A Better (Luckier) Napoleonic Peace (Avoid 19th century Franco-Prussian War + 20th century World Wars)

[oca2073]

What sort of peace treaty would be the most optimal to stabilizing the balance of power in Europe over the long term in the 19th century? The Congress of Vienna couldn't have known about France's future demographic decline or German unification and industrialization. But knowing these factors today, what would be the optimal treaty for dealing with Franco-German rivalry in the following century?

Basically (imo):

-France should be left with more territory than OTL, especially lands with important industrial resources (Saarland, Luxembourg steel deposits/Red Lands, Wallonia). This will aid France in becoming easily the second largest industrial power after Britain until Germany overtakes them in the late 19th century
-But France can't be made TOO powerful to dominate Europe in the 19th century or to tempt them to challenge Britain (thus avoiding further French-British conflicts/a continuation of the Napoleonic wars)

-Germany still forms to act as a check to a more powerful France and future rival to Britain

-the eventual British-French alliance to counter Germany still happens, but due to a more powerful France, the German Schlieffen plan is dismissed as being unrealistic. Thus WW1 doesn't happen/no blank cheque to the Austrians.

-Netherlands can be given Flanders and they will hold on to it (no Belgium)
-a stronger Netherlands and no Belgium means no small neutral country in the region for German troops to pass through to invade France (Netherlands being more powerful than OTL will change Germany's calculus, again making the Schlieffen plan non-viable)
-France can construct all the military fortifications it wants in the part of Belgium it holds, removing the "weak point" that saw it encircled and defeated during WW2 as Germans bypassed the Maginot Line

-Maybe Savoy-Sardinia holds onto Nice + are given Corsica, satisfying all Italian nationalists, thus Italy will not join the Central Powers, again reducing chances of a WW1

-Finally, what kind of POD needs to happen to create this sort of peace deal during the Napoleonic Wars? In how much of a better position does France need to be to get a more favourable peace settlement?

 

[wietze]

the netherlands got all of belgium and & lux in otl, french meddling ( and crownprince williams idiocy) is what started the troubles in the southern netherlands (the later belgium)

i think given the sheer amount of wars that france started letting them keep lands that weren't theirs is only rewarding them and will invite more adventures in the future.
It will only increase the chance that they will new wars. unfortunately i think that french should have been dealt with stronger.
a better idea could have been a more expanded Netherlands (apart from the otl southward expansion also expansion eastward), that would balance things out a little more against both france and germany, especially if NL getting prussian territories means that prussias power within germany is reduced. you could get a 4 way balancing acting with the Netherlands, Germany, Austro-Hungaria and France.

you still talk about the schlieffen plan and germany invading through belgium etc. but with changes the future will also change, so those things are no longer relevant.
remember that the franco-prussian war was started by france, and that ww1 pretty much was a consequence of that war.
So when there is no franco-prussian war the whole thing gets more stable.

the only thing that would work if things are balanced, because a stronger france will probably mean more trouble instead of less

 

[oca2073]

the netherlands got all of belgium and & lux in otl, french meddling ( and crownprince williams idiocy) is what started the troubles in the southern netherlands (the later belgium)

Nope, southern Netherlands really did not want to be part of the Protestant dominated Netherlands, plus Brussels and Wallonia were becoming French-speaking and inspired by the French revolution, they really preferred French rule during the Napoleonic period.

i think given the sheer amount of wars that france started letting them keep lands that weren't theirs is only rewarding them and will invite more adventures in the future.
It will only increase the chance that they will new wars. unfortunately i think that french should have been dealt with stronger.

It's only a bit more land than OTL and should not meaningfully change the direction of French foreign policy in the 19th century.

If France were dealt with more harshly, that means a far more dominant Germany in the 19th century and Britain being unable to maintain any balance of power in Europe, thus perhaps an earlier (late 19th century) WW1 is in the cards...

a better idea could have been a more expanded Netherlands (apart from the otl southward expansion also expansion eastward), that would balance things out a little more against both france and germany, especially if NL getting prussian territories means that prussias power within germany is reduced. you could get a 4 way balancing acting with the Netherlands, Germany, Austro-Hungaria and France.

