talk is cheap, in international relations as in most other areas of life. Telling a US ambassador that you hope his side wins and actually getting involved in a war are two very different things.

 

[Jan Olbracht]

If January Uprising in Russian Poland is prevented (unlikely, but possible if margrave Wielopolski was a bit more capable) then relations between Russia and France are much better than IOTL, while relations with Prussia are worse. That means Tsar would not be happy about Prussia getting too strong ITTL.

 

[Disraeli2004]

If January Uprising in Russian Poland is prevented (unlikely, but possible if margrave Wielopolski was a bit more capable) then relations between Russia and France are much better than IOTL, while relations with Prussia are worse. That means Tsar would not be happy about Prussia getting too strong ITTL.

I agree that the January uprising was important, but perhaps not the decisive factor. Russia didn't mind too much about France, but they did mind about Austria and saw them as traitors. Given that Hungarians were lobbying heavily against a second war with Prussia in 1870 as they were worried it would lead to the compromise of 1867, I wouldn't be surprised to see some Hungarian unrest if Austria decides to join the war against Prussia. This instability gives the Russians a fantastic opportunity to exploit Habsburg weakness and seize territory and Balkan influence. They would probably take it. And you're right, they should be worried about creating a strong central German state on their border. But they didn't care much in our timeline because they saw Austria as worse and they were preoccupied with the Balkans and the Black Sea. Bismarck's old adage about the secret of diplomacy being making a good deal with Russia held in this case- as you said, Prussians troops offered to help crush the January Uprising in Poland in 1863 to 1864, for example, and they thought quite highly of Prussia, blind to the danger. But I still think just because of Prussia's display of loyalty was not present, Russia would have attacked its neighbour. I agree this may change the calculations for 1866 perhaps, but not 1870. Austria pilling into the war, and subsequent unrest, would be too much of an opportunity to pass up. Russia would join the war on Prussia's side. Perhaps too much of one though- I'm not sure that the January Uprising was what tipped the Tsar's scales towards Prussia entirely. The Crimean Betrayal by Austria cut deeper as well as the desire to expand in the Balkans, which were arguably more important factors.

 

[M79]

Yes, but talk is cheap, in international relations as in most other areas of life. Telling a US ambassador that you hope his side wins and actually getting involved in a war are two very different things.

Deploying naval squadrons to ports on different sides of a continent is usually seen as more than just an act of good faith.

 

[Disraeli2004]

And Britain could do SERIOUS damage by blockading Prussia and Russia. They were still quite reliant on British imports. And if this was a long war, they would be in a worse position to cope with that than in 1914 on the supply front.

 

[M79]

And Britain could do SERIOUS damage by blockading Prussia and Russia. They were still quite reliant on British imports. And if this was a long war, they would be in a worse position to cope with that than in 1914 on the supply front.

And Paris might fly a Prussian flag ahead of OTL in that case. Russia can also pierce the Subcontinent and wreck havoc.

 

[KingOnTheEdge]

And Britain could do SERIOUS damage by blockading Prussia and Russia. They were still quite reliant on British imports. And if this was a long war, they would be in a worse position to cope with that than in 1914 on the supply front.

How many Ironclads were Britain and France boasting at this time? America, both confederate and union, were huge innovators on that front. Not that i think america has enough to bust up those blockades, but it could be a serious problem for British morale if America decimates the Caribbean/American fleet.

 

[Disraeli2004]

How many Ironclads were Britain and France boasting at this time? America, both confederate and union, were huge innovators on that front. Not that i think america has enough to bust up those blockades, but it could be a serious problem for British morale if America decimates the Caribbean/American fleet.

Unfortunately I know very little about military history. I do feel the America thing is quite tangential. You have to shift all events back 5 years or more (more like 10 years to coincide with the Trent affair, I'm by no means an expert in alt history etiquette but that's not really a causal chain. Besides, Bismarck's ascendancy in 1862 was an important distance of time away from 1848. The Junker Ascendency epitomised with Bismarck was the culmination of exhaustion with the legislative refusing to grant military subsides. Bismarck would not have been able to thrive 10 years before- Prussian politicians realised they could not just go straight back to the reaction of before 1848 and maintained some elements of constitutional government. It took time for Bismarck to slowly consolidate his rule and launch grand foreign policy ambitions- and we can't just ram it in with the American Civil War, which is a decade before.

