Belle Epoque alliance system without the Habsburg Empire

[Douglas]

I took too long with my edit, I see. See my last post for a time-wasting analysis.

EDIT: As for possible rebuttals, a few more points:

1. If Austria-Hungary is in the war, Germany obviously doesn't keep so many troops in France, duh.

Moltke's war plan in the event of war with France and Austria-Hungary called for the defeat of France before turning to Austria. Pulling troops out of France means the protection for the long lines of communications into France are dangerously weak. If one of the Republican Generals gets lucky...

2. Italy 200,000 vs Austria-Hungary 100,000 means Italians in Vienna, so Austria-Hungary has to pull troops away from the German and Russian frontiers to prevent this from happening.

If you're concerned about that, consider if the KuK decides to stay on the defensive against the Germans and Russians (say, 2/3 ratio of opposing forces) and beat the shit out of Italy. Play Custoza over again, but instead of an Italian 1.5+ to 1 advantage, give the Austrians a 1.5 to 1 advantage. Try Caporetto with no foreign help on for size.

 

[archaeogeek]

Actually, the partition of Poland was done by Catherine II.

The partition of Poland had nowhere near the dramatic effects that handing over Bohemia and the Austrian lands to Prussia would have.

 

[Douglas]

Additionally, an 1870/71 partition of Austria-Hungary presupposes that the guy who refused to take the comparatively unimportant Sudetenland in 1866 (Bismarck) changes his mind four years later and annexes the predominant economic and population centers of another Great Power.

 

[SavoyTruffle]

The partition of Poland had nowhere near the dramatic effects that handing over Bohemia and the Austrian lands to Prussia would have.

Pretty much, considering that 18th century Poland was as much of a shambling corpse as the post-Westphalia HRE. Holding the Habsburg core lands was a more important question than who held Warsaw and Krakow.

It's also interesting that the most important territorial changes of the War of the Polish Succession were in Western Europe, not the PLC itself.

 

[LordKalvan]

How you get, with an 1866 POD, the idea that an Austria beaten down (in tremendously unlikely fashion) by Italy would be more likely to enter war against Prussia than in OTL (i.e., they didn't at all) in 1870, while ignoring the fact that Napoleon III would clearly be more cautious in dealing with Prussia 1866-70 given a clearly weakened Austria is beyond me.

The PODs I suggested for TTL's 1866 war were quite limited: the most significant is Lamarmora ending his ministry in May (rather than in June) so that he can be a little more prepared for the coming war, and the attack on Lissa island being carried out after cutting the telegraph line to Spalato, so that there is no advance warning to Tegetthoff in Pola, and the naval battle of Lissa does not happen. IMHO they are less than shattering changes.

I'd also make the point that IOTL neither Custoza nor Lissa were outstanding victories for Austria. After Custoza, granduke Albrech did not press forward, actually he retired toward Verona, and in the next couple of months he always refused to engage the Italian troops in Veneto (which was effectively occupied by Cialdini by the time of the armistice). As far as Lissa is concerned (and disregarding the number of very unlikely circumstances which handed over a tactical victory to Austria), it should be noted that Tegetthoff steamed back to Pola, and never participated in any naval action after Lissa (which is a behavior very similar to WW1, when the Austrian fleet very seldom took the sea, and only contested the barrage at Otranto in a desultory way).

As far as the 1870 war is concerned, Nappy has a quite a big internal problem: the past decade has not been very kind to all of his attempts to renew the martial glory of France:

