Would Prussia have created an Empire,or France lost one,
absent the Iron Chancellor?

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

On Saturday, October 28, 2023 at 1:31:50 AM UTC+1, Louis Epstein wrote:
> Would Prussia have created an Empire, or France lost one,
> absent the Iron Chancellor?
>
A starting point would be to look at France, Germany and the wider European scene as they stook when Bismarck became Prussia's Minister President and Foreign Minister in 1862. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Schleswig_War (1848-51) had been won by Denmark. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctation_of_Olm%C3%BCtz "was seen by many as a capitulation of the Prussians to the Austrians."

On 10/27/23 7:31 PM, Louis Epstein wrote:
> Would Prussia have created an Empire,or France lost one,
> absent the Iron Chancellor?

Bismarck's first major impact on history was in 1862, when he
was appointed Minister President of Prussia by King Wilhelm I.
Wilhelm was threatening to abdicate rather than concede control
of Army funding to the Diet. Wilhelm brought in Bismarck, who
found ways to bypass the Diet.

Without Bismarck, Wilhelm may abdicate, making his son Friedrich
King. "Fritz" was very opposed to Bismarck's program, being a
liberal. He was excluded from power until finally succeeding his
father in 1888 - only three months before his death.

If Fritz succeeds in 1862, radical changes. At the time, Army
Minister Roon was trying to reconstruct the Prussian Army, with
longer terms of service, greater numbers, and a diminished role
for the Landwehr militia. Roon's unpopular reforms were carried
through with support by Wilhelm and Bismarck, who was Roon's
good friend, and proved foundational to Prussian victories over
Denmark in 1864 and Austria in 1866.

Fritz would almost certainly side with the liberals against Roon.
He and the liberals favored German unification, but not by
Bismarck's methods.

However, the liberal nationalists wanted to gain Schleswig and
Holstein for Germany, and had supported military action in the
First Schleswig War (1848-1852) - which was a humiliating fiasco
for the German side, with Prussian troops performing badly.

Without Roon's reforms, the second round might go no better. Britain
and Russia had supported Denmark in the first war, and probably would
again.

That leaves Prussia and Austria sparring for dominance in the German
Confederation, without the prestige of having ejected Denmark. The
GC will muddle along for several years at least. One question is
how stable Austria is without the war with Prussia.

| |
| Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés. |
| --- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870. |
| |

On Thursday, November 9, 2023 at 3:29:45 AM UTC, Rich Rostrom wrote:
> On 10/27/23 7:31 PM, Louis Epstein wrote:
> > Would Prussia have created an Empire,or France lost one,
> > absent the Iron Chancellor?
> Bismarck's first major impact on history was in 1862, when he
> was appointed Minister President of Prussia by King Wilhelm I.
> Wilhelm was threatening to abdicate rather than concede control
> of Army funding to the Diet. Wilhelm brought in Bismarck, who
> found ways to bypass the Diet.
>
> Without Bismarck, Wilhelm may abdicate, making his son Friedrich
> King. "Fritz" was very opposed to Bismarck's program, being a
> liberal. He was excluded from power until finally succeeding his
> father in 1888 - only three months before his death.
>
> If Fritz succeeds in 1862, radical changes. At the time, Army
> Minister Roon was trying to reconstruct the Prussian Army, with
> longer terms of service, greater numbers, and a diminished role
> for the Landwehr militia. Roon's unpopular reforms were carried
> through with support by Wilhelm and Bismarck, who was Roon's
> good friend, and proved foundational to Prussian victories over
> Denmark in 1864 and Austria in 1866.
>
> Fritz would almost certainly side with the liberals against Roon.
> He and the liberals favored German unification, but not by
> Bismarck's methods.
>
> However, the liberal nationalists wanted to gain Schleswig and
> Holstein for Germany, and had supported military action in the
> First Schleswig War (1848-1852) - which was a humiliating fiasco
> for the German side, with Prussian troops performing badly.
>
> Without Roon's reforms, the second round might go no better. Britain
> and Russia had supported Denmark in the first war, and probably would
> again.
>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Schleswig_War#Background (ObFWIW)
"The peace treaty that had ended the war in 1851 stipulated that the duchy of Schleswig should be treated the same as the duchy of Holstein regarding its relations with the Kingdom of Denmark. However, during the revisions of the 1848 constitution in the late 1850s and early 1860s, Holstein refused to acknowledge the revision, creating a crisis in which the parliament in Copenhagen ratified the revision but Holstein did not. In 1863, Frederick VII died, and the new Danish king ordered that the new constitution should apply to Schleswig and Denmark, but not to Holstein. This was a clear breach of the 1851 peace treaty and the London Protocol of 1852 and gave Prussia and the German Confederation a casus belli against Denmark. The German position was considerably more favorable than it had been thirteen years before, when Prussia had to give in due to the risk of military intervention by Britain, France and Russia on behalf of Denmark: France had colonial problems, not least with Britain. Otto von Bismarck had succeeded in obtaining cooperation from Austria which underlined its great power status within the German union, while Britain was upset that Denmark had violated the London Protocol."

The changes to the Danish constitution, France's colonial problems and Britain's upset about the London protocol are all likely to still occur in the absence of Bismarck.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Schleswig_War#The_international_situation (Again ObFWIW)
"In the First Schleswig War, the possibility of Russian intervention on the side of Denmark had proved decisive in deciding the outcome of the war.[8] The Crimean War had changed the entire posture of Russian foreign policy. .... After the Crimean War, Russia was now a revisionist power out to challenge the European status quo, and any developments likely to change the European power structure were now welcome in St. Petersburg.[8] Furthermore, the Crimean War and its aftermath made it extremely unlikely that Russia would work together with Britain and/or France, which established a room for maneuver for Prussia that did not exist in 1848–50.[8] Tsar Alexander II saw the possibility of a stronger Prussia as a way of weakening France.[8] During the Polish Uprising of 1863–1864, Napoleon III had taken a strongly pro-Polish line, which increased the already considerable mistrust and dislike of France in St. Petersburg. Alexander tended to favor a pro-Prussian line provided that Bismarck gave assurances that Prussia would not annex Denmark proper, and limit its ambitions to the two duchies."

Again, these factors will apply in the absence of Bismarck.

I suggest that the *Second Schleswig War is likely to happen with a less efficient Prussian Army than OTL, but a similar international situation.
> That leaves Prussia and Austria sparring for dominance in the German
> Confederation, without the prestige of having ejected Denmark. The
> GC will muddle along for several years at least. One question is
> how stable Austria is without the war with Prussia.