What if an 1875 Bismarck-Gorchakov pact clears Germany to move west and Russia to move south?

[raharris1973]

What if during the 'War in Sight' Crisis of 1875 when Bismarck, disturbed at France's quick recovery from the Franco-Prussian War and rebuilding of its military and purchase of horses provoked press speculation about preemptive war against France, was coupled with fruitful private talks with Russian Chancellor Gorchakov?

The essence of their agreement would be that Germany, a partner with Russia in the "Three Emperor's League" of 1873 would be absolutely free to take any measures she felt needed to her west vis-a-vis France to ensure the security of her western border, from the point of view of St. Petersburg.

Reciprocally, from the point of Berlin, Russia would be absolutely free to take any measures she felt need to her south in the direction of Romania, the Ottoman Empire, and the Black Sea to ensure the security of her Black Sea littoral.

Both powers would absolutely respect the territorial integrity of the third Emperor, Franz-Joseph of Austria-Hungary, but he need not be consulted on further details. As Bismarck helpfully clarifies it for Gorchakov, 'should emergencies dictate Russian occupation of Ottoman lands in the Balkans or partitions any Ottoman territory, so lonf as Russia consults with Austria-Hungary, respects her territorial integrity, and offers her a share in partition that St. Petersburg deems appropriate for Austrian security and level of effort, Germany will be satisfied with any territorial configuration Russia chooses.

In late summer 1875, Germany invades France over the common border. In the campaign of 1875-1876, Germany defeats the not completely rebuilt French Army, occupies the not refurbished French fortresses, and advances through northern France, getting in a position to impose terms.

Countless other European powers offer mediation. Britain offers mediation, along with some undisguised criticism. But no country will ally with France. In Britain's case, largely because they do not have a sizeable army, and do not want to do it alone, even though public opinion turns very anti-German. Russia, is exceptionally silent, only mouthing platitudes that 'peace is a good thing'. Austria-Hungary is equally taciturn.

In spring 1876, as the Bosnian and Bulgarian revolts, and Ottoman suppression efforts, escalate, Russia mobilizes for and declares war on the Ottoman Empire, dragooning Romania into an alliances, while gathering Serbia and Montenegro as enthusiastic and willing allies.

Ottoman atrocities, and British preoccupation with the destroyed balance of power in western Europe, leave Britain surprisingly passive and accepting of the Russian declaration of war and offensive campaign at first. However, brave Turkish resistance at Plevna, and time for the Conservative press to revive anti-Russian jingoism of the times, begins to turn British opinion against the Russians and in favor of the Turks.

While this is going on Bismarck reveals the fundamentals of his Bismarck-Gorchakov pact to the Austrians, to avoid having Austria object to Russian gains and implicate Germany in embarassments. Bismarck adds that if Austria finds itself on the end of inveterate Italian hostility, Vienna can expect understanding from Berlin on what it may have to do. Accordingly, the Austro-Hungarians go along to get along and occupy Bosnia, Sanjak of Novi Pazar, Kosovo, and Albania.

Meanwhile, the Russians and Romanians, and Bulgarian rebel army, along with Serbian detachments, close in on Constantinople. Britain faces the loss of another important bulwark on the route to India.

Britain, for the second year, is faced with a strategic reality it dreads, but here also has no good military options and no strong, willing allies on the continent.

All things being equal, Britain in circa 1876 is an economic/industrial near superpower, and has a navy second to no one. But it doesn't have an Army to casually throw on the European mainland that can compete with the armies of continental great powers.

What is up next for British strategy now that their traditional balance of power approach has failed, being bypassed by Germany and Russia conducting near simultaneous aggression. What terms does Germany impose on France to end the war? What terms does Russia impose on the Ottomans in the Balkans and Caucasus?

How do the Germans and Russians relate to each after the ending of their respective wars? What directions will European diplomacy and warfare go in over the next couple decades?

 

[Buba]

I am not sure if the Austro-Hngarians just sit on the sidelines. With the Russian army being rank it is no blitzkrieg in the Balkans and Caucasus and A-H can come to the Ottoman's aid and upset the cart of the OP
Add British intervention and money here ...
I read somewhere that after the 1870 war the now-German army stood down so much that by the middle of the decade it was in a very sorry state - true?
With the British army to tip the scales/shore up the Ottomans - or French - it is no walk in the park for the Sankt Peterburg-Berlin Axis powers.