How on earth can you get Prussia (a victor in the Napoleonic wars) to SURRENDER territory willingly?

you still talk about the schlieffen plan and germany invading through belgium etc. but with changes the future will also change, so those things are no longer relevant.
remember that the franco-prussian war was started by france, and that ww1 pretty much was a consequence of that war.
So when there is no franco-prussian war the whole thing gets more stable.

On the contrary, the Franco-Prussian war was provoked by Bismarck deliberately and he wouldn't have done so unless he was certain he could win a war against France and thereby unite the German powers in one fell swoop. Plus, Bismarck wanted Alsace-Lorraine. Since a stronger 1870 France means Bismarck won't dare provoke them, this helps prevent WW1.

BUT German reunification is inevitable and will happen eventually, albeit with southern German states likely given more rights. German predominance in Europe is pretty much unavoidable due to the factors of nationalism (affecting all of Europe) + German demographic rise and relative French decline.

Without the Franco-Prussian War, and with Alsace-Lorraine in the hands of the French + Saarland, Germany will still look for opportunities to win a new war of conquest against France as soon as they feel powerful enough. But with these new borders + potential British intervention and Russian alliance, they simply can't use the Schlieffen Plan.

the only thing that would work if things are balanced, because a stronger france will probably mean more trouble instead of less

The reason things didn't work out was because things WEREN'T balanced OTL. France became too weak to contain Germany. Germany thought Britain would stay out of any Great War and didn't have the stomach to fight land wars in Europe. Belgium was a neutral small country that Germany could use to bypass French defences.

Change all this and perhaps things will work out. Of course, France can't become TOO strong to challenge Britain, no French control of Rhineland and the Ruhr for example.

 

[wietze]

Nope, southern Netherlands really did not want to be part of the Protestant dominated Netherlands, plus Brussels and Wallonia were becoming French-speaking and inspired by the French revolution, they really preferred French rule during the Napoleonic period.


It's only a bit more land than OTL and should not meaningfully change the direction of French foreign policy in the 19th century.

If France were dealt with more harshly, that means a far more dominant Germany in the 19th century and Britain being unable to maintain any balance of power in Europe, thus perhaps an earlier (late 19th century) WW1 is in the cards...



How on earth can you get Prussia (a victor in the Napoleonic wars) to SURRENDER territory willingly?


On the contrary, the Franco-Prussian war was provoked by Bismarck deliberately and he wouldn't have done so unless he was certain he could win a war against France and thereby unite the German powers in one fell swoop. Plus, Bismarck wanted Alsace-Lorraine. Since a stronger 1870 France means Bismarck won't dare provoke them, this helps prevent WW1.

BUT German reunification is inevitable and will happen eventually, albeit with southern German states likely given more rights. German predominance in Europe is pretty much unavoidable due to the factors of nationalism (affecting all of Europe) + German demographic rise and relative French decline.

Without the Franco-Prussian War, and with Alsace-Lorraine in the hands of the French + Saarland, Germany will still look for opportunities to win a new war of conquest against France as soon as they feel powerful enough. But with these new borders + potential British intervention and Russian alliance, they simply can't use the Schlieffen Plan.


The reason things didn't work out was because things WEREN'T balanced OTL. France became too weak to contain Germany. Germany thought Britain would stay out of any Great War and didn't have the stomach to fight land wars in Europe. Belgium was a neutral small country that Germany could use to bypass French defences.

Change all this and perhaps things will work out. Of course, France can't become TOO strong to challenge Britain, no French control of Rhineland and the Ruhr for example.

brussels was dutch speaking, only after the belgian independence this changed, brussels is a bi-lingual island in the middle of flemish-brabant today.
austro-hungaria was also a part in that balance, they kept the prussians in check.

getting prussia to surrender lands might actually might be possible, if a) french defeat comes earlier and the coalitions are slightly different, or b) if succession in the Netherlands goes different.
otl we had crownprince william (the later william II) causing lots of trouble), a situation where his brother becomes king instead might help that (his brother was married to louise von preussen).
w II disgraces himself, his brother gets the nod instead. some haggling with prussia about some prussian lands as dowry some political promises etc.

Napoleon III was just as guilty as bismarck though, just look at his adventures elsewhere.

the franco-prussian war cemented unification, before that is was not guaranteed. you still had the north german confederacy and german bund (which included AH).
before the war it was not certain the southern germans states would join the nothern confederacy

North German Confederation - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

a more succesful austria in the prussia-ah war of 1866 might throw a spanner in the works (or absence of that war), plus with early changes might mean no bismarck, which would change things considerable.

