WI the Franco-Prussian War went the other way?

[stevep]

Indeed.All Russian could was send some cossack,and what they would achieve there ? It would worked only if local rulers joined them.

Not by 1904-1907 she wasn’t.

Germany never posed a threat to Britain’s homeland, much less her colonies. France and Russia however did pose a direct threat to British colonies.


The British knew this policy was untenable by 1914. This is why she backed Russia and France over the Central Powers, although those two sides were already equal: better to be allied with your biggest threats for that way they can be occupied with other powers. Had the British backed the Germans, there is not much the British could have done to help the war effort other than blockade Russia and France. This would not have prevented the French and Russians from steamrolling into Germany and leaving Britain isolated like in the Napoleonic Wars. I’m not saying this WOULD have happened, rather it was the thinning of the time.

WWI would refute your argument. It took all three great powers and then the addition of resources from the US to defeat Germany and its allies. True the allies made a lot of mistakes and with better decision making or some luck could have done it earlier but it would have still been a tough fight.

On the other hand an Anglo-Germany alliance, while not strong enough to easily defeat an Franco-Russian one, would probably have deterred the latter from any attack. Britain can supply a hell of a lot of industrial, fiscal and naval power without which neither France nor Russia could have fought a long war, let alone the military strength it could build up over time.

It is true that its often stated that the German army feared that by 1916 they would be incapable of defeating France quickly by a sudden attack in time to turn against Russia before its fully moblised. Which might be a factor in why Germany seemed to eager for war in 1914? However an Anglo-Germany-Austrian bloc would have been a totally different factor. Or even a neutral but pro-German Britain provided that Germany was prepared to take a defensive stance.

However the German decision to take a deeply hostile stance to Britain made this impossible. A powerful fleet backed by the German army was a direct potential threat to Britain even without the continued hostile references by German leaders. It forced the redeployment of most of the RN capital ships to the N Sea to cover against such a threat. Prior to this the top priority force for the RN was actually the fleet in the Med because of Britain's interests there and its importance for the direct route to India and Britain also retained smaller fleets of capital ships in many other areas. Britain had to make strategic decisions that weakened its influence in many areas to respond to the German threat.

 

[stevep]

Basically, after 1815 the empire needed a new nemesis, since France and Spain were in shambles, with Russia being the only country in the world that could be portrayed in such way without being laughed at by everyone.

Actually there were concerns about French power, not only in Britain but across much of the continent until 1870. Russia was however seen as the main threat to many states in Europe until the Crimean War showed its relative economic and technological backwardness.

 

[stevep]

I never understood the British body politik's mass hysterics about Russia somehow being a threat to India ... we have seen how it unfeasible it was, not working even with late 20th century logistics.

It was pretty hysterical even after Russian control extended to the borders of Afghanistan and it had railways reaching the region but then even back in ~1807 Napoleon was seriously suggesting to the Russian Czar for a joint attack on the British position in India. Many people tend to overlook logistical limitations and too many still do today. Plus at some times, such as in the aftermath of the Indian Mutiny there would have been concerns about the loyalty of the locals.

Part of it may have been economic. Recognition of a potential threat means that counter measures need to be take. Such as larger military forces in India and better logistics, more guns and ammo etc. Which of course costs money and while the UK was never - in the 19thC anyway - as cheapskate as the US was in that period it's government favoured lower taxes, which in a period when the vast bulk of government spending was in the military meant for the minimal army they could get away with. The Navy was less of an issue politically but then battleships can attack Moscow.

Steve

 

[Buba]

Recognition of a potential threat means that counter measures need to be take. Such as larger military forces in India and better logistics, more guns and ammo etc.

Makes sense. The Indian Army et consortes went hysterical over Russians marching thousands of kilometres across the deserts and mountains to pour out from the Khyber pass to get bigger budgets!
Same as the RN c.1910 was spewing alarmist bullshit about the Hochsee Flotte to get more funding ...