• in 1859 he went to war against Austria in alliance with Piedmont. While French troops gave a good performance at Solferino and Magenta, the outcome of the war was muss less to French liking. Nappy's plan was to oust the Habsburg from Italy, and to set up three states (plus the papal ones) which would have been French satellites. The outcome was quite different, in the light of the insurrections in the duchies and in the papal states, and it's not surprising the rushed way he went for an armistice at Villafranca (without informing his ally, btw). A united Italy was the last thing France might want, so it's fair to say that the operation was successful, but the patient died.
• the Mexican adventure was a notable cluster fuck, and France was lucky to get out of it licking its wounds
• Nappy tried to get a piece of action in the 1866 war, but the speed of Austrian collapse against Prussia surprised him. ITTL he did not get even the face saving mediation between Austria and Italy
• in 1868 he tried to acquire Luxembourg, but Bismarck reneged on his former promise (if there was a promise)
• then there was the succession crisis in Spain and the Hoenzollern candidacy. Once again he was played by Bismarck.
• he's committed to support the pope (and cannot renege since his main support basis is rural, clerical France. But a more successful Italy is likely to press the Roman question with more decision
• there have been crop failures in the late 1860s which have started to create unrest

All of the above means that Nappy is in a corner and his regime is tottering. So - even assuming that he changes his assessment of Prussian and Italian standing - he needs a "short, victorious war" to prop up the second empire.
My reading is that he'd go to war in any case with a lot of confidence in what French troops can do (his plan OTL was to attack immediately and occupy the Rhinelands while the German armies where still mobilizing). It is quite possible that ITTL the spark for the war is Rome, and he declares war on Italy. Assuming that Prussia intervenes (and Italy would not push too much the Roman issue without this reassurance), it will not change a lot: the Franco-Italian border is quite unsuitable to an offensive war in either sense, and the decision will be again in Northern France.

In a way Austria has less need for a war (even if their score for the 1850s and 1860s is quite poor). However Austria and France discussed an anti-Prussian alliance for quite a long time, and ultimately they failed to reach an agreement because of the firm opposition of the Hungarian prime minister and the French failure to secure a declaration of neutrality from Italy. ITTL the Hungarian wishes may be not given any consideration, or the emperor might decide to go to war to relieve the parlous situation of the pope. An Austrian declaration of war is not certainly a given, but it is not impossible either.

 

[Grand Prince Paul II.]

Actually, the partition of Poland was done by Catherine II.

The support of Prussia against Russia's former SYW allies was done by Peter III.
A very questionable action, just like the partion of A-H in your scenario.
No non-prussophil Russian Emperor would have done anything remotely similar.

 

[LordKalvan]

I took too long with my edit, I see. See my last post for a time-wasting analysis.

EDIT: As for possible rebuttals, a few more points:

1. If Austria-Hungary is in the war, Germany obviously doesn't keep so many troops in France, duh.

Moltke's war plan in the event of war with France and Austria-Hungary called for the defeat of France before turning to Austria. Pulling troops out of France means the protection for the long lines of communications into France are dangerously weak. If one of the Republican Generals gets lucky...

2. Italy 200,000 vs Austria-Hungary 100,000 means Italians in Vienna, so Austria-Hungary has to pull troops away from the German and Russian frontiers to prevent this from happening.

If you're concerned about that, consider if the KuK decides to stay on the defensive against the Germans and Russians (say, 2/3 ratio of opposing forces) and beat the shit out of Italy. Play Custoza over again, but instead of an Italian 1.5+ to 1 advantage, give the Austrians a 1.5 to 1 advantage. Try Caporetto with no foreign help on for size.

Where are the Austrian going to find 300,000 soldiers to send to Italy while still keeping troops on the German border and in Galicia?

Custoza was less a decisive victory than the KuK propaganda made of it: you don't often see the victor retreating from the field and refusing any other engagement.

The border between Austria and Italy is WW1 border at this point. Even with numerical advantage, a decisive Austrian invasion is very hard to believe. Are they attacking on the Isonzo or on the Asiago highlands?

At Caporetto, the Austrian had some 10 German divisions in support, IIRC; even so, they were unable to force the crossing of the Piave. In case you are under some wrong impression, I'll add that the French and British troops sent to Italy after Caporetto arrived after the end of the offensive, and were positioned as reserve.

 

[Elfwine]

The support of Prussia against Russia's former SYW allies was done by Peter III.
A very questionable action, just like the partion of A-H in your scenario.
No non-prussophil Russian Emperor would have done anything remotely similar.