A very interesting scenario nonetheless.
It is possible that the OP could produce a map eerlily similar to that of 1914 - Balkans, and 1920 - Middle East.
The ME would be carved up as in OTL between France and Britain, with a rump Ottoman State (a slightly smaller than OTL Turkey) backed by the Western Powesr as to block the land route to India.

Something to keep in mind is that - AFAIK - Prussia/Germany was not capable of financing a long war.

 

[raharris1973]

I am not sure if the Austro-Hngarians just sit on the sidelines. With the Russian army being rank [it is no blitzkrieg in the Balkans and Caucasus and A-H can come to the Ottoman's aid and upset the cart of the OP
Add British intervention and money here ...

I guess a question about the Austro-Hungarians is if they will go in against the Russians, with only the Ottomans as guaranteed allies at first, because the Germans are too busy in the west to help them, even if they wanted, and they don't want to.

OTL they just took the lazy way and grabbed Bosnia from the Ottomans instead of helping the Ottomans vs. Russia - why the difference here?

Are the British going to spend major intervention and money effort to try to save the straits while completely ignoring the other thing that's bothering them, the threat to France? If not, how would they divide their efforts?

I read somewhere that after the 1870 war the now-German army stood down so much that by the middle of the decade it was in a very sorry state - true?

A very interesting scenario nonetheless.
It is possible that the OP could produce a map eerlily similar to that of 1914 - Balkans, and 1920 - Middle East.
The ME would be carved up as in OTL between France and Britain, with a rump Ottoman State (a slightly smaller than OTL Turkey) backed by the Western Powesr as to block the land route to India.

Quite an interesting outcome if we can swing it!

With the British army to tip the scales/shore up the Ottomans - or French - it is no walk in the park for the Sankt Peterburg-Berlin Axis powers.

How is Britain going to allocate its very limited army between the two? Throw all formations from Britain and the western hemisphere into France, and mobilize the Indian Army, especially Muslims, to help the Ottomans?

I'd never heard anything like this, ready to learn more.

Something to keep in mind is that - AFAIK - Prussia/Germany was not capable of financing a long war.

Interesting take. I understand in general its financial sector was underdeveloped compared to the British and French and probably Dutch and Swiss, but liquidity shouldn't have been a problem, since they'd just collected the whole French indemnity and were in fact having a little bit of inflation and overheating because of it.

 

[Buba]

OTL they just took the lazy way and grabbed Bosnia from the Ottomans instead of helping the Ottomans vs. Russia - why the difference here?

The difference would be that in OTL Russia first obtained Austria's permission for the Balkan War. E.g. promising not to set up a major Slavic state (a promise it reneged upon).
I am not sure of the dates, but here the Russo-Ottoman war could predate the nihil obstat from Vienna.
If Russia went on its adventure on its own expect the negative Austrian reaction to be magnified by Disraeli (or would it be Gladstone?) whispering sweet nothings into Franz Joseph's ear and promising barely imaginable delights if they double tagged Alexander ...

Are the British going to spend major intervention and money effort to try to save the straits while completely ignoring the other thing that's bothering them, the threat to France? If not, how would they divide their efforts?

Good questions

As the world's superpower, banker, workshop etc. the UK can afford everything, in money terms. Seeing how in OTL the Russians steamrolled the Turks (note sarcasm) propping up the Porte (already propped up by Vienna) will not call for manpower but money and war materiel.

Considering that the Kaiserliche Marine was still in "swept from the Seven Seas by the Mighty Danish Navy" territory, the Black Sea Fleet had not yet been rebuilt (recreation began in 1871), and the less said about the Baltic Fleet the better - this will be a purely land war for the Empire.

The real front would indeed be in France.

they'd just collected the whole French indemnity and were in fact having a little bit of inflation and overheating because of it.