Britain would not be going finding herself enemies in the USA if the threat of war in Europe is on the horizon. The Alabama Claims are unlikely to spiral; one must not underestimate the anti-Confederate opinion that restrained Britain from acting, and a war over ship reparations would similarly not garner support. The USA would be too exhausted to join a vindictive European war. A US involvement is extremely unlikely.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

Deploying naval squadrons to ports on different sides of a continent is usually seen as more than just an act of good faith.

According to the article you posted, it was a precaution to make the Russian fleet harder to eliminate in the event of war. There's no suggested that they were intended to take an active role in the struggle against the Confederacy, much less in any possible Anglo-American war.

And Paris might fly a Prussian flag ahead of OTL in that case. Russia can also pierce the Subcontinent and wreck havoc.

My memory of the dates is a little hazy, but I don't think the Prussian army had undergone all the reforms that would allow it to curbstomp France in 1870. Whilst a Prussian victory isn't impossible, I don't think it would be a quick affair. As for Russia piercing the Subcontinent, I don't think Central Asia was sufficiently developed to support a large army marching down into India. Even if a Russian force does manage to reach British territory, logistics alone will make it too small to cause any serious havoc.

How many Ironclads were Britain and France boasting at this time? America, both confederate and union, were huge innovators on that front. Not that i think america has enough to bust up those blockades, but it could be a serious problem for British morale if America decimates the Caribbean/American fleet.

I'm not sure about raw numbers, but Britain and France were also huge naval innovators, and had quite a few of their own, most of which were bigger and more seaworthy than anything the Union or CSA had afloat. So I don't think a decimation of the British Caribbean fleet was on the cards, really.

 

[KingOnTheEdge]

According to the article you posted, it was a precaution to make the Russian fleet harder to eliminate in the event of war. There's no suggested that they were intended to take an active role in the struggle against the Confederacy, much less in any possible Anglo-American war.



My memory of the dates is a little hazy, but I don't think the Prussian army had undergone all the reforms that would allow it to curbstomp France in 1870. Whilst a Prussian victory isn't impossible, I don't think it would be a quick affair. As for Russia piercing the Subcontinent, I don't think Central Asia was sufficiently developed to support a large army marching down into India. Even if a Russian force does manage to reach British territory, logistics alone will make it too small to cause any serious havoc.



I'm not sure about raw numbers, but Britain and France were also huge naval innovators, and had quite a few of their own, most of which were bigger and more seaworthy than anything the Union or CSA had afloat. So I don't think a decimation of the British Caribbean fleet was on the cards, really.

Eh with proximity to both fuel and repair bases (plus you know Mexico will be pro us if only because France and kinda Austria literally just invaded them) I think the Caribbean is pretty American, if nothing else

 

[wcv215]

How many Ironclads were Britain and France boasting at this time?

Looking at the list on Wikipedia...somewhere north of 30. And unlike the American ships these could actually sail out of coastal waters. The British had committed to an all armored fleet by the time the ACW started.

both confederate and union, were huge innovators on that front.

Were they though? Sure the Union's turret was an innovation IIRC, but beyond that?

The Virginia was literally just a wooden ship that had had armor added to it. HMS Warrior had an iron hull as well as armor. And it had armor piercing guns after its refit as well.

 

[Disraeli2004]

Looking at the list on Wikipedia...somewhere north of 30. And unlike the American ships these could actually sail out of coastal waters. The British had committed to an all armored fleet by the time the ACW started.

But you have to move the American civil war later or plonk Bismarck a decade earlier- which seems extremely unlikely. Given that history is inexorably shaped by culminative exhaustion and frustration in both cases and therefore timing of events is central to understanding why they happened, I don't see why the American Civil War would come into this. I feel it's slightly off-topic