Would some kind of ‚World War‘ sometime between 1860 and 1870 be possible?

[Rufus]

The 1860s saw a number of major wars between the Great Powers of Europe, from the Franco-Austrian War of 1859 (okay, a year before the 60s, but still) to the Wars of German Unification between Prussia, Denmark, Austria and France, to the American Civil War.

Is there a plausible way to ‚combine‘ those conflicts into one major global war, where Austrian and French ambitions in Italy clash with Prussian desires for Germany, while French ambitions in Mexico play out under the background of the ACW, with Britain possibly becoming involved in the wake of the Trent affair, while Russia looms in the background, ready to take advantage of the situation if possible? It doesn‘t have to start all at once, in fact it‘s probably more likely that such a conflict would begin as a regional conflict that eventually expands beyond what anyone expected. I also don’t think a war between actual alliances like WW1 is likely during this time, but a number of separate conflicts that take place simultanously with different actors having convergent interests shouldn‘t be impossible, similar to the Seven Years War.

The question is, what would be plausible PoD for something like this? Maybe an Austrian victory (or stalemate) in 1859, which leads to another Franco-Austrian war a bit later, which coincides with the involvement of Britain in the ACW, which coincides with a war between Prussia and Denmark over Schleswig-Holstein, which maybe leads to Russian moves against the Ottomans while everyone else is distracted, which then leads to British actions against Russia (which would make Russia and the Union actual allies)? Any other ideas?

 

[Johnrankins]

Possible but hard to pull off. Bismark is far more competent than Kaiser Willy or Hitler and had a good idea about what Germany could and could not pull off.

 

[Arcavia]

Possible but hard to pull off. Bismark is far more competent than Kaiser Willy or Hitler and had a good idea about what Germany could and could not pull off.

Wasn't Bismarck nearly assassinated around this time? If so, there's a possible POD

 

[Johnrankins]

You are right, you could just bump him off. That would make things easier.

 

[Max Sinister]

Would an escalating ACW (where Britain and France intervene on the CSA's side) count?

 

[FillyofDelphi]

Wasn't Bismarck nearly assassinated around this time? If so, there's a possible POD

Indeed he was... Cohen Blind, May 7th 1866.

However, the rest of Europe would have had to misplaced their collective accounting books and sense of scale, as well as Napoleon III getting hit over the head and developing multple personality disorder, for this to least to a world war. Centeral Europe can't afford an extended war, France has no desire to make a grab for total hegemony that will make him the Big Bad while his throne sits on shakier ground close to home, Britain wants to avoid of "Two sides go in, one comes out" that will leave the Continent in the hands of a single alliance who's beaten the checking powers prostrate by any means nessicery,and Russia is still in the middle of reforms (As are the Ottomans for that matter). It's really not in the cards for a World War to break out, as there isent the decades of arms races and paranoia, solidification of the alliance systems, and buildup of the banking and industrial infastructure to support the long term demands of industrial/total war.

 

[Mikestone8]

Indeed he was... Cohen Blind, May 7th 1866.

I understand he was also nearly drowned while swimming at Biarritz in August 1862. Unfortunately a French lifeguard managed to resuscitate him.

 

[JSilvy]

France successfully establishes a Mexican Empire during the American Civil War, and by placing a Hapsburg on the throne, successfully forms an alliance with Austria. Prussia goes after Austria in 1866 with support from Italy, and France intervenes. Russia may want Slavic lands from either Prussia or Austria and could join either side, while the British may join whatever side the Russians don’t join in order to maintain the power balance.

 

[Escape Zeppelin]

France successfully establishes a Mexican Empire during the American Civil War, and by placing a Hapsburg on the throne, successfully forms an alliance with Austria. Prussia goes after Austria in 1866 with support from Italy, and France intervenes. Russia may want Slavic lands from either Prussia or Austria and could join either side, while the British may join whatever side the Russians don’t join in order to maintain the power balance.

I don't think you even need the French to be successful. The USA really didn't like the French in Mexico and if the Civil War was delayed I could easily see the US and France coming to blows over Mexico. That in turn could make Bismark decide that it was Prussia's time make their German unification play and use the pretext of defending the world from French aggression to pile in on the US' behalf.

Then Britain, Spain, Russia, and Austria need to decide what they want to do. Austria seems up in the air. They could come in on the American side since they'd just lost a war to France but on the other hand they might fear Prussia's growing power and see this as their moment to reassert themselves in the Germanies. Russia might also take this as the time to push through the Balkans or Poland, nominally in defense of France. Spain wasn't on board with France's plan to seize Mexico but might see this as their opportunity to defy the Monroe Doctrine. To me Britain seems likely to stay out of the war but at least lean American.

 

[FillyofDelphi]

I don't think you even need the French to be successful. The USA really didn't like the French in Mexico and if the Civil War was delayed I could easily see the US and France coming to blows over Mexico. That in turn could make Bismark decide that it was Prussia's time make their German unification play and use the pretext of defending the world from French aggression to pile in on the US' behalf.

Then Britain, Spain, Russia, and Austria need to decide what they want to do. Austria seems up in the air. They could come in on the American side since they'd just lost a war to France but on the other hand they might fear Prussia's growing power and see this as their moment to reassert themselves in the Germanies. Russia might also take this as the time to push through the Balkans or Poland, nominally in defense of France. Spain wasn't on board with France's plan to seize Mexico but might see this as their opportunity to defy the Monroe Doctrine. To me Britain seems likely to stay out of the war but at least lean American.

