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

[Disraeli2004]

I'm not one for thinking Bismarck was the best thing since sliced bread, actually. Great man theory of history is overrated, and you can't ascribe to much to him, rather than the circumstance, and much of his supposed genius grand stratregy were fictionalisations he himself created. He was clearly a man of genius and of diplomatic genius, and I think without him Prussia is more likely to end up in a World War (say if he resigned due to ill health in 1870 or resigned in 1866). And you must not underestimated Napoleon III's rashness- the 1859 war harmed France's interests by emaciating Austria because of the personal convictions of Napoleon III, he didn't always adopt the rational approach. In terms of why Russia would intervene, there have been multiple posts both by me and others explaining under what circumstances and why Russia would intervene- an opportunity against Austria probably would have been too tempting for Russia to pass up in 1870.

 

[Lampiao]

I'm not one for thinking Bismarck was the best thing since sliced bread, actually. Great man theory of history is overrated, and you can't ascribe to much to him, rather than the circumstance, and much of his supposed genius grand stratregy were fictionalisations he himself created.

I'm not arguing that Bismarck is some kind of brilliant politician and diplomatic demigod, it's just that he really made a concerted effort to keep the European net of diplomatic alliances work for him more than this contemporaries.

In terms of why Russia would intervene, there have been multiple posts both by me and others explaining under what circumstances and why Russia would intervene- an opportunity against Austria probably would have been too tempting for Russia to pass up in 1870.

I might have overlooked something, but, if I understood it right, what you guys are suggesting is that Austria joins France (or vice-versa) and then Russia would be invited to a partition of Austria by the Prussians. IMHO this is a 18th century approach for a late 19th century situation. Austria is a patchwork of nations that highly overlaps with Russia and, by the 1860's, the Russians are facing a huge Polish revolt. The elites of dominated nations of Eastern and Central Europe are more oftenly than not very liberal-leaning and it isn't in the best interest of the Russian Empire to empower those peoples for obvious reasons. The main goal of Russian external policy is to maintain the status quo and avoid dramatic political changes in the region that might reflect inside their territory. For Russian involvement you need a deeper and more complex political situation (like in WW1) than simply partitioning a neighbour empire.

 

[Disraeli2004]

1) Janua

I'm not arguing that Bismarck is some kind of brilliant politician and diplomatic demigod, it's just that he really made a concerted effort to keep the European net of diplomatic alliances work for him more than this contemporaries.



I might have overlooked something, but, if I understood it right, what you guys are suggesting is that Austria joins France (or vice-versa) and then Russia would be invited to a partition of Austria by the Prussians. IMHO this is a 18th century approach for a late 19th century situation. Austria is a patchwork of nations that highly overlaps with Russia and, by the 1860's, the Russians are facing a huge Polish revolt. The elites of dominated nations of Eastern and Central Europe are more oftenly than not very liberal-leaning and it isn't in the best interest of the Russian Empire to empower those peoples for obvious reasons. The main goal of Russian external policy is to maintain the status quo and avoid dramatic political changes in the region that might reflect inside their territory. For Russian involvement you need a deeper and more complex political situation (like in WW1) than simply partitioning a neighbour empire.

Russia did work quite closely with Prussia in the 1860s. They were livid at Austria for their betrayal in Crimea. They also sought the expand their influence in the Balkans and a strong Austria was a major obstacle to that. Prussia on the other hand had helped them in the January uprising, and they got on well with Bismarck. If the Austro-French coalition look as if they are going to win, Russia would want to stop them to prevent an ascendency of Austria. And remember, they are still angry with France for yanking the title of Protector of Christians in the Ottoman Empire away from them.

 

[Lampiao]

Russia did work quite closely with Prussia in the 1860s. They were livid at Austria for their betrayal in Crimea. They also sought the expand their influence in the Balkans and a strong Austria was a major obstacle to that.

I don't understand how this somehow leads to the desire to partition Austria, potentially empowering liberal minorities within the highly conservative Russia and in their immediate neighbourhood.

Prussia on the other hand had helped them in the January uprising, and they got on well with Bismarck. If the Austro-French coalition look as if they are going to win, Russia would want to stop them to prevent an ascendency of Austria. And remember, they are still angry with France for yanking the title of Protector of Christians in the Ottoman Empire away from them.

The thing is: Austria already is nominally the head of the German Confederation ever since the Congress of Vienna. Not only they don't have the power to tighten up their dominance over the German States but also the French wouldn't support it for obvious reasons.

 

[Disraeli2004]

I don't understand how this somehow leads to the desire to partition Austria, potentially empowering liberal minorities within the highly conservative Russia and in their immediate neighbourhood.
The minority nations within Austria were illiberal. They were feudal and well aligned with Russian interests.


The thing is: Austria already is nominally the head of the German Confederation ever since the Congress of Vienna. Not only they don't have the power to tighten up their dominance over the German States but also the French wouldn't support it for obvious reasons.