Which means that they blew away that money already

 

[stevep]

Guys

A few questions.
a) Would it be as simple for Germany as suggested against France, even without any 3rd party intervention? By 1875 how did the populations and economic strengths of the two empires compare? Germany was much stronger later and was industrialising rapidly but it could still be a tough fight and a France not divided between Napoleonic, Republican and Revolutionary elements and determined not to be invaded again would be a determined opponent. Plus since this was clearly a war of aggression, without the fig-leaf Bismarck managed to create in 1870 by mis-reporting the Ems_Dispatch not only is France going to be more united and possibly unrest in Alsace-Lorraine but there could be dissent inside Germany. I suspect the Germans would probably still have the edge but its likely to be bloody and costly for both sides.

b) The initial post refers to Austria, having had details of this secret agreement revealed to them, preparing to occupy "Bosnia, Sanjak of Novi Pazar, Kosovo, and Albania ". Apart from this being a move of dubious merit as its going to add a hell of a lot more Slavs, either Orthodox or Muslim to the empire isn't this a breach of the Bismarck-Gorchakov pact as they can only do this with Russian agreement. Or is it assumed that St Petersburg agrees to this?

c) Depending on the duration of the German-French war Britain may not respond militarily, although it does have a fairly significant army. Not on the level of the continental great powers but still significant when added to a tied fight. However if it doesn't when Germany attacks France I'm certain it will when Russia attacks the Ottomans, especially with Disraeli and the Tories in power. British military and naval power is going to be a formidable factor in defending the Ottoman possessions near the capital especially and complicating Russian logistics in the Black Sea area while financial and economic help would boost the Ottoman potential. Ultimately I can see Russia gaining some territory in Armenia say and influence in the Balkans, while also its 'allies' gaining territory but I very much doubt they could take the straits in the face of Anglo-Ottoman strengthen.

d) Britain will be very worried by German behaviour, as will a lot of other nations in Europe. Doubly so if German makes more annexations and/or imposes an even more crushing indemnity on France. At this point the feeble nature of the German navy will mean that Germany posses no direct threat - although the The_Battle_of_Dorking is likely to make more sales and Britain will start looking at its military strength and security. There's likely to be sympathy for France under those circumstances and some mistrust of Germany. How things develop in the following years would depend on what the assorted countries do. Most especially of course relations between Germany and Russia.

e) It should be remembered that such a Franco-German war will be costly in blood and money among other things for both sides. Probably more so for France, assuming they go down but its going to be very expensive for Germany as well which could have negative impacts on its economic and political development. True it can put an even larger indemnity on France but there are limits to how much it can pay and how quickly so that wouldn't solve short term problems and probably not longer term ones. If its a long conflict with France resisting for say 12-18 months before some peace agreement its unlikely that Germany can extract the fiscal costs of the war from a defeated France let alone political and diplomatic ones.

 

[raharris1973]

a) Would it be as simple for Germany as suggested against France, even without any 3rd party intervention? By 1875 how did the populations and economic strengths of the two empires compare? Germany was much stronger later and was industrialising rapidly but it could still be a tough fight and a France not divided between Napoleonic, Republican and Revolutionary elements and determined not to be invaded again would be a determined opponent. Plus since this was clearly a war of aggression, without the fig-leaf Bismarck managed to create in 1870 by mis-reporting the Ems_Dispatch not only is France going to be more united and possibly unrest in Alsace-Lorraine but there could be dissent inside Germany. I suspect the Germans would probably still have the edge but its likely to be bloody and costly for both sides

Interesting - I suppose it could be a longer, harder fight, and you begin to offer some reasons. I personally would be intrigued by any scenario that somehow managed to drag this war out for years, like to the length of WWI or WWII. I just don't know how it would happen, especially without Allies for France.

b) The initial post refers to Austria, having had details of this secret agreement revealed to them, preparing to occupy "Bosnia, Sanjak of Novi Pazar, Kosovo, and Albania ". Apart from this being a move of dubious merit as its going to add a hell of a lot more Slavs, either Orthodox or Muslim to the empire isn't this a breach of the Bismarck-Gorchakov pact as they can only do this with Russian agreement. Or is it assumed that St Petersburg agrees to this?

Assumed St. Petersburg agrees to this. I don't think the Russians care about the fate of the Adriatic coast if they are determining the fate of the rest of the Balkans.

c) Depending on the duration of the German-French war Britain may not respond militarily, although it does have a fairly significant army. Not on the level of the continental great powers but still significant when added to a tied fight. However if it doesn't when Germany attacks France I'm certain it will when Russia attacks the Ottomans, especially with Disraeli and the Tories in power. British military and naval power is going to be a formidable factor in defending the Ottoman possessions near the capital especially and complicating Russian logistics in the Black Sea area while financial and economic help would boost the Ottoman potential. Ultimately I can see Russia gaining some territory in Armenia say and influence in the Balkans, while also its 'allies' gaining territory but I very much doubt they could take the straits in the face of Anglo-Ottoman strengthen.