 

[WolfBear]

Instead, after some thought a Catholic imperial hegemony over Western and Central Europe directed from Paris, with Austria as a junior partner and Prussia decisively crippled while Russia dominates everything east of the Elbe and the British (as you say) locked out of the continent, seems to me like the most realistic outcome of a maximum French victory over all its enemies. A defeated Italy would be looking at having to cede Lazio back to the Pope (if they occupied it), the rest of Savoy to France and Venice & maybe Lombardy back to Austria; I'd expect the House of Savoy to get overthrown in favor of a republican and ultranationalist regime led by someone like Gabriele d'Annunzio or Julius Evola if such a scenario occurs, but they'd have a hard time finding allies to help them realize their revanchist fantasy if France continues to dominate Europe (maybe Britain after a couple years or decades of rebuilding & rearming?).

Might we see Italy supporting republican movements on its neighbors' territories, especially but not necessarily only in France, as a way of getting back at them for the humiliation that they inflicted on Italy? Italian republicans might view foreign monarchs as the root of all of Italy's evils and thus believe that foreign republican governments would be much more willing to cooperate with Italy.

 

[Circle of Willis]

Might we see Italy supporting republican movements on its neighbors' territories, especially but not necessarily only in France, as a way of getting back at them for the humiliation that they inflicted on Italy? Italian republicans might view foreign monarchs as the root of all of Italy's evils and thus believe that foreign republican governments would be much more willing to cooperate with Italy.

Yeah, probably. Although in the scenario you quoted (where the 2ème Empire has not only won the FPW, but also the alt-WW1 and established itself as the indisputable head of the continental European order) I doubt any republican movement would have much success, as the Bonapartes would be very well-entrenched - on either the second generation of Napoleonic rule post-1848, if Napoleon IV is still alive at the time of the victory, or the third if he croaked mid-war like Franz Josef - and draped in the glory of a victory their progenitor could be proud of.

As I said previously, the revanchist republican Italy of D'Annunzio, Evola, Marinetti or whichever other figure you want to lead it would have a serious uphill battle, and likely few allies with which to pursue their ambitions. Aside from France they'd have to worry about a surviving A-H, which as France's premier ally against the Prusso-Russian bloc, will likely be breathing down their necks and camping on Lombardy and/or Venetia in victory. Maybe Britain (even if it didn't get entangled in *WW1 itself, just to disrupt France's continental hegemony), and/or a similarly revanchist Russia (having been almost certainly a Prussian ally and thus one of the losing parties, but still the leading challenger to France's hegemonic status by virtue of its sheer size and the downfall of Prussia) regardless of whether it's stayed imperial or become a republic/the USSR.

 

[WolfBear]

Yeah, probably. Although in the scenario you quoted (where the 2ème Empire has not only won the FPW, but also the alt-WW1 and established itself as the indisputable head of the continental European order) I doubt any republican movement would have much success, as the Bonapartes would be very well-entrenched - on either the second generation of Napoleonic rule post-1848, if Napoleon IV is still alive at the time of the victory, or the third if he croaked mid-war like Franz Josef - and draped in the glory of a victory their progenitor could be proud of.

As I said previously, the revanchist republican Italy of D'Annunzio, Evola, Marinetti or whichever other figure you want to lead it would have a serious uphill battle, and likely few allies with which to pursue their ambitions. Aside from France they'd have to worry about a surviving A-H, which as France's premier ally against the Prusso-Russian bloc, will likely be breathing down their necks and camping on Lombardy and/or Venetia in victory. Maybe Britain (even if it didn't get entangled in *WW1 itself, just to disrupt France's continental hegemony), and/or a similarly revanchist Russia (having been almost certainly a Prussian ally and thus one of the losing parties, but still the leading challenger to France's hegemonic status by virtue of its sheer size and the downfall of Prussia) regardless of whether it's stayed imperial or become a republic/the USSR.

Yeah, fair points.