Napoleon III would yield on Mexico if it looked like European powers were turning against him and the Americans were prepared to take a hard line on it, full stop. Unless he's gotten whacked over the head and developed a completely different personality, the man while a romantic was certainly pragmatic and had a fairly solid finger on the pulse of international opinion and a sense of keeping his balance on that (Though not quite enough to outsmart Bismark in 70', but he's dealing with huge internal reform crisis and health issues by that point and was up against arguably the best statesman of the century, so that's hardly a reflection of stupidity).

 

[Scott Washburn]

You are right, you could just bump him off. That would make things easier.

Harry Flashman nearly killed him in 1848

 

[Falecius]

Napoleon III would yield on Mexico if it looked like European powers were turning against him and the Americans were prepared to take a hard line on it, full stop. Unless he's gotten whacked over the head and developed a completely different personality, the man while a romantic was certainly pragmatic and had a fairly solid finger on the pulse of international opinion and a sense of keeping his balance on that (Though not quite enough to outsmart Bismark in 70', but he's dealing with huge internal reform crisis and health issues by that point and was up against arguably the best statesman of the century, so that's hardly a reflection of stupidity).

Correct. If the Civil War was delayed, France would almost certainly back down in Mexico. Napoleon III clearly was not prepared to go to war with the Union during the ACW (not without Britain at the very least), let alone fighting a united a US over the Mexican issue.

 

[Arcavia]

I honestly doubt that Prussia was ready for war with France during the ACW unless they had Austria on their side, which--given that French policy in Mexico benefits the Habsburgs--isn't going to happen.

But at the same time, I think we have to remember that the pattern of events leading up to WWI was somewhat improbable, in retrospect. The alliance-system/evolved Conference of Europe was used to essentially gambling a bit in its diplomacy for the half-century leading up to WWI, and in 1914 they rolled snake eyes. Overall, I do believe that there's enough conflicts in the 1850s through 1870s that you could see an early WWI, but I don't know if any of them are plausible. If I had to choose a conflict to escalate, I think that the Mexican war has the most potential to do so, though it's hard to see it actually going anywhere. See, it's easy to get either a war between the US and colonial powers or some or all continental powers, but hard for them to merge into a world war.

If you give everyone involved a monumental dose of Stupid, though, it is possible to get Britain and France intervening in the Civil War, followed by Britain and France also being dumb enough to support the Polish Uprising in 1863, for something pretty close to a world war. It might also be possible to get an Austro-Prussian War to develop into a Continental War if you somehow get France to intervene for Austria--possibly Italy reneging on its agreement to give France Nice?--and that whole situation escalating, though I doubt Britain or Russia will get involved in that mess.

 

[FillyofDelphi]

I honestly doubt that Prussia was ready for war with France during the ACW unless they had Austria on their side, which--given that French policy in Mexico benefits the Habsburgs--isn't going to happen.

But at the same time, I think we have to remember that the pattern of events leading up to WWI was somewhat improbable, in retrospect. The alliance-system/evolved Conference of Europe was used to essentially gambling a bit in its diplomacy for the half-century leading up to WWI, and in 1914 they rolled snake eyes. Overall, I do believe that there's enough conflicts in the 1850s through 1870s that you could see an early WWI, but I don't know if any of them are plausible. If I had to choose a conflict to escalate, I think that the Mexican war has the most potential to do so, though it's hard to see it actually going anywhere. See, it's easy to get either a war between the US and colonial powers or some or all continental powers, but hard for them to merge into a world war.

If you give everyone involved a monumental dose of Stupid, though, it is possible to get Britain and France intervening in the Civil War, followed by Britain and France also being dumb enough to support the Polish Uprising in 1863, for something pretty close to a world war. It might also be possible to get an Austro-Prussian War to develop into a Continental War if you somehow get France to intervene for Austria--possibly Italy reneging on its agreement to give France Nice?--and that whole situation escalating, though I doubt Britain or Russia will get involved in that mess.

Nobody would be getting that big of a dose of Stupid. It France is knee deep in the Americas, they aren't going to be looking at the Russian behemoth and saying "yah, I can take that" over so minor an interest as Poland. The trick to getting a war between all the Great Powers to break out is to make the actions taken sensible and measured at the time; everybody seeing some vital interest at stake and sp feeling a war right now is the best way tp secure themselves long term. Tangental things like Mexico and Poland arent going to get you there: you need somebody making a bid in a spot where Great Power interests intersect.

On that note, the Russo-Turkish War, or preferably a 60's variable thereof so a united Germany isen't around to act as neutral broker, in which Russia strikes on a thin pretext for hegemony on the Straits would seem to be a good possibility. Britain woulden't dare allow the Big Bad of her forgein policy to take such a vital point andd sit astride the Eastern Med, and Nappy III certainly wants to secure British goodwill and establish her own strong influence in the Near East which a dependent regeime in Constantinople would give them. If this is pre Austro-Prussian War, the two Germanic powers could easily be yanked in on opposite sides, with Austria being the deciding factor based on if she continues to pursue her route with France in hopes to keeping Italy on a leash, getting support for influence in the Germanies, and fear of Russian pressure if they gain influence in the Balkans, or revert to trying to woo Russia in hopes of expanding their own SOI in the Balkans and breaking the French power that had been the factor in allowing Italy to shake off Habsburg control. Hell, put it before Slesvig-Holstein and the shatterblow that gave to Scandinavianism as a viable political ideology and have Prussia side with Russia and Sweden and Denmark can be pulled in easily enough on the Franco-British side (Though perhaps bribed in later ah la Italy in WW I). Granted, getting American involved is alot harder... but in the 1860's does it really need to involve the US to be considered a World War? (At least to the extent the Napoleonic Wars were... which such a theoretical conflict would probably more resemble)