 

[oca2073]

brussels was dutch speaking, only after the belgian independence this changed, brussels is a bi-lingual island in the middle of flemish-brabant today.

You realize the outbreak of the Belgian Revolution... happened in Brussels right?

The revolution was far more about religious discrimination and political exclusion than just language differences.

austro-hungaria was also a part in that balance, they kept the prussians in check.

And they failed very badly. As did France. You do realize how powerful Prussia had become at that point? Only a stronger France can check Prussia/Germany in the continent in the late 19th/early 20th century.

getting prussia to surrender lands might actually might be possible, if a) french defeat comes earlier and the coalitions are slightly different, or b) if succession in the Netherlands goes different.
otl we had crownprince william (the later william II) causing lots of trouble), a situation where his brother becomes king instead might help that (his brother was married to louise von preussen).
w II disgraces himself, his brother gets the nod instead. some haggling with prussia about some prussian lands as dowry some political promises etc.

Well I guess an expanded Netherlands might help, although it is likely German nationalists/revanchists will want the area back eventually. The main problem however is still Belgium, how it didn't want to stay in a unified Netherlands... This left a small neutral country for Germans to invade through in their Schlieffen Plan, once they became powerful enough.

Napoleon III was just as guilty as bismarck though, just look at his adventures elsewhere.

Napoleon III bent to public opinion which became really hysterical. He feared serious unrest if he didn't declare war and he badly underestimated Prussia and thought France could win. Best way to avoid this war is to have Bismarck avoid stirring up tensions as he's not sure he can win a war easily against France.

the franco-prussian war cemented unification, before that is was not guaranteed. you still had the north german confederacy and german bund (which included AH).
before the war it was not certain the southern germans states would join the nothern confederacy

North German Confederation - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Given the woes of the Habsburgs with their multicultural empire, it's obvious they couldn't rule over both German speaking lands (Bavaria) as well as satisfy their Hungarian/non-German subjects which they had serious difficulty OTL. Bavaria will drift towards the idea of a united Germany as will all southern German states. Economic ties, the spread of nationalism virtually guarantees this. Without the Franco-Prussian War, unification is probably delayed 20-30 years MAXIMUM.

a more succesful austria in the prussia-ah war of 1866 might throw a spanner in the works (or absence of that war), plus with early changes might mean no bismarck, which would change things considerable.

I can't see Austria beating Prussia in the late 19th century. Even allied with France, I still see Prussia winning especially if Russia intervenes on their side.

 

[TRH]

And they failed very badly. As did France. You do realize how powerful Prussia had become at that point? Only a stronger France can check Prussia/Germany in the continent in the late 19th/early 20th century.

Not strong enough to defeat Denmark without Austria on side, if OTL is any indication. One shouldn't project their 1866 or 1871 strength back to 1815, when they mobilized half as many troops as the Austrians during the Hundred Days.

 

[oca2073]

Not strong enough to defeat Denmark without Austria on side, if OTL is any indication. One shouldn't project their 1866 or 1871 strength back to 1815, when they mobilized half as many troops as the Austrians during the Hundred Days.

You are misinformed, the reason both Austria/Prussia declared war on Denmark was because of issues regarding the German Confederation and since both powers were jostling to be regarded as the preeminent German power in the eyes of Germans, Austria naturally demanded to take part as well.

I don't think anyone really believes Prussia couldn't defeat Denmark on their own. Heck, even Austria could have defeated Denmark on their own.

 

[TRH]

You are misinformed, the reason both Austria/Prussia declared war on Denmark was because of issues regarding the German Confederation and since both powers were jostling to be regarded as the preeminent German power in the eyes of Germans, Austria naturally demanded to take part as well.

I don't think anyone really believes Prussia couldn't defeat Denmark on their own. Heck, even Austria could have defeated Denmark on their own.

It's not a matter of belief, the Prussians actually lost to Denmark thirteen years earlier. Make whatever excuses you want, the point is that you're treating a kingdom of less than 10 million people like a superpower not just destined to walk all over states several times its 1815 size, but capable of doing so right then and there.