The balance of power in Germany rested on a balance between France, Prussia and Austria. Yes, they wouldn't want a dominant Austria. But neither would they want a Prussian Germany. Any Germany was an intolerable threat to their security. The Franco-Prussian War was meant to stop that from happening. If that possibility was approaching in 1866, France would intervene to save the useless German Confederation; that would not be a threat to it, but a strong centralized Germany would. I agree that 1870 is more likely because Napoleon III was still in kahoots with Italian nationalists.

 

[Lampiao]

The minority nations within Austria were illiberal. They were feudal and well aligned with Russian interests.

Err... no. The Polish elite, obviously, was very liberal and anti-Russian. To try to grab Galicia to solve the Polish question is kinda like Bush trying to invade Iran to deal with his occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan... Not to mention that if Austrian falls, Kossuth will be back to Hungary and will lead the main Central-Eastern European state.

Austria falls, then Russia have to deal with an even bigger Polish problem; a huge Hungary which is liberal and extremely anti-Slavic; and the possibility of German Austria joining unified Germany. Well, not the brightest future for Russia.

The balance of power in Germany rested on a balance between France, Prussia and Austria. Yes, they wouldn't want a dominant Austria. But neither would they want a Prussian Germany. Any Germany was an intolerable threat to their security. The Franco-Prussian War was meant to stop that from happening. If that possibility was approaching in 1866, France would intervene to save the useless German Confederation; that would not be a threat to it, but a strong centralized Germany would. I agree that 1870 is more likely because Napoleon III was still in kahoots with Italian nationalists.

French intervention is more than possible in the 1866 War. Does French intervention make it a great war? No.

 

[Disraeli2004]

Err... no. The Polish elite, obviously, was very liberal and anti-Russian. To try to grab Galicia to solve the Polish question is kinda like Bush trying to invade Iran to deal with his occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan... Not to mention that if Austrian falls, Kossuth will be back to Hungary and will lead the main Central-Eastern European state.



French intervention is more than possible in the 1866 War. Does French intervention make it a great war? No.

If you're intrested, I did create a scenario where France and Austria both band together against Prussia (hence not a great war). I have talked a lot about Russian/British/Italian involvement or potential involvement, but it is conceivable this is the German Crimea. I do concede your point about Kossuth, but if Russia occupied Budapest they would be unlikely to accept Kossuth's return and try to craft a feudal, reactionary state which the landed elite favours within Hungary. You cannot automically assume that a Hungarian state, if it is formed, is going to be the 1848 liberal one, probably the opposite. It's also worth mentioning that Russia might enter the war with strictly limited aims and press Prussia into not accepting an Austrian accession to the German Empire, which they would agree to. I see no reason why Russia wouldn't just grab Gallica; I wasn't saying it would magically stop any Polish insurrection, indeed it would just mean more unhappy Polish citizens within Russia; but it would be a huge prestige boost for the Russians to grab a prestigious province of the Austrian Empire. Poland's actually a good reason why Russia liked Prussia; they both were committed to quelling Polish revolts (January uprising)

 

[AnonymousSauce]

If you're intrested, I did create a scenario where France and Austria both band together against Prussia (hence not a great war).

If we could get a limited engagement like that in the late 1860s/early '70s that is somewhat inconclusive (at least insofar as it doesn't lead to a full German Empire/diminution of France or Austria) then perhaps after that we could get a Triple Alliance of Prussia/NGC, Russia, and Italy and a Triple Entente of France, Britain and Austria, and sometime over the next few decades we could get the spark that leads to the Great War from there.

 

[Disraeli2004]

https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...won-the-franco-prussian-war-1870-1925.473727/-

This is my crack at that particular scenario. I do have Austria eventually unifying Germany, but there is confrontation with France and the unification takes places in around 1905

 

[Disraeli2004]

Still, I’m trying to create a scenario where a great war happens in 1860s/70s. I remain convinced that it’s not outlandish- the conquest of Germany by Prussia threatened a continental wide war, as it emaciated all existing convention and the balance of power.

 

[Mikestone8]

IMHO you're underestimating Bismarck. In 1866, Austria was isolated, Russia didn't care because of Crimea and France was supporting Italian nationalists, who were allied with Prussia. Diplomatically, everything is tied together in favor of Prussia.

On the other hand, the 1870 conflict can lead to a bigger war. Still, the most possibly it becomes some kind of Crimean War against Prussia (ie. Everyone against Prussia). I can't think of any reason why the Russians would somehow intervene in this war in favor of Prussia.

They wouldn't need to .

The British army in 1870 is a negligible quantity [1], and the Prussians can easily fend off Austria with one hand until they've won the battle of Sedan with the other.

[1][ Which would in any case arrive too late, as Britain would have no reason to come in unless/until France was clearly losing, ie after Sedan. By then of course, there would no longer be any point in entering the war.

 

[Disraeli2004]

They wouldn't need to .

The British army in 1870 is a negligible quantity [1], and the Prussians can easily fend off Austria with one hand until they've won the battle of Sedan with the other.

[1][ Which would in any case arrive too late, as Britain would have no reason to come in unless/until France was clearly losing, ie after Sedan. By then of course, there would no longer be any point in entering the war.