BTW, off-topic, but do you think that Italy would have ever actually become a republic in real life if it wasn't for WWII and the subsequent 1940 Fall of France?

 

[Circle of Willis]

Yeah, fair points.

BTW, off-topic, but do you think that Italy would have ever actually become a republic in real life if it wasn't for WWII and the subsequent 1940 Fall of France?

Doubtful, 45% of the vote in the 1946 referendum went to the monarchy and that was after a shattering defeat in WW2 (I've also heard claims of Allied/CIA rigging in favor of the republic but never saw any substantiation for it). The House of Savoy seems to have enjoyed considerable respect throughout Italian society (certainly more-so than the Fascists themselves) and had enjoyed several successes under Victor Emmanuel III until, well, that whole Fascist & WW2 dealio. He did after all preside over Italy's victory (however 'mutilated') in WW1 and the Lateran Treaty which finally normalized relations with the Pope.

Of course that was all IRL. In a scenario where France wins the FPW, keeps the Papal State afloat around Rome and then dunks further on Italy in *WW1, the Savoia obviously have far fewer successes under their belt to justify their continued rule. Instead any Garibaldine republican/futurist/(ironically) Fascist-minded enemies of theirs, of which they will almost certainly have many after such a catastrophic failure to complete the Risorgimento and probably actually losing territory to the French bloc, can easily point to them as a symbol of Italy's total ruin & decay after just one world war to justify a revolution.

 

[WolfBear]

Doubtful, 45% of the vote in the 1946 referendum went to the monarchy and that was after a shattering defeat in WW2 (I've also heard claims of Allied/CIA rigging in favor of the republic but never saw any substantiation for it). The House of Savoy seems to have enjoyed considerable respect throughout Italian society (certainly more-so than the Fascists themselves) and had enjoyed several successes under Victor Emmanuel III until, well, that whole Fascist & WW2 dealio. He did after all preside over Italy's victory (however 'mutilated') in WW1 and the Lateran Treaty which finally normalized relations with the Pope.

Of course that was all IRL. In a scenario where France wins the FPW, keeps the Papal State afloat around Rome and then dunks further on Italy in *WW1, the Savoia obviously have far fewer successes under their belt to justify their continued rule. Instead any Garibaldine republican/futurist/(ironically) Fascist-minded enemies of theirs, of which they will almost certainly have many after such a catastrophic failure to complete the Risorgimento and probably actually losing territory to the French bloc, can easily point to them as a symbol of Italy's total ruin & decay after just one world war to justify a revolution.

Would Fascism in and of itself have been enough to ruin the Italian monarchy's fortunes without WWII and the Italian defeat in it? I would assume not, but I just want to make sure.

And Yeah, fair points.

 

[raharris1973]

Lincoln confronted Napoleon III in the aftermath of the ACW

....and it scared the bejesus out of the Emperor! Far more than Sheridan's Army. Getting confronted by a 6 foot 4 bearded ghost will do that to you!

...but on a serious note, in light of the late President Lincoln's unavailability, it was the succeeding Andrew Johnson Administration, notably its State Department led by Secretary Seward and the War Department represented by Gen Sheridan on the frontier with Mexico, that conveyed U.S. warnings to the French that time was up in Mexico.

The British knew this policy was untenable by 1914. This is why she backed Russia and France over the Central Powers, although those two sides were already equal: better to be allied with your biggest threats for that way they can be occupied with other powers. Had the British backed the Germans, there is not much the British could have done to help the war effort other than blockade Russia and France. This would not have prevented the French and Russians from steamrolling into Germany and leaving Britain isolated like in the Napoleonic Wars. I’m not saying this WOULD have happened, rather it was the thinking of the time.

I grant completely that British policymakers might have seen the problem this way. At least some people at the time, advocated for the Ententes on this basis.