 

[Rattenfänger von Memphis]

What sort of peace treaty would be the most optimal to stabilizing the balance of power in Europe over the long term in the 19th century? The Congress of Vienna couldn't have known about France's future demographic decline or German unification and industrialization. But knowing these factors today, what would be the optimal treaty for dealing with Franco-German rivalry in the following century?

Basically (imo):

-France should be left with more territory than OTL, especially lands with important industrial resources (Saarland, Luxembourg steel deposits/Red Lands, Wallonia). This will aid France in becoming easily the second largest industrial power after Britain until Germany overtakes them in the late 19th century

-Finally, what kind of POD needs to happen to create this sort of peace deal during the Napoleonic Wars? In how much of a better position does France need to be to get a more favourable peace settlement?

If Napoleon had quickly agreed to the Frankfurt peace proposals presented to him by the Allies in November 1813 during the Napoleonic Wars, as per your POD, the "most optimal" conditions you want for a better future balance of power could probably have been met.

The Allies were wary, even after winning the Battle of Leipzig, AKA Battle of the Nations on October 16 – 18, 1813, of invading France. They all remembered how the French had fought, and won, against the rest of Europe in the early 1790s strenuously defending their homeland and were leery of a bloody repeat, especially with Napoleon as the leader..

According to Andrew Roberts’ book “Napoleon: A Life”, page 685, the Allies’ Frankfurt peace offers were:

“(Napoleon) seriously entertained a peace offer from the Allies, brought from Frankfurt by the Baron de Saint-Aignan, his former equerry and Caulaincourt’s(French Foreign Minister) brother-in-law.

Under what were termed the Frankfurt bases of peace, France would return to her so-called ‘natural frontiers’ of the Ligurian Alps, the Pyrenees, the Rhine and the Ardennes---the so-called ‘Bourbon frontiers’ (even though the Bourbons had regularly crossed them in wars of conquest).

Napoleon would have to abandon Italy, Germany, Spain and Holland, but not all of Belgium. At that point, with only a few garrisons holding out in Spain and unable to defend the Rhine with anything more than bluster, Napoleon told Fain (Napoleon’s private secretary) he was prepared to surrender Iberia and Germany, but he resisted giving away Italy, which in wartime ‘could provide a diversion to Austria’, and Holland, which ‘afforded so many resources’.”

This “natural frontiers” peace would have given France much more than Alsace-Lorraine and the Saarland. But Napoleon didn’t accept fast enough, the British really didn’t want the French to have any part of what became the Belgian coast and the Allies opted to invade and oust Napoleon after all.

 

[oca2073]

It's not a matter of belief, the Prussians actually lost to Denmark thirteen years earlier. Make whatever excuses you want, the point is that you're treating a kingdom of less than 10 million people like a superpower not just destined to walk all over states several times its 1815 size, but capable of doing so right then and there.

Dude, just stop. The 1st Schleswig War was unsuccessful because international pressure from UK, France, Russia forced Prussia to back down. They weren't "defeated" by the Danes. In August 1848, Prussia pulled out of the war in the Treaty of Malmo. So the Danes were only fighting rebels + minor German powers for the duration of the war.

The Danes could muster fewer than 40,000 troops and are militarily not on par Prussia or Austria.

 

[oca2073]

If Napoleon had quickly agreed to the Frankfurt peace proposals presented to him by the Allies in November 1813 during the Napoleonic Wars, as per your POD, the "most optimal" conditions you want for a better future balance of power could probably have been met.

The Allies were wary, even after winning the Battle of Leipzig, AKA Battle of the Nations on October 16 – 18, 1813, of invading France. They all remembered how the French had fought, and won, against the rest of Europe in the early 1790s strenuously defending their homeland and were leery of a bloody repeat, especially with Napoleon as the leader..

According to Andrew Roberts’ book “Napoleon: A Life”, page 685, the Allies’ Frankfurt peace offers were:

This “natural frontiers” peace would have given France much more than Alsace-Lorraine and the Saarland. But Napoleon didn’t accept fast enough, the British really didn’t want the French to have any part of what became the Belgian coast and the Allies opted to invade and oust Napoleon after all.

Too much. If France keeps all of that it will continue to challenge Britain in Europe and overseas leading to an eventual continuation of the Napoleonic Wars.