So you estimate Britain has an army it could throw into the German fight within a couple months, and in relevant numbers?

And that even if it doesn't and Germany dominates the battle, it is still going to invest ground and naval forces heavily in helping the Turks versus Russians?

d) Britain will be very worried by German behaviour, as will a lot of other nations in Europe. Doubly so if German makes more annexations and/or imposes an even more crushing indemnity on France. At this point the feeble nature of the German navy will mean that Germany posses no direct threat - although the The_Battle_of_Dorking is likely to make more sales and Britain will start looking at its military strength and security. There's likely to be sympathy for France under those circumstances and some mistrust of Germany. How things develop in the following years would depend on what the assorted countries do. Most especially of course relations between Germany and Russia.

Agree. Although if France is down for long, and Russia is consistent ally, Germany can begin to switch emphasis to the Navy, its starts off with nothing, and the British can stay ahead the rest of the century.

e) It should be remembered that such a Franco-German war will be costly in blood and money among other things for both sides. Probably more so for France, assuming they go down but its going to be very expensive for Germany as well which could have negative impacts on its economic and political development. True it can put an even larger indemnity on France but there are limits to how much it can pay and how quickly so that wouldn't solve short term problems and probably not longer term ones. If its a long conflict with France resisting for say 12-18 months before some peace agreement its unlikely that Germany can extract the fiscal costs of the war from a defeated France let alone political and diplomatic ones.

You think 12 months would be around the minimum plausible length for such a war, and 18 months about the maximum?
What about longer?

 

[ATP]

England would just wait.Russia being Russia would turn west after taking over Turkey,and Germans being germans would eventually go East after conqering part of France.
We would have WW1 just like in OTL,with stronger Germany balanced by stronger Russia.

Or,if that unholy league hold,England would wait till France become stronger and A-H more frightened,and we would have Germany and Russia against rest of the Europe.Dunno who win this.Becouse ,knowing russians,all balkan nation saved by them would start hating them after living under their rule.
And french people are not blacks,german could not genocide them.They would still be in occupied german territories.

 

[stevep]

Interesting - I suppose it could be a longer, harder fight, and you begin to offer some reasons. I personally would be intrigued by any scenario that somehow managed to drag this war out for years, like to the length of WWI or WWII. I just don't know how it would happen, especially without Allies for France.

I'm offering guestimates to a degree as I don't know the strength of the two sides at this period. Do recall reading that at one stage during the 1870s or 1880's some sources thought France had a more powerful army than Germany. They did however have some issues with internal stability with pro-Bonaparte and pro-Bourbon factions as well as at least one general - forget his name - who might have ended up a dictator as well as the republican forces.

However it took the Germans 6 months to defeat France OTL - July 1870 to January 1871 - I thought it had lasted longer. This was dispite the mismanaged Napoleon III's campaign losing much of the regular forces and then a commune in Paris which the following republic had to crush before it could concentrate against Germany. Here I would expect that the French would have learnt a good bit from their earlier failure - defeats in war tend to do that - so would be tougher opponents. Also they have an empire which might supply some forces and I'm not sure what the S German states response would be to a clearly aggressive war by the emperor. Well unless Bismarck manages to cloud the issue again. Plus after a few years of German rule I'm not sure what the loyalty of the population of Alsace and Lorraine would have been.

Assumed St. Petersburg agrees to this. I don't think the Russians care about the fate of the Adriatic coast if they are determining the fate of the rest of the Balkans.

Good point, although there might be tension later.

So you estimate Britain has an army it could throw into the German fight within a couple months, and in relevant numbers?

I'm not sure of the size of the regular army at this point or its quality - although in discussion Trent War scenario's elsewhere it seems a hell of a lot was learnt from the Crimean conflict. Britain also in the 1860's and to a lesser degree by the 1870's would have had a clear industrial lead.

As such IF Disraeli decided to intervene while the fighting was still ongoing it could make for a significant difference. Both in terms of the military itself and the effects of a blockade on Germany but also the boost for the French in terms of morale - their no longer alone - and materially in that Britain might be able to supply materials and possibly even more importantly funds to them.

Not saying this would be decisive in itself but it could make for a longer war unless the Germans manage to defeat France [and possibly the British army] before the allies [as they would be now] manage to moblise their much greater resources. Of course whether that means a much longer war or some negotiated settlement would depend on the circumstances.