2 things.
1: Sedan could not happen if Austria intervened. I don't think the Prussians would be fought back immediately, but the kind of decisive victory that we saw at Sedan could not happen if Prussia had to send troops to deal with Austria.
2: If France began to lose (I admit, if they lose disastrously though Britain wouldn't intervene), that would freak out Britain, who would fear they are being displaced in the balance of power (see earlier posts). They might well plump for France to save the old order (see earlier posts).

 

[Mikestone8]

Sedan could not happen if Austria intervened. I don't think the Prussians would be fought back immediately, but the kind of decisive victory that we saw at Sedan could not happen if Prussia had to send troops to deal with Austria.

Why would it not happen?

All the Prussians have to do is leave enough troops on the Austrian border to keep her at bay while they defeated France. Iirc they did this anyway, OTL, just in case Franz Josef got any ideas. And even that's assuming Austria somehow mobilises fast enough to have done anything in particular prior to Sedan - which is highly doubtful. Most likely, Austrian intervention (if any) would come just in time for her to share in France's defeat.

 

[Mikestone8]

Still, I’m trying to create a scenario where a great war happens in 1860s/70s. I remain convinced that it’s not outlandish-

A war of Austria and France vs Prussia and Russia is perfectly possible - just unlikely as in 1866 neither Napoleon III nor the Tsar is eager for one, and in 1870 FJ won't risk it unless/until victory is assured. More probably Russia just passes the word (to Vienna or Paris according to which war it is) that "we'll stay neutral if you do."

 

[Disraeli2004]

I've lost you here. I don't see why it controversial to suggest that Prussia would do worse than in OTL if Austria intervened. That's not to say they would lose. And as for the second point, we are working under the assumption that France and Austria respectively DO intervene, therefore Russia feels pressured to make a stand also.

 

[Disraeli2004]

And I have said far, far too much about why Austria would intervene if the Second Treaty of Prague was harsher. They were close to in OTL, if they still deeply resented their loss they would probably jump.

 

[ennobee]

Obviously, if you play around with the timeline for a few events, you could have this conflict occur more-or-less simultaneously with the American Civil War. Merging those conflicts would essentially give you a world war....

I agree, the best way to have a true 'world war' is to have multiple other nations get involved in the American Civil War and the Maximilian civil war in Mexico occuring at about the same time. Then you could have the troubles spreading out on the high seas (Britain, France and Germany harrassing each other's supply convoys) and eventually on land (Prussia deciding the best way to stop the French fleet is to occupy Dunkirk, even if that means marching through Belgium...)

And most of all, the combined American/Mexican Civil War lasted four years, which is longer than both the Austro-Prussian and Franco-Prussian wars combined. Plenty of time for other nations to get involved.

 

[Disraeli2004]

I agree, the best way to have a true 'world war' is to have multiple other nations get involved in the American Civil War and the Maximilian civil war in Mexico occuring at about the same time. Then you could have the troubles spreading out on the high seas (Britain, France and Germany harrassing each other's supply convoys) and eventually on land (Prussia deciding the best way to stop the French fleet is to occupy Dunkirk, even if that means marching through Belgium...)

And most of all, the combined American/Mexican Civil War lasted four years, which is longer than both the Austro-Prussian and Franco-Prussian wars combined. Plenty of time for other nations to get involved.

I would like to do that, as it sounds quite fun to write. The trouble with this is you have to shift events back 5-10 years in Europe, which doesn't work. Bismarck was the product of the army funding crisis, which was a product of having to convene a group for the funding of the Ostbahn, which relies on a decade advance in railway technology.... (et cetera ad Infinium). It's also important there's clear blue water between the Efurt Union attempt (and 1848) and the Austro-Prussian war; Austria would have been able to beat Prussia in the 1850s. And I'm slightly worried this just suddenly becomes about the US civil war, of which there are quite a few alt timelines; but admittedly none where major confrontation in Europe is also happening.

How feasible is shifting the election of Abraham Lincoln to the 1864 election? Because that might work.

 

[Disraeli2004]

Does anyone know about Civil war alternate timelines to help with this?

 

[Fabius Maximus]

I agree, the best way to have a true 'world war' is to have multiple other nations get involved in the American Civil War and the Maximilian civil war in Mexico occuring at about the same time. Then you could have the troubles spreading out on the high seas (Britain, France and Germany harrassing each other's supply convoys) and eventually on land (Prussia deciding the best way to stop the French fleet is to occupy Dunkirk, even if that means marching through Belgium...)

I don't know; whilst seemingly-minor conflicts (and yes, I know the ACW wasn't minor in itself, but in terms of its effects on Europe it was) can sometimes escalate into massive conflagrations (hello, WW1!), this generally requires an extremely high level of tension between the two sides, and I don't think that condition was fulfilled in the early 1860s.

FWIW I think the best way would be (1) make Britain and Austria-Hungary more worried about Prussian ambitions to unite Germany, (2) make the French army perform well enough to drag the war out longer (without doing so well that they don't need help, obviously), and possibly (3) more competent French diplomacy/less competent Prussian diplomacy in the run-up to the war, so France doesn't come across as so much of an aggressor.