The POD should be later than this, but things go better that France gets to keep a bit more territory. At this point, Saarland, southern Luxembourg, Wallonia aren't known to have important natural resources so it wouldn't be seen as too much of a concession to France. France may also have to trade away more of their overseas colonies, perhaps even Corsica to Savoy/Sardinia.

 

[oca2073]

If Napoleon had quickly agreed to the Frankfurt peace proposals presented to him by the Allies in November 1813 during the Napoleonic Wars, as per your POD, the "most optimal" conditions you want for a better future balance of power could probably have been met.

The Allies were wary, even after winning the Battle of Leipzig, AKA Battle of the Nations on October 16 – 18, 1813, of invading France. They all remembered how the French had fought, and won, against the rest of Europe in the early 1790s strenuously defending their homeland and were leery of a bloody repeat, especially with Napoleon as the leader..

According to Andrew Roberts’ book “Napoleon: A Life”, page 685, the Allies’ Frankfurt peace offers were:

This “natural frontiers” peace would have given France much more than Alsace-Lorraine and the Saarland. But Napoleon didn’t accept fast enough, the British really didn’t want the French to have any part of what became the Belgian coast and the Allies opted to invade and oust Napoleon after all.

On the contrary, I just did some research, it appears that the Frankfurt proposals were simply an Austrian initiative which would not have been acceptable to Britain in the first place. The British diplomat in attendance misunderstood Britain's position. Simply put, a Frankfurt peace was impossible historically.

Frankfurt proposals - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Also

IMHO the problem remains Emperor Napoleon, sure he was in retreat on many fronts and had suffered a heavy defeat in the Battle of Nations (Leipzig), but character-wise this would have meant given up more than he had. I'm sure some French now think, why didn't he, well IMHO his OTL last 100 days might be telling here. And then for the elephant in the room here, I'm pretty sure Metternich would have ended up being cursed by a number of Germans once the age of Nationalism hits (some might in hindsight even deem him a traitor, in that period that IMHO could be real possibility), for allowing major German towns like Cologne, Mainz and Trier, all former Prince Electorates of the HRE, and an Imperial coronation site of the HRE like Aachen in French hands. IMHO that's much more dangerous than OTL French (owned) Alsace ever was.
Then there also is the issue of the fate of Flemish and other Dutch (as in language group) speaking groups of modern day Belgium had they remained a part of the French Empire ITTL. OTOH groups like the Germans and the Flemish, which remain under French control ITTL might end up causing problems for France in the future. That might spark a new conflict between the German states united under Austro-Prussian leadership to support German insurgences in TTL France and aiding them for the 'liberation' of Mainz, Cologne (Köln), Trier and Aachen (Aix-la-chapelle).
IMHO such a future conflict would be a real possibility and given what's contested ITTL the stakes will be higher than IOTL. The Netherlands will be a bit of wild card, that might depend whether they align with France or Prussia, and in case of the latter unrest TTL Dutch speaking areas of TTL France might influence that even further.

 

[Basileus_Komnenos]

-Germany still forms to act as a check to a more powerful France and future rival to Britain

That's literally against France's own interests. Plus its bound to eclipse France which negates the whole point of the pod as industrialization and unification caused a massive expansion in terms of German economic growth and population.

France however had been undergoing the early stages of a demographic transition and population slowing. For France to be a premier power on the world stage, it needs Germany to be divided.

A strong United Germany also totally throws the balance of power out of whack.

But France can't be made TOO powerful to dominate Europe in the 19th century or to tempt them to challenge Britain (thus avoiding further French-British conflicts/a continuation of the Napoleonic wars)

France was largely passive in the face of german unification was because it experienced a great deal of instability. This left it also feeling very nervous as now an existential threat popped up right on its doorstep. Securing the Rhine as a border was for this reason a geopolitical necessity for the French government going back to Medieval times as successful invasions into France often came from the Rhine as opposed to France's other strong natural borders such as the Alps or the Pyrenees.

France with Wallonia early on as you said, would likely be much more economically well off as well. This could easily have a ripple effect where it avoids the July Revolution altogether (the whole thing was an avoidable mess). This has big implications for France in terms of its stability as well. France would likely also be more active in terms of German affairs and would likely be able to successfully oppose any attempts at German unification.

That only got off the ground in otl because Napoleon III had a pretty bad/misguided foreign policy, and because he was incapacitated during the lead up to the Franco-Prussian War. France would also likely get involved in a war between Austria and Prussia to try and exploit the situation for itself while possibly maintaining the Balance of Power.