And that even if it doesn't and Germany dominates the battle, it is still going to invest ground and naval forces heavily in helping the Turks versus Russians?

I think while a German attack on France would send warning signs a Russian attempt to seize the straits would be an alarm bell. That would almost certainly trigger a military response assuming that Britain hasn't already committed itself in support of France. The latter would put Britain in a distinct dilemma. However I think that a military reaction to Russian action is far more likely than to the German one. At this point Germany isn't really seen as a threat and there are close family links.

Agree. Although if France is down for long, and Russia is consistent ally, Germany can begin to switch emphasis to the Navy, its starts off with nothing, and the British can stay ahead the rest of the century.

This would depend on the circumstances again. Building a large navy needs a lot of resources and Germany doesn't have the technological basis for it in the 1870's. Plus with technology changing so much in the following years ships built now are likely to be quickly obsolete. While such a challenge at this point would definitely cause a British political reaction. However as I say relations between Britain and Germany are pretty good at this point and Bismarck is an experience player of the political game. He is unlikely to want to have prolonged - or any - tension with Britain and would want to continue to have France isolated so I think that would be unlikely. After Wilhelm I's death and if his pro-British son Frederick III still dies quickly of cancer you have Wilhelm II so there is the possibility of tensions rising then.

Of course whether or not there is lasting tension between Britain and Germany there are likely to be a horde of other butterflies. For instance if Germany defeats France and then Britain stops Russia achieving its own targets - especially if Austria also makes gains, Russia is likely to be unhappy with Germany as well as Britain. Also if a more powerful and possibly hostile Germany clearly replaces a seriously weakened France as the primary threat west of Russia you could well see political and social changes in Britain among other places.

You think 12 months would be around the minimum plausible length for such a war, and 18 months about the maximum?
What about longer?

That was as I say a guesstimate and I was surprised as I thought the historical war lasted longer. Knew it went into 1871 but didn't realise that was only until January. However would definitely think it would last longer as France is likely to be more prepared and determined.

As well as either side winning, if it bogs down in trench like warfare what you might end up with is a negotiated peace, possibly with minor border changes either way. However it would still poison relations between the two countries even more than OTL. Also with such a failure to achieve that quick victory it could prompt changes in Germany.

 

[raharris1973]

England would just wait.Russia being Russia would turn west after taking over Turkey,and Germans being germans would eventually go East after conqering part of France.
We would have WW1 just like in OTL,with stronger Germany balanced by stronger Russia.

When do you think Russia would turn west, or Germany would east, aggressively, to start WWI?

Would it be sometime very soon in the 19th century? (so Bismarck-Gorchakov pact only lasts a very short time like Molotov-Ribbentropp Pact) or would it only be decades later, probably in the 20th century?

Or,if that unholy league hold,England would wait till France become stronger and A-H more frightened,and we would have Germany and Russia against rest of the Europe.Dunno who win this

How could there be any doubt it would be the Germany-Russia combination, between its continental depth, agricultural self-sufficiency, population, and industry? Certainly if war didn't happen until 1914, or even any time after 1900, the Germany Russia combination would be the guaranteed victor. Any mutual enemies between Germany and Russia (Austria-Hungary, should it be foolish, Balkan states or Swedes if they choose) would be crushed quickly like eggs, and then Germany just has one front against France, with the resources of Europe behind it, and so British blockades are irrelevant and Anglo-French ground forces are overmatched.

Now German industry grew a bit in the later 19th century, and Britain had a bigger industrial lead in the 1870s and 1880s. In theory that might somehow give a chance, but I doubt it. Britain would need full mobilization of population and economy and conscription to build a continental army to first hold any land on the continent, and then reclaim any land back on the continent from the Germans or Russians. It certainly could not be a short war, but a long hard effort.

Becouse ,knowing russians,all balkan nation saved by them would start hating them after living under their rule.

True, Russia was good at spoiling Balkan relations and it was easy for expectations to get at cross purposes. But, depending on which side Austria-Hungary is on, Austria-Hungary is probably going to look like much richer, and easier, pickings, for Balkan states like Serbia and Romania, and Turkey will look like better pickings for Bulgaria and Greece. The Greeks probably still sit out though to not get blockaded.

And french people are not blacks,And the germans would not genocide the French people, they would not consider brutally exterminating them as they did to some African groups. They French would still be in occupied german territories.

Yes the French people would still be around, and I'm not sure how much of France would be permanently occupied or annexed and how much would be left when the British stop waiting and start this hypothetical war. But, the French will likely be both less confident (because they have no Russian alliance, and were beaten twice by the Germans in one decade), and objectively weaker (because of a second indemnity and the German's likely taking at least the Briey-Longwy iron ore area on the border, reducing French steel industry, and the Germans possibly also getting a better defensive/offensive border on the Meuse (all Lorraine).

 

[raharris1973]

Here I would expect that the French would have learnt a good bit from their earlier failure - defeats in war tend to do that - so would be tougher opponents

Great response Stevep. -

I think both the French and Germans would have learned. As the defeated, the French would have incentive to learn more, I concede. At the same time, France needed to physically recover, and this is only 4-5 years after both the defeat in war, and the Commune and suppression. On balance, I think that man for man and battle for battle, the French will be a tactically tougher enemy than in 1870-71, but I don't think enough to win in 1875. So, their improvement will at least be as much, and probably more, than the improvement of the Arab armies between the 6 Day War and Yom Kippur War over the intervening 6 years. Enough to raise the cost for the Germans by a bit, but not enough to change the outcome, at least on a one-on-one basis.

. Do recall reading that at one stage during the 1870s or 1880's some sources thought France had a more powerful army than Germany.

This may have been the case by the 1880s. I don't recall ever hearing about it for the 1870s. France did recover quickly, more quickly than Bismarck and the Germans expected or wanted, but even if they became a true match for the Germans at any point in the 1870s, I can't believe that would have happened anytime before the end of the decade. Certainly not by 1875 or 1876.

They did however have some issues with internal stability with pro-Bonaparte and pro-Bourbon factions as well as at least one general - forget his name - who might have ended up a dictator as well as the republican forces.

The issue of which type of monarchy or republic divided the country for a bit through 1873-1874, but was pretty much done by this time, with the Provisional Government becoming the de facto Third Republic, because the monarchist majority couldn't agree which of the three potential dynasties (Bourbon, Orleans, Bonparte) or flags (tricolor or fleur-de-lys) should be chosen.

The general you speak of, who could have become a dictator - that was not until the 1887-88 period, it was General Boulanger.

 

[ATP]

When do you think Russia would turn west, or Germany would east, aggressively, to start WWI?

Would it be sometime very soon in the 19th century? (so Bismarck-Gorchakov pact only lasts a very short time like Molotov-Ribbentropp Pact) or would it only be decades later, probably in the 20th century?



How could there be any doubt it would be the Germany-Russia combination, between its continental depth, agricultural self-sufficiency, population, and industry? Certainly if war didn't happen until 1914, or even any time after 1900, the Germany Russia combination would be the guaranteed victor. Any mutual enemies between Germany and Russia (Austria-Hungary, should it be foolish, Balkan states or Swedes if they choose) would be crushed quickly like eggs, and then Germany just has one front against France, with the resources of Europe behind it, and so British blockades are irrelevant and Anglo-French ground forces are overmatched.

Now German industry grew a bit in the later 19th century, and Britain had a bigger industrial lead in the 1870s and 1880s. In theory that might somehow give a chance, but I doubt it. Britain would need full mobilization of population and economy and conscription to build a continental army to first hold any land on the continent, and then reclaim any land back on the continent from the Germans or Russians. It certainly could not be a short war, but a long hard effort.



True, Russia was good at spoiling Balkan relations and it was easy for expectations to get at cross purposes. But, depending on which side Austria-Hungary is on, Austria-Hungary is probably going to look like much richer, and easier, pickings, for Balkan states like Serbia and Romania, and Turkey will look like better pickings for Bulgaria and Greece. The Greeks probably still sit out though to not get blockaded.



Yes the French people would still be around, and I'm not sure how much of France would be permanently occupied or annexed and how much would be left when the British stop waiting and start this hypothetical war. But, the French will likely be both less confident (because they have no Russian alliance, and were beaten twice by the Germans in one decade), and objectively weaker (because of a second indemnity and the German's likely taking at least the Briey-Longwy iron ore area on the border, reducing French steel industry, and the Germans possibly also getting a better defensive/offensive border on the Meuse (all Lorraine).

1.In OTL germans started WW1 becouse they belived,that Russia after 1916 would be too strong to defeat.Now,Russia would be stronger - so before 1914.They would need A-H on their side for that,but it would be easy.
Russians would attack germany only if they truly belived in 3th Rome bullshit/Moscov as 3 Rome/.With Rasputin around,it could be arranged.

2.There would be entire Scandinavia scared of german-russian alliance,A-H,balkans states all hating russians now,and France wanting rematch.With whatever remain of turks and Iran.
Enough to have good fighting chance.

3.Problem is,knowing Russia,they would pick on all Balkans stated and want their gratitude for that.They truly belived for example,that Bulgary should be happy to be russian province.When their state was older then russian,and bulgars remembered that.

4.That even better,becouse instead of charging in red pants into trap they would attack smartly.

 

[stevep]

Great response Stevep. -

I think both the French and Germans would have learned. As the defeated, the French would have incentive to learn more, I concede. At the same time, France needed to physically recover, and this is only 4-5 years after both the defeat in war, and the Commune and suppression. On balance, I think that man for man and battle for battle, the French will be a tactically tougher enemy than in 1870-71, but I don't think enough to win in 1875. So, their improvement will at least be as much, and probably more, than the improvement of the Arab armies between the 6 Day War and Yom Kippur War over the intervening 6 years. Enough to raise the cost for the Germans by a bit, but not enough to change the outcome, at least on a one-on-one basis.



This may have been the case by the 1880s. I don't recall ever hearing about it for the 1870s. France did recover quickly, more quickly than Bismarck and the Germans expected or wanted, but even if they became a true match for the Germans at any point in the 1870s, I can't believe that would have happened anytime before the end of the decade. Certainly not by 1875 or 1876.



The issue of which type of monarchy or republic divided the country for a bit through 1873-1874, but was pretty much done by this time, with the Provisional Government becoming the de facto Third Republic, because the monarchist majority couldn't agree which of the three potential dynasties (Bourbon, Orleans, Bonparte) or flags (tricolor or fleur-de-lys) should be chosen.

The general you speak of, who could have become a dictator - that was not until the 1887-88 period, it was General Boulanger.

Damn I forgot about the Orleans option. As you say French monarchists were probably too spoiled by choice to actually succeed in this period. Boulanger was the guy and that was later, as probably was when France was thought militarily more powerful as IIRC it was about the time he was powerful.

I suspect the Germans would win but it would be a lot bloodier for them than in the 1870 conflict. However there are the issues of other powers possibly getting involved or possibly some internal dissent in - probably most likely southern Germany - about another war which is clearly aggressive. - Not saying either is likely but always reluctant to rule anything out.

 

[WolfBear]

What if during the 'War in Sight' Crisis of 1875 when Bismarck, disturbed at France's quick recovery from the Franco-Prussian War and rebuilding of its military and purchase of horses provoked press speculation about preemptive war against France, was coupled with fruitful private talks with Russian Chancellor Gorchakov?

The essence of their agreement would be that Germany, a partner with Russia in the "Three Emperor's League" of 1873 would be absolutely free to take any measures she felt needed to her west vis-a-vis France to ensure the security of her western border, from the point of view of St. Petersburg.

Reciprocally, from the point of Berlin, Russia would be absolutely free to take any measures she felt need to her south in the direction of Romania, the Ottoman Empire, and the Black Sea to ensure the security of her Black Sea littoral.

Both powers would absolutely respect the territorial integrity of the third Emperor, Franz-Joseph of Austria-Hungary, but he need not be consulted on further details. As Bismarck helpfully clarifies it for Gorchakov, 'should emergencies dictate Russian occupation of Ottoman lands in the Balkans or partitions any Ottoman territory, so lonf as Russia consults with Austria-Hungary, respects her territorial integrity, and offers her a share in partition that St. Petersburg deems appropriate for Austrian security and level of effort, Germany will be satisfied with any territorial configuration Russia chooses.

In late summer 1875, Germany invades France over the common border. In the campaign of 1875-1876, Germany defeats the not completely rebuilt French Army, occupies the not refurbished French fortresses, and advances through northern France, getting in a position to impose terms.

Countless other European powers offer mediation. Britain offers mediation, along with some undisguised criticism. But no country will ally with France. In Britain's case, largely because they do not have a sizeable army, and do not want to do it alone, even though public opinion turns very anti-German. Russia, is exceptionally silent, only mouthing platitudes that 'peace is a good thing'. Austria-Hungary is equally taciturn.

In spring 1876, as the Bosnian and Bulgarian revolts, and Ottoman suppression efforts, escalate, Russia mobilizes for and declares war on the Ottoman Empire, dragooning Romania into an alliances, while gathering Serbia and Montenegro as enthusiastic and willing allies.

Ottoman atrocities, and British preoccupation with the destroyed balance of power in western Europe, leave Britain surprisingly passive and accepting of the Russian declaration of war and offensive campaign at first. However, brave Turkish resistance at Plevna, and time for the Conservative press to revive anti-Russian jingoism of the times, begins to turn British opinion against the Russians and in favor of the Turks.

While this is going on Bismarck reveals the fundamentals of his Bismarck-Gorchakov pact to the Austrians, to avoid having Austria object to Russian gains and implicate Germany in embarassments. Bismarck adds that if Austria finds itself on the end of inveterate Italian hostility, Vienna can expect understanding from Berlin on what it may have to do. Accordingly, the Austro-Hungarians go along to get along and occupy Bosnia, Sanjak of Novi Pazar, Kosovo, and Albania.

Meanwhile, the Russians and Romanians, and Bulgarian rebel army, along with Serbian detachments, close in on Constantinople. Britain faces the loss of another important bulwark on the route to India.

Britain, for the second year, is faced with a strategic reality it dreads, but here also has no good military options and no strong, willing allies on the continent.

All things being equal, Britain in circa 1876 is an economic/industrial near superpower, and has a navy second to no one. But it doesn't have an Army to casually throw on the European mainland that can compete with the armies of continental great powers.

What is up next for British strategy now that their traditional balance of power approach has failed, being bypassed by Germany and Russia conducting near simultaneous aggression. What terms does Germany impose on France to end the war? What terms does Russia impose on the Ottomans in the Balkans and Caucasus?

How do the Germans and Russians relate to each after the ending of their respective wars? What directions will European diplomacy and warfare go in over the next couple decades?

I suspect that the peace settlement in the Balkans will look similar to the 1878 Treaty of San Stefano, except that Albania, Kosovo, et cetera will go to A-H rather than remain Ottoman. Meanwhile, the peace settlement in the West could result in Germany annexing everything up to the Belfort-Toul-Epinal-Verdun fortress line, including this fortess line itself with all of these formerly French fortresses:

Germany could also annex Luxembourg if it wishes, though it does not have to do so.

Here's a map of the 1878 Treaty of San Stefano, though here the Ottoman Empire's westernmost (European) territories would be divided between A-H and Greece rather than remaining Ottoman:

I wonder if Russia will use this war to also settle the Armenian Question once and for good, but probably not, I suspect. This question/issue didn't quite get as heated yet back in 1877-1878, after all.

 

[WolfBear]

Damn I forgot about the Orleans option. As you say French monarchists were probably too spoiled by choice to actually succeed in this period. Boulanger was the guy and that was later, as probably was when France was thought militarily more powerful as IIRC it was about the time he was powerful.

I suspect the Germans would win but it would be a lot bloodier for them than in the 1870 conflict. However there are the issues of other powers possibly getting involved or possibly some internal dissent in - probably most likely southern Germany - about another war which is clearly aggressive. - Not saying either is likely but always reluctant to rule anything out.

The Orleans option won't become viable until 1883, which is when Henri, Count of Chambord dies.

@raharris1973 In the long(er)-run, I would strongly expect A-H to push to make Serbia and/or Montenegro its protectorates since otherwise its land connection to Albania and Kosovo through the Sanjak of Novi Pazar will be very narrow and thus very tenuous. I don't know if Russia would actually approve of that, though a lot might also depend on just how pro-Russian (and pro-Austrian) the Bulgarian government will be in the 1880s and beyond. In real life, if I recall correctly, Russia and Bulgaria had a rather significant falling out in the 1880s, with Russia viewing Bulgaria as being very ungrateful to Russia for liberating it from the Ottoman Turks' yoke and oppressive rule.

 

[WolfBear]

Also, here's a radical idea, but nevertheless one worth flirting with: Germany could force France to give up French Algeria and give it to the Ottoman Empire as compensation for losing most of its European territories. Germany could threaten to take even more territory at France's expense and/or demand an even larger indemnity from France if France will refuse to agree to this.

In such a scenario, Germany could eventually try playing the part of an honest broker between Russia and Britain in Persia, Afghanistan, and Central Asia.