But Paul, Austria-Hungary has to be treated as a monarchist Redneckistan, which exists only to be swallowed up by "better" empires and damn the political consequences. </sarcastic>

I'm not sure anyone here is arguing from their perspective that it was a pillar of European civilization, but in the context of Bismarck and his peers, it certainly was an important part of keeping things running in a desirable way.

 

[LordKalvan]

Additionally, an 1870/71 partition of Austria-Hungary presupposes that the guy who refused to take the comparatively unimportant Sudetenland in 1866 (Bismarck) changes his mind four years later and annexes the predominant economic and population centers of another Great Power.

The stab in the back would certainly produce a surge of pan-German nationalism that even OvB cannot stop. I would not have any objection anyway to see Austria and Bohemia occupied for a period (until reparations are paid) and then set up as independent (or "independent"? ) states, like in 1918. However sooner or later Austria (if not Bohemia too) will enter the German empire: I give it a generation at most.

 

[LordKalvan]

The support of Prussia against Russia's former SYW allies was done by Peter III.
A very questionable action, just like the partion of A-H in your scenario.
No non-prussophil Russian Emperor would have done anything remotely similar.

Maybe not, but there is still some bad blood about Crimea. Anyway it is a given that Gorchakov signed a secret compact with Bismarck in 1868, which was reaffirmed in 1870. I'm pretty sure that the pact did not envisage a partition of A-H, but the outcome of a major defeat may be harsher than anticipated.

But Paul, Austria-Hungary has to be treated as a monarchist Redneckistan, which exists only to be swallowed up by "better" empires and damn the political consequences. </sarcastic>

I'm not sure anyone here is arguing from their perspective that it was a pillar of European civilization, but in the context of Bismarck and his peers, it certainly was an important part of keeping things running in a desirable way.

Sometimes I try to forget that this is AH, where Austria-Hungary exists even before it was formed, and have to last up to the day of Judgement (same as Byzantium, be it in its Greek or Ottoman persona)

And where a dumb and reactionary monarch like Franz Joseph has a lot of not-too-secret admirers

 

[Eurofed]

The support of Prussia against Russia's former SYW allies was done by Peter III.
A very questionable action, just like the partion of A-H in your scenario.
No non-prussophil Russian Emperor would have done anything remotely similar.

Peter III had been in the grave for a decade when the partitions of Poland started, and Catherine II can be hardly charged with excessive Prussophilia.

 

[archaeogeek]

Peter III had been in the grave for a decade when the partitions of Poland started, and Catherine II can be hardly charged with excessive Prussophilia.

He meant that no non-Prussophile emperor would hand over Cisleithania to Prussia.

 

[Elfwine]

Sometimes I try to forget that this is AH, where Austria-Hungary exists even before it was formed, and have to last up to the day of Judgement (same as Byzantium, be it in its Greek or Ottoman persona)

My bad on the name. But calling it just Austria feels inappropriate given its expanse.

No one is suggesting that it last longer than OTL - simply that it is neither going to collapse in a stiff breeze or going to mindlessly charge to its doom.

As for Byzantium lasting until the day of Judgment: We all know that when the Last Battle between Good and Evil occurs that the legions of Rome will turn the tide and God Himself will offer His throne to the Emperor, who will decline God's offer out of a combination of humility and wisdom that will singlehandedly turn chocolate into strawberries.

No, but seriously, what? The Habsburgs conveniently collapsing in such a way that allows Eurofed's obsession with combining states into massive megastates without any political consequences is not much more plausible than the Roman legions defeating the Antichrist.

I wish I could find it, there's an excellently revealing component about how Eurofed sees states somewhere involving regarding balkanization as a radical evil and failed states being incorporated into a more successful ones.

Think it was one of his HRE-wanks.

Bringing this up because anyone proposing dividing up the Habsburg Empire in that spirit would be looked at funny. Poland the zombie being carved up satisfied people's interests and wishes. The Habsburgs being devoured...doesn't. Not the people who guide nations, at least.

And where a dumb and reactionary monarch like Franz Joseph has a lot of not-too-secret admirers

Can't speak for anyone else, but my soft spot for Austria-Hungary has more to do with a romantic image of empire ("Its old and its colorful, how is that not cool?" sort of thing) than of Franz Joseph.

 

[Eurofed]

The Habsburgs conveniently collapsing in such a way that allows Eurofed's obsession with combining states into massive megastates

I have missed the memo where Grossdeutchsland was upgraded from "complete national unification" to "massive megastate". True, the Czechs were not really Germans, but most of 19th century Europe thought differently. A *complete* unification of Germany and the Habsburg lands (or for that matter, Germany + Italy) might qualify as a low-end version of a megastate; 1938-39 Germany did not.

without any political consequences is not much more plausible than the Roman legions defeating the Antichrist.

Come on, pile up the hyperbole.

Bringing this up because anyone proposing dividing up the Habsburg Empire in that spirit would be looked at funny.

Hello ? The Grossdeuchsland half of the German national unification debate ??

Can't speak for anyone else, but my soft spot for Austria-Hungary has more to do with a romantic image of empire (its old and its colorful, how is that not cool? sort of thing) than of Franz Joseph.

Bah. If I have to give a soft spot to romantic nostalgia for cool 19th century monarchist stuff, I much prefer to spare it for the Kaiserreich: monarchist pomp and color, top-class economy, world-leader academia, and top-class military. Which btw, is a reason why I'm rather fond of a neo-Kaiserreich restoration as a more utopian alternative to the Nazis. The USA (and to a lesser degree, France) may have hit pretty much all the right buttons about making a republic classy and cool, but Weimar pathetically lacked cool.

 

[Elfwine]

I have missed the memo where Grossdeutchsland was upgraded from "complete national unification" to "massive megastate". True, the Czechs were not really Germans, but most of 19th century Europe thought differently. A *complete* unification of Germany and the Habsburg lands (or for that matter, Germany + Italy) might qualify as a low-end version of a megastate; 1938-39 Germany did not.

1938-1939 Germany was functionally weaker than Imperial Germany of the period in question, even with having absorbed Bohemia and Austria. The Nazis were not the kind of people who could make a great state, to put it as mildly as possible.

Going back to the Belle Epoque: Most people would see the resulting Grossdeutchsland as a megastate - note I'm not using the term space filling empire, just that its already a giant and you're making it even bigger and more unbalanced relative to the rest of Europe. Considering it "complete national unification" doesn't make it any less so. This isn't about whether Czechs are Germans or seen as Germans, this is about whether you just established a huge freakin' state or not.

A complete unification of Germany and Austria-Hungary in WWI would be spending more than the British Empire (24.7 billion dollars at 1913 prices vs. 23 billion) and mobilizing slightly fewer men than the British Empire and Russia put together (22.25 million) - or not insubstantially more than Russia+France (21.20 million).

OTL, Germany "merely" spent twice as much as France and raised over half again as many men. More men than Russia, for God's sake.

This is already a state that most people would deem a colossus. I don't have any figures for how much Austria+Bohemia adds (as opposed to all Austria-Hungary).

How is this not a threat to the idea that Europe is roughly balanced? How is this not a massive power at the center of Europe?

Say hello to alliances dedicated to bringing down the Hohenzollen dreams of hegemony. Including Britain on the side of Greater Germany's opponents.

This is ignoring the other issues since I'm less familiar with the Balkans - but its certainly not a promising situation.

Come on, pile up the hyperbole.

If Kalvan can refer to people who think the Habsburg Empire won't collapse from a stiff breeze as believing it will last until Judgment Day, I can gratuitously and shamelessly exaggerate in response.

Take it as nothing more than that.

Bah. If I have to give a soft spot to romantic monarchist nostalgia for cool 19th century stuff, I much prefer to spare it for the Kaiserreich: monarchist pomp, top-class economy, world-leader academia, and top-class military. Which btw, is a reason why I'm rather fond of a neo-Kaiserreich restoration as a more utopian alternative to the Nazis.

The Kaiserreich isn't a Grand Old State, however. And for reasons most irrational and personal I prefer those, all things being even.

There's a reason my user title is Byzantophile.

Its not a good reason, but being romantic and irrational about past empires isn't supposed to be.

No, I'm not saying your preference for the Kaiserreich is that sort of thing. It seems to tie into your preference for hegemons, rather than romantic dreams of how the mob is a bad thing by definition and the elite should rule.

Whether the neo-Kaiserreich is a good idea or a bad idea is another debate, which I would be happy to take up with you some other time (would derail this thread considerably).

 

[Snake Featherston]

If you don't want to call them "wars of national mobilisation", give them another name, but the 1854-1877 wars did happen, and were a major sign that the 1815 reactionary order and its "peaceful" consensus had already come apart in 1870.

I've dug out diplomatic evidence that a general war of five powers almost happened in 1870 as an expansion of the F-P war. Such a war would have been more or less a combination of the 1870 and 1866 wars with a 1877 one with a different target. This general war would involve a military scenario that all involved actors planned for or accepted as a contingency.

Prussia in OTL 1870 kept a portion of its mobilised army on its eastern border to guard against an Austrian attack, and it made the secret alliance with Russia. Italy in 1866 kept a portion of its army in Southern Italy to keep quelling brigandage (which in 1870 had been quashed, so those resources were freed) and in 1870 there was serious talk in Italy of an intervention in the F-P war. Austria fought a two-front war in 1866 and an alliance with France was seriously talked about in 1868-70. Russia in 1868 and 1870 did committ itself to attack Austria if it joined France against Prussia.

I may accept that some posters disagree with the peace settlement I have devised as the outcome of such a war, but to deny that such a war would occur, despite evidence, is unacceptable. And for the record, this war would not be anything like WWI and its long revolution-inducing trench warfare stalemate, because the military technology to induce that kind of stalemate was not yet there. No war of this period was such, even the ACW, which came the closest, was much, much more based on movement than WWI.

You're the one, however, who made the absurd claim that states do not go into war without stopping to consider logistics or even how the planned war is seriously supposed to work. That happens all the time. And individual wars between two or three Great Powers is not remotely the same as an all-Europe conflagration of the WWI sort.

And World War I itself happened after 30 years of the geopolitical analogue to priming the pump and even then it was a defeat for Imperial Germany which found it couldn't wage a long war against almost the entirety of Europe.

 

[Grand Prince Paul II.]

He meant that no non-Prussophile emperor would hand over Cisleithania to Prussia.

Indeed. Only a Russian emperor who neglect Russian interests in favour of Prussia would support Eurofed's plan to destroy the Habsburg Empire.
Galicia-Bukovina is not enough to justify the creation of a potentially hostile Greater Germany which could threaten the whole western flank of the Russian Empire.

 

[Eurofed]

A complete unification of Germany and Austria-Hungary in WWI would be spending more than the British Empire (24.7 billion dollars at 1913 prices vs. 23 billion) and mobilizing slightly fewer men than the British Empire and Russia put together (22.25 million) - or not insubstantially more than Russia+France (21.20 million).

OTL, Germany "merely" spent twice as much as France and raised over half again as many men. More men than Russia, for God's sake.

This is already a state that most people would deem a colossus. I don't have any figures for how much Austria+Bohemia adds (as opposed to all Austria-Hungary).

How is this not a threat to the idea that Europe is roughly balanced? How is this not a massive power at the center of Europe?

There is the little issue that a 1870 (or 1848, for that matter) Grossdeutchsland won't be nearly as powerful and threatening as a 1914 one, thanks to the effects of German demographic and industrial growth in later decades, and that such growth is in all likelihood is unforeseen by period leaders.

It may well be that Russia or Britain regret after 1900 to have allowed the formation of Greater Germany in 1870, and gang up against it. So what ? This discussion has not been about UK or Russia necessarily being chums with 1914 Greater Germany. The OP explicitly provided the option of OTL Triple Entente forming ITTL.

Say hello to alliances dedicated to bringing down the Hohenzollen dreams of hegemony. Including Britain on that side.

See my point above.

If Kalvan can refer to people who think the Habsburg Empire won't collapse from a stiff breeze as believing it will last until Judgment Day, I can gratuitously and shamelessly exaggerate in response.

No mind-reader here, but perhaps he may find some serious objection (and I would agree with him) with people describing stuff like a total military defeat (the third major defeat in a decade, with the second being worse than OTL) in a three-front war cum national revolution as a "stiff breeze". But I suppose those are the same people that assume 1848 was never any threat for the Habsburg Empire, the Ausgleich was never in any peril of failing or collapsing, etc.

The Kaiserreich isn't a Grand Old State, however. And for reasons most irrational and personal I prefer those, all things being even.

There's a reason my user title is Byzantophile.

Its not a good reason, but being romantic and irrational about past empires isn't supposed to be.

Well, if one has to go for cheering for Grand Old Empires, Rome (the real one, not its shrunken-up, spoiled-by-bloody-monotheism successor state), was by far the best of them all.

No, I'm not saying your preference for the Kaiserreich is that sort of thing. It seems to tie into your preference for hegemons, rather than romantic dreams of how the mob is a bad thing by definition and the elite should rule.

Yes and no. It is true that my preference for hegemons is the Alpha and Omega of my whole interest in AH, but, all other things being equal, I have preferences about their political systems (e.g. I prefer a strong presidential republic or constitutional monarchy with some decent reserve powers to parliamentarism with pathetic figureheads).

Whether the neo-Kaiserreich is a good idea or a bad idea is another debate, which I would be happy to take up with you some other time (would derail this thread considerably).

It is abundantly derailed already, in the usual AH tradition of "fuck the actual question and topic, I shall pick apart and bitch about the PoD".

At least some people did the right, useful thing and voted on the poll.

 

[SavoyTruffle]

Plus, it would result in more restive Poles; sure you get a bunch of Ukrainians, but I guess the average Russian soldier would be tired of garrisoning Congress Poland

 

[Earling]

You're the one, however, who made the absurd claim that states do not go into war without stopping to consider logistics or even how the planned war is seriously supposed to work. That happens all the time. And individual wars between two or three Great Powers is not remotely the same as an all-Europe conflagration of the WWI sort.

And World War I itself happened after 30 years of the geopolitical analogue to priming the pump and even then it was a defeat for Imperial Germany which found it couldn't wage a long war against almost the entirety of Europe.

I don't see why states can't fight general wars in the period. To be again accused to computer game thinking you simply raise taxes, enforce conscription, produce more guns and have at it, like they did before and as they would do after. War would just be more like the Eastern Front of WW1 rather than the Western Front: Armies fight, one side wins and makes some ground, the other loses and gives some ground. Winter arrives, people head into winter quarters, fresh armies and trained and mobilized to be used in the spring or summer etc etc. The American civil war managed to run for four years and that was with a society far less militarised than Europe. The Austro-Prussian war ended because the Austrians could get comparatively minor concessions for peace. If the Prussians had said "No, we plan to annex your entire country" they would have, and certainly could have, fought on. If all the French forces raised during the Franco-Prussian war hadn't been split between three competing governments that war may have been very different too.

All in all I think the most likely scenario is the Napoleonic situation: The powers fight and then have a treaty only to find the treaty doesn't produce a stable Europe and so war breaks out six months later. This process repeats untill you eventually reach a stable situation which endures for atleast a decade or two. It is possible that in this scenario Austria disappears, but it is going to be a Napoleonic type event, with millions dead and years of warfare, rather than the timeline Douglas mockingly proposes which amounts to Austria declares war, Austria loses to Russia and Austria is annexed to Germany.