However, what's the plan of action after France and Russia win the continental war, with Britain on the Russian side? The French and Russians eat Germany and Austria. Britain get only colonial gains. What's to stop the French and Russian masters of the continent from more strongly threatening the British Empire once again? It seems like siding *with* the French and Russians because of their threat potential is a case of "feeding the crocodile hoping he will eat you last". Or, were the British assuming that the solution to the Franco-Russian threat after the two smashed Germany and co., would be to split the two and balance one against the other, something that London's diplomacy in its infinite cleverness could of course accomplish?

 

[stevep]

....and it scared the bejesus out of the Emperor! Far more than Sheridan's Army. Getting confronted by a 6 foot 4 bearded ghost will do that to you!

- Where are the damned ghost-busters when you want them?

I grant completely that British policymakers might have seen the problem this way. At least some people at the time, advocated for the Ententes on this basis.

However, what's the plan of action after France and Russia win the continental war, with Britain on the Russian side? The French and Russians eat Germany and Austria. Britain get only colonial gains. What's to stop the French and Russian masters of the continent from more strongly threatening the British Empire once again? It seems like siding *with* the French and Russians because of their threat potential is a case of "feeding the crocodile hoping he will eat you last". Or, were the British assuming that the solution to the Franco-Russian threat after the two smashed Germany and co., would be to split the two and balance one against the other, something that London's diplomacy in its infinite cleverness could of course accomplish?

That's an additional reason why I'm dubious about the idea. Not only did it not fit a number of the facts but also it made no sense.

In the short term neither France nor Russia was a direct threat to Britain because they didn't have a fleet capable to threatening the homeland, or colonial possessions for that matter. In part because they were building armies to counter Germany. Germany was, for something like a decade. You get some suggestion that Germany was pulling back a bit from ~1912 but by that time they have greatly raised British concerns about Germany and also caused great costs as both powers had much larger navies than they would have had if Germany hadn't started the race - and openly stated they were building against Britain.

 

[Circle of Willis]

....and it scared the bejesus out of the Emperor! Far more than Sheridan's Army. Getting confronted by a 6 foot 4 bearded ghost will do that to you!

...but on a serious note, in light of the late President Lincoln's unavailability, it was the succeeding Andrew Johnson Administration, notably its State Department led by Secretary Seward and the War Department represented by Gen Sheridan on the frontier with Mexico, that conveyed U.S. warnings to the French that time was up in Mexico.

Whoops, my mistake. You're correct - while Lincoln was still alive he disapproved of the French intervention, but couldn't do much more besides witnessing a congressional resolution condemning the expedition on account of all that ACW business, and it took until Johnson's administration for the Americans to really start putting the screws to Maximilian and his backers.

 

[WolfBear]

Whoops, my mistake. You're correct - while Lincoln was still alive he disapproved of the French intervention, but couldn't do much more besides witnessing a congressional resolution condemning the expedition on account of all that ACW business, and it took until Johnson's administration for the Americans to really start putting the screws to Maximilian and his backers.

Sad that Ol' Max had to get the ax, though ultimately it appears that it would not have made any difference in the A-H line of succession in the long(er)-run since Max and his wife were childless even though they were married for something like ten years. If they weren't going to breed after ten years, they were likely never going to breed. So, FF would have still become the A-H heir-apparent after Max's death, whenever that might have occurred in this TL. (And of course after the death of his own father in 1896 as well.)

 

[Circle of Willis]

Sad that Ol' Max had to get the ax, though ultimately it appears that it would not have made any difference in the A-H line of succession in the long(er)-run since Max and his wife were childless even though they were married for something like ten years. If they weren't going to breed after ten years, they were likely never going to breed. So, FF would have still become the A-H heir-apparent after Max's death, whenever that might have occurred in this TL. (And of course after the death of his own father in 1896 as well.)

Actually, Max & Carlota had adopted two descendants of Agustin de Iturbide to succeed as Emperor(s) of Mexico. I don't think anyone involved, not even Maximilian or the Austrians themselves, were particularly interested in Mexico being added to the 'Kingdoms and Lands Represented in the Imperial Council and the Lands of the Holy Hungarian Crown of St. Stephen', haha.