If Napoleon had quickly agreed to the Frankfurt peace proposals presented to him by the Allies in November 1813 during the Napoleonic Wars, as per your POD, the "most optimal" conditions you want for a better future balance of power could probably have been met.

You'd have to change who Napoleon was for him to accept terms like that. Plus it wasn't really a substantive peace offer. Napoleonic France nearly won the War of the Sixth Coalition in multiple instances such as the battles of Lutzen, Dresden, Bautzen, or even Leipzig,

The 1st Schleswig War was unsuccessful because international pressure from UK, France, Russia forced Prussia to back down. They weren't "defeated" by the Danes. In August 1848, Prussia pulled out of the war in the Treaty of Malmo. So the Danes were only fighting rebels + minor German powers for the duration of the war

I mean not necessarily. The Prussians Army had also declined in quality and they had begun a concerted effort in terms of reform in the decades after this war.

Economic ties, the spread of nationalism virtually guarantees this.

Nationalism isn't an inevitable thing. The nationalist revolts of the 19th century could easily have been crushed for good, or could have been pre-empted depending on the circumstances.

Had it not been for Napoleon III's brief stint as a member of the Cabonari, Italian unification would have never got off the ground as Austria would have eaten Sardinia-Piedmont's lunch.

Instead you might see the Habsburgs try to pre-empt this by siezing on an idea of Neo-Guelphism which also had traction then. There could be potentially an "Italian confederation setup, in the region with the Pope as its nominal head.

The Greek Revolt only got so bad because Mahmud II inexplicably executed the Patriarch of Constantinople who condemned the uprising. Had Mahmud thought things through like he usually did during his reign, the Greek Revolt likely could have been crushed well before enough sympathy towards the revolutionaries would arise in Europe.

Austria could have easily avoided the 1848 Revolutions had Kaiser Ferdinand not been made heir to Kaiser Franz. This wasn't a sure fire thing in otl as Ferdinand was mentally handicapped as he was prone to seizures. While he was cognizant of the things going around him, he was unfit to rule which necessitated a regency council. This three way regency council was filled with metternichs own rivals and as such the government was paralyzed for almost 20 years.

The issues that led to the revolution were pretty minor but because they were kicked down the road for so long/put off, it snowballed into the the near collapse of the Habsburg monarchy.

Metternich unlike his other "reactionary" contemporaries in Europe actually had more sense. He knew that simply trying to restore the old political and territorial status quo was not enough. That's why he planned his own sort of structural reforms to the Austrian Empire which would have likely pre-empted the Revolution in the first place. The issue with the Concert of Europe was that it didn't address the economic/social issues that led to Revolution becoming popular in the first place.

@oca2073 you honestly don't need such drastic divergences from otl. The peace of 1814/1815 are good enough as is to avoid both WW1 and the Franco Prussian War. Just change a few things and you could end up with a more stable France which likely would dampen any notions of German or Italian unification.

-France should be left with more territory than OTL, especially lands with important industrial resources (Saarland, Luxembourg steel deposits/Red Lands, Wallonia).

Britain is firmly against France gaining any of the Low Countries. It wouldn't accept a peace deal like this.

 

[euromellows]

The idea of a southern (or Catholic) Germany is appealing as a counter to Prussia and eventually Germany. But I agree the Habsburgs are unlikely to be successful in administering it given their weaknesses in managing their own empire. Is there any prospect of Bavaria being given this role? Not merely as a protector of southern German states but a consolidated new state?

I also agree a Netherlands that managed to hold Belgium and Luxembourg would be a potent neutral power that will need to be courted/considered in any possible war. Ditto a united Scandinavia and Denmark, though both seem unlikely.

 

[TRH]

Dude, just stop. The 1st Schleswig War was unsuccessful because international pressure from UK, France, Russia forced Prussia to back down. They weren't "defeated" by the Danes. In August 1848, Prussia pulled out of the war in the Treaty of Malmo. So the Danes were only fighting rebels + minor German powers for the duration of the war.

The Danes could muster fewer than 40,000 troops and are militarily not on par Prussia or Austria.

Well, let me put it this way: pretending Denmark was stronger than Prussia in 1851 isn't any more silly than pretending Prussia was stronger than France in 1815, much less treating that as a consensus that would induce the British and others to prop up France to counteract Prussia.

 

[oca2073]

That's literally against France's own interests. Plus its bound to eclipse France which negates the whole point of the pod as industrialization and unification caused a massive expansion in terms of German economic growth and population.

France however had been undergoing the early stages of a demographic transition and population slowing. For France to be a premier power on the world stage, it needs Germany to be divided.

A strong United Germany also totally throws the balance of power out of whack.

But barring a massive POD, France will realistically not be able to prevent a German unification scenario. Your best bet is that France doesn't intervene in such a unification war, get defeated, and actually speed up the unification process by decades. How to accomplish this? OTL, France was insecure against Prussia uniting more German territories and wanted concessions in the form of Saarland + Luxembourg. These were marginal German territories but very important industrially. When these weren't granted, France felt the need to risk a war to prevent a future German behemoth that would dominate it.

TTL with France already possessing these territories + Wallonia, they would feel less insecure against the Prussians, and since they weren't sure about defeating them in a war, the wisest policy would be to develop ties with South German states (Bavaria) against Prussia. Rather than risk a conflict that would bring these German states in with Prussia.

France was largely passive in the face of german unification was because it experienced a great deal of instability. This left it also feeling very nervous as now an existential threat popped up right on its doorstep. Securing the Rhine as a border was for this reason a geopolitical necessity for the French government going back to Medieval times as successful invasions into France often came from the Rhine as opposed to France's other strong natural borders such as the Alps or the Pyrenees.

France with Wallonia early on as you said, would likely be much more economically well off as well. This could easily have a ripple effect where it avoids the July Revolution altogether (the whole thing was an avoidable mess). This has big implications for France in terms of its stability as well. France would likely also be more active in terms of German affairs and would likely be able to successfully oppose any attempts at German unification.

French instability directly contributed to the declaration of war in the Franco-Prussian war, so that's not true. A more stable (and strong) France would be better able to manage the challenge posed by German unification by making better alliances for example rather than risk a war with Prussia + German powers and potentially bring Russia and the UK into the mix.

That only got off the ground in otl because Napoleon III had a pretty bad/misguided foreign policy, and because he was incapacitated during the lead up to the Franco-Prussian War. France would also likely get involved in a war between Austria and Prussia to try and exploit the situation for itself while possibly maintaining the Balance of Power.

Not if there is the threat of British/Russian intervention. OTL at this point, the UK still viewed France as the primary threat. TTL, even more so if France is larger and wealthier. Both Britain and Russia would be more in favour of German unification (than OTL) to act as a check to France.

You'd have to change who Napoleon was for him to accept terms like that. Plus it wasn't really a substantive peace offer. Napoleonic France nearly won the War of the Sixth Coalition in multiple instances such as the battles of Lutzen, Dresden, Bautzen, or even Leipzig,

The POD realistically would be late. Maybe 1814.

Nationalism isn't an inevitable thing. The nationalist revolts of the 19th century could easily have been crushed for good, or could have been pre-empted depending on the circumstances.

Had it not been for Napoleon III's brief stint as a member of the Cabonari, Italian unification would have never got off the ground as Austria would have eaten Sardinia-Piedmont's lunch.

Instead you might see the Habsburgs try to pre-empt this by siezing on an idea of Neo-Guelphism which also had traction then. There could be potentially an "Italian confederation setup, in the region with the Pope as its nominal head.

The Greek Revolt only got so bad because Mahmud II inexplicably executed the Patriarch of Constantinople who condemned the uprising. Had Mahmud thought things through like he usually did during his reign, the Greek Revolt likely could have been crushed well before enough sympathy towards the revolutionaries would arise in Europe.

Austria could have easily avoided the 1848 Revolutions had Kaiser Ferdinand not been made heir to Kaiser Franz. This wasn't a sure fire thing in otl as Ferdinand was mentally handicapped as he was prone to seizures. While he was cognizant of the things going around him, he was unfit to rule which necessitated a regency council. This three way regency council was filled with metternichs own rivals and as such the government was paralyzed for almost 20 years.

The issues that led to the revolution were pretty minor but because they were kicked down the road for so long/put off, it snowballed into the the near collapse of the Habsburg monarchy.

Metternich unlike his other "reactionