A Gentler Germany and a Royalist France

[Rattenfänger von Memphis]

In 1866, Bismarck made peace with Austria without annexations and without a victory parade in Vienna. By doing so he did not permanently estrange Austria and, within 13 years (1879), Bismarck was able to make a powerful alliance, OTL, between Germany and Austria instead of making Austria a permanent enemy.

What if Bismarck had been able to also treat defeated France in 1870-1871 as leniently as he was able to treat defeated Austria in 1866?

Bismarck also preferred a France that was a republic instead of an monarchy because he felt that a republic would be much less likely to attract allies in Europe than a monarchy. But what if France had remained a monarchy?

So I would like to posit 4 very possible, non-ASB changes to the post Franco-Prussian War of OTL which could have enabled Bismarck's "chessboard" to be fully played by all of the European powers. (Bismarck had written in 1860 "Who rules in France or Sardinia, once the Powers have been recognized, is absolutely unimportant to me, a matter of fact, not right or wrong...France would be of all possible allies the most questionable, although I must keep the possibility open, because one cannot play chess if 16 of the 64 squares are forbidden from the beginning.")
　
(1) The German Empire is not proclaimed in the Hall of Mirrors at Versailles at Paris but in the ancient Holy Roman Empire capital of Aachen (Aix-la-Chapelle).

(2) The new German Empire does not annex Alsace-Lorraine, which thereby remains French.

(3) France remains a monarchy due to a deal between the Legitimists and the Orleanists. The childless Legitimist Henri, count de Chambord, becomes King Henry V of France, ruling until 1883 when he is succeeded by the Orleanist Philippe d'Orleans, count of Paris, who becomes King Philip VII (1883-1894), when he is succeeded by his son King Philip VIII (1894-1926).

(4) Kaiser Wilhelm I dies in 1877 at the age of 80, instead of 1888, living 10 years longer than his father did but 11 years less than he did OTL. He is succeeded in 1877 by his son Frederick III who is married to Victoria, daughter of Queen Victoria of Great Britain.

So, in brief, how radically could this change history? Just some cursory observations... Frederick could dismiss Bismarck before he makes the OTL alliance with Austria. But would he dismiss Bismarck? Does Germany become more liberal? Would Germany and England become closer friends than in OTL?

France should have no compelling OTL revanchism against Germany over Alsace-Lorraine or suffering the humiliation of the proclamation of the new German Empire in her premier palace. Can Germany and France actually become possible allies rather than the permanent enemies that they were OTL?

Would Germany still ally with Austria? Would France still ally with Russia? How would a continuing French ownership of Alsace-Lorraine's industrial riches (virtually unknown in 1870-1871 but so important later) affect a balance of power between Germany and France?

Would there still be a German colonial empire?

 

[Grey Wolf]

An interesting scenario...

I feel Italy may be key in how future relations play out, but am supposed to be in a meeting right now (tho the other half of it has not showed up!)

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

 

[wolf_brother]

#1 & #2 retain cordial relations between France and Germany, but only under a republican France that is able to blame the entire war upon being under an autocratic system. Asides from a few conservative holdouts most French people viewed the Bonapartes, Bourbons and Orléans with the same degree of animosity by 1870.

#3 requires two PODs; one to get a Bismark who is willing and able to offer lenient terms to France, and a second to change Henri's character. IOTL he was offered the throne of France when the conservative parliament convened after the defeat of the Paris Commune, however Henri would only agree to rule if the national flag was returned to the Bourbon fleur-de-lis, which even the conservatives recognized as an impossible demand; and many of them had grown fond of the tricolor. Even with a royalist France though, the republicans will still be strong there, and another revolution would be very likely before Philippe d'Orleans could take the throne. Regardless though, a monarchy wouldn't extinguish revanchism.

#4 might possibly achieve your aim of a 'gentler' Germany; at least its likely to somewhat more amicable with the other European powers, and might even shift onto the path towards a liberal constitutional monarchy. However France would still have the need to satisfy her revanche, regardless of who the current German Emperor is, if 1870-71 happens as per OTL.

If you're looking for cordial relations between France and Germany I'd suggest going back further than 1870. Even just jumping back a half dozen years and changing German unification vis-à-vis a POD in either the Second Schleswig War or Second Schleswig War could have massive butterflies. Just thinking off the top of my head here, but suppose Prussia is forced to withdraw from the Second Schleswig War, due to British and Russian threats of intervention as had happened in the first war. This means Prussia loses a lot of support in the German states, and when the Austro-Prussian conflict inevitably comes to a head its the Austrians that are victorious and go onto to unite Germany, likely excluding Prussia. Thus the historical Franco-Austria alliance is upheld in the new Germany. The Franco-Prussian War is butterflied away completely, and Napoleon III & Franz Joseph both enjoy long triumphant reigns as somewhat liberal, yet autocratic, emperors; though Napoleon does have to worry about republican uprisings and assassination attempts. Things would become very tense when L'Empereur goes to hand off power to his son.

Prussia unites with the few German states that elect not to join with Austrian-led Germany (i.e. very northern, Protestant, anti-Catholic/anti-Hapsburg states such as Hanover, Oldenburg, Mecklenburg-Schwerin, etc), and via dynastic ties forges an even closer relationship with Britain, which continues to use the Prussians/North Germans as it's continental shock troops. Both Austria-Germany and North Germany likely gain their own, relatively minor, colonial empires; North Germany likely near Britain's in West Africa, while Austria-Germany makes moves in North Africa (Tunisia, Libya). Both Russia and the Turks remain the wild cards in European great power politics. As Grey Wold suggests Italy becomes the key in how things play out; both France and Austria would have incentive to (and traditionally did) mettle in Italian affairs, especially in northern Italy. Italy would thus likely seek out alliances, either with Russia and/or with North Germany/Britain, and perhaps even with the Turks.

 

[RyuDrago]

From my readings, i know that after the fall of the Empire, there was a concrete possibility about the restoration of the Bourbon monarchy, but "Henri V" refused the possibility to use the Tricolour wanting instead the white flag with the fleur de lys, and refused even a compromise ( Tricolour with fleur de lys), so angering the population and causing the loss of the Monarchists in the general election.

However, it's hard an imposition of a restoration from Germany, 1871 was different from 1815 and the French will difficulted accept again this kind of return as these conditions...

No, at that point France could return a monarchy only under general elections IMO.

 

[Monty Burns]

I would agree that the Germany depicted here is more likely to have avoided French revanchism and also is more likely to have better relations to Britain.

On the other side, a more liberal Germany might have lesser cordial relations to the Eastern powers. In particular, I can see a truly liberal Germany having a large impact on German-Austrians. Pan-Germanism might have a whole other appeal ITTL to liberal/leftist German Austrians.

The main problem with this scenario is that I find it highly unlikely that Germany/Prussia again do not exploit their great victory. It was hard for Bismarck to get his will against Austria. It will be even harder for Bismarck in this new Germany. At least the Germans would demand parts of the French colonial Empire - and that would have interesting implications on the relations to Britain and France as well.

 

[RyuDrago]

I would agree that the Germany depicted here is more likely to have avoided French revanchism and also is more likely to have better relations to Britain.

On the other side, a more liberal Germany might have lesser cordial relations to the Eastern powers. In particular, I can see a truly liberal Germany having a large impact on German-Austrians. Pan-Germanism might have a whole other appeal ITTL to liberal/leftist German Austrians.

The main problem with this scenario is that I find it highly unlikely that Germany/Prussia again do not exploit their great victory. It was hard for Bismarck to get his will against Austria. It will be even harder for Bismarck in this new Germany. At least the Germans would demand parts of the French colonial Empire - and that would have interesting implications on the relations to Britain and France as well.

Another problem was that Bismarck was more interested to develop Germany as a continental power than to focus towards colonial policy. Also, in 1871 the German fleet started pratically from zero, we must wait 20 years to see Von Tirpitz and the rise of the Kaiserliche marine. And, about Austria, the war of 1866 and the imposition of the idea of "little Germany" cancelled any motive of attrition between Wien and Berlin. The Empire, despite the solution of the Ausghleit, was still surrounded by not friendly nations: Russia, OE, Italy. The reapprochment with the other speaking German nation was inevitable. Probably, the only pendent question could be Bohemia, but the Reich recognized this as an legitimate part of Austria.

 

[archaeogeek]

A suggestion: Alsace without the Metz region might be easier to swallow for all parties involved, as the Metz area ended up being the most french part of the Reichsland Elsass-Lothringen, and was the core area of, for example, the french separatists in the province.

The french might be somewhat less inclined towards irredentism if the region is smaller. Say, swap Belfort for the entire Moselle department.

 

[BernieP2]

Bismarck was only the Chancellor ...

While Bismarck's imprint on history, especially the latter part of the 19th century, is writ large, he was only the Kaiser's Chancellor .... a 'hired hand" who served at the pleasure of his monarch ... as "Minister President" to King William of Prussia before 1871 and as Chancellor to William, "Deutsche Kaiser" after. The army was under the direct control of the King/Kaiser and not beholden or under the control of the Chancellor.

Bismarck himself had grave misgivings about the annexation of A/L, especially Metz, but the Army overruled him ... the military wanted Metz for its fortress, and as an anchor for the right flank of the new common border with France. Not much he could do. Besides, das Grossherzogtum Baden was glad to have a buffer with a pissed off France to the west.

The French offered colonies as an alternative, but the die was cast. The Vosges Mountains (really just high hills) make a better defensive border than some god forsaken piece of Africa or Asia. At least that was the prevailing mentality.

That last item is the common currency on this board that A/L was a real "French" constituent land like the Loire or the Ile de Paris. In fact the area had only been French since the end of the 30 years war (1648). the area went to France as Cardinal de Richelieu's pound of flesh for siding with the Danes and the Protestant Princes in the third and last phase of the conflict.

Catholic France allied with the Protestant forces as a way of undermining the Hapsburgs and their position in the HRE.

So ... after a mere 122 years -- the area of A/L still spoke a German dialect of Schwabisch, and was, -- as it was on the death Karl der Grosse in 814, a borderland. It was given to the middle brother Lothar while Charles the Bald got France (Aquitaine) and Louis the German got the eastern half in the treaties of Verdun (843) and Mersen (870).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:843-870_Europe.jpg

Not much changed in 1000 years. It still was a borderland in 1870.

The revivalism of the French had less to do with losing a part of "cultural France," as it had to do with being beaten by a people they considered "of little consequence" and certainly not a "Great Power", and to furthermore be forced to face that fact with the loss of territory. The French much preferred to think of the Prussians and Germans in general from the perspective of Austerlitz (1805) and Jena (1806) rather than Bluecher at Waterloo in 1814. Don't forget that the French had the term "le affaire de allemagne" as a term for an insignificant squabble ... a view that sumed up their "World View" of their Eastern neighbors.

The French view of the Rhine as its eastern border (irregardless of how the people there might feel about that) has its parallels with "Manifest Destiny" and was a French Version of "Drang nach Osten".

The declaration of the Empire in Versailles was also due in some part with the fact that the Army and most of the governmental higher ups were encamped there during the "Siege of Paris" and the "Paris Commune" .... the Prussians were nothing if not cheap (?frugal) and not having this war over was costing real money. The non Prussian Germans would simply call it another example of "Preussicher Pracht und Prunk" e.g pomp or "in your face!"

Anyway, my two cents.

Bernie

 

[Mikestone8]

I can't see Bismarck supporting a Bourbon restoration. The French Royalists were also the "Catholic" party and he was a bigoted Protestant - see the Kulturkampf a few years later. If AJP Taylor is correct, he considered restoring Napoleon III in this way, but Nappy refused to play ball unless he got more lenient peace terms than the Rpublican government.

Regarding the peace terms, I think the Austrian peace was the problem. In 1866 he had, with great difficulty, pressured the king into accepting a lenient peace, which is the sort of thing you can do once, but not twice. Maybe if Wilhelm had got his way in 1866, he might have been more persuadable in 1871.

Iirc, however, Bismarck put his foot in it early in the war by calling for the fortresses of Metz and Strasbourg to be annexed, so it would have been difficult for him to renounce them.

 

[Imladrik]

A suggestion: Alsace without the Metz region might be easier to swallow for all parties involved, as the Metz area ended up being the most french part of the Reichsland Elsass-Lothringen, and was the core area of, for example, the french separatists in the province.

The french might be somewhat less inclined towards irredentism if the region is smaller. Say, swap Belfort for the entire Moselle department.

All the imagery of French irredentism was based upon the loss of Alsace, not the loss of Metz, like a picture of a woman in the traditionnal Alsatian costume with the phrase "She is waiting". So the loss of "only" Alsace would still trigger a lot of irredentism.

The French view of the Rhine as its eastern border (irregardless of how the people there might feel about that) has its parallels with "Manifest Destiny" and was a French Version of "Drang nach Osten".

The problem with your view is that it's false. Alsatian considered themselves to be French in their majority. The participated in the french revolution with voted for Napoléon III like the rest of France. The sought to serve in the Navy in WWI to avoid fighting Frenchmen, Alsace even got less volunteer for the SS than the rest of any French region in percentage. The problem is the view held by the majority of the posters on this board who think that everyone speaking a german dialect should be part of a Great German Empire, irregardless of how these people feel.

And if we look at other regions west of the Rhine, like the Rhineland, a part of the population here spoke French in the Revolutionnaty Era, and a lot of young were happy under the French rule of this region, as they could have important responsibility which were held by the older part of the population even when they were incompetent.

 

[archaeogeek]

The problem with your view is that it's false. Alsatian considered themselves to be French in their majority. The participated in the french revolution with voted for Napoléon III like the rest of France. The sought to serve in the Navy in WWI to avoid fighting Frenchmen, Alsace even got less volunteer for the SS than the rest of any French region in percentage. The problem is the view held by the majority of the posters on this board who think that everyone speaking a german dialect should be part of a Great German Empire, irregardless of how these people feel.

And if we look at other regions west of the Rhine, like the Rhineland, a part of the population here spoke French in the Revolutionnaty Era, and a lot of young were happy under the French rule of this region, as they could have important responsibility which were held by the older part of the population even when they were incompetent.

This is french nationalist history but it misses a point. Only 4-8 seats were held by the "députés protestataires" after the 1890 Reichstag elections and they hardly ever got half of the vote. North Italy also participated in the french revolution, and every revolutionary government from Belgium to Suisse Romande to Piedmont went around asking for french annexation during the revolution for protection.

 

[Imladrik]

This is french nationalist history but it misses a point. Only 4-8 seats were held by the "députés protestataires" after the 1890 Reichstag elections and they hardly ever got half of the vote. North Italy also participated in the french revolution, and every revolutionary government from Belgium to Suisse Romande to Piedmont went around asking for french annexation during the revolution for protection.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alsace-Lorraine#Reichstag_election_results_1874-1912

Always a majority of seats except for the 1907 election, and the weakening of the Autonomist vote was a result of the rise of the SPD, which was locally autonomist too.