 

[WolfBear]

Actually, Max & Carlota had adopted two descendants of Agustin de Iturbide to succeed as Emperor(s) of Mexico. I don't think anyone involved, not even Maximilian or the Austrians themselves, were particularly interested in a personal union of A-H and Mexico, haha.

I was actually talking about Ol' Max returning to A-H and getting his place in the A-H line of succession back after getting overthrown in Mexico if he would have managed to avoid getting executed in 1867 and instead got sentenced to a lifetime in exile instead. It's very possible since AFAIK the decision to execute him was done based on a 4-3 vote in Mexico, with it needing just one vote changing to go the other way and for Ol' Max to thus be sent into exile.

I don't think that adoptions were actually recognized in A-H for secession purposes, though I'm unsure about that, TBH. Foreign adoptions I suspect would be viewed with especially large suspicion, though again, I'm not 100% sure about this.

 

[Circle of Willis]

I was actually talking about Ol' Max returning to A-H and getting his place in the A-H line of succession back after getting overthrown in Mexico if he would have managed to avoid getting executed in 1867 and instead got sentenced to a lifetime in exile instead. It's very possible since AFAIK the decision to execute him was done based on a 4-3 vote in Mexico, with it needing just one vote changing to go the other way and for Ol' Max to thus be sent into exile.

I don't think that adoptions were actually recognized in A-H for secession purposes, though I'm unsure about that, TBH. Foreign adoptions I suspect would be viewed with especially large suspicion, though again, I'm not 100% sure about this.

Oops, misread your intention there. Yeah, in that case Max's survival really wouldn't have mattered. I really don't think Franz Josef or any other Habsburg would have been content with allowing their centuries-old patrimony to pass into the hands of some Mexicans who are not only obviously not Habsburgs by blood, but not even European nobility (being instead the descendants of an originally-minor-gentry family from Mexico) and have no real connection to A-H. They'd probably just be treated like the Hohenbergs IMO.

 

[WolfBear]

Oops, misread your intention there. Yeah, in that case Max's survival really wouldn't have mattered. I really don't think Franz Josef or any other Habsburg would have been content with allowing their centuries-old patrimony to pass into the hands of some Mexicans who are not only obviously not Habsburgs by blood, but not even European nobility (being instead the descendants of an originally-minor-gentry family from Mexico) and have no real connection to A-H. They'd probably just be treated like the Hohenbergs IMO.

Yeah, that actually makes perfect sense. I could see Max being allowed to retain/reacquire his place in the A-H line of succession, but not his adopted children. Of course, he could try divorcing Carlota/Charlotte and getting a new wife who would hopefully be more fertile, but this would likely be too scandalous for a Hapsburg royal to do, which is why it probably won't happen in this TL. So, Yeah, FF would still become the heir-presumptive to the A-H thrones after the deaths of Crown Prince Rudolf, FF's own father, FJ, and Max.

 

[PsihoKekec]

Maximilian signed off the succession rights for him and any descendants he might have before he embarked on Mexican adventure, it was a concession FJ wrought out of him in exchange for allowing him to recruit troops in Austria.

 

[WolfBear]

Maximilian signed off the succession rights for him and any descendants he might have before he embarked on Mexican adventure, it was a concession FJ wrought out of him in exchange for allowing him to recruit troops in Austria.

Yes, but didn't FJ subsequently restore Max's place in the A-H line of succession in an attempt to save his life from execution at the hands of the Mexicans?

 

[WolfBear]

@Circle of Willis Here's a question for you: If Max lives, gets his place back in the A-H line of succession after leaving Mexico (as opposed to being executed there like in real life), and manages to live to age 90 (not impossible considering that his brother FJ lived to age 86), dying in 1922, is Max likely to be as pro-peace as FF was in real life?

@sillygoose I also want to hear your own answer to this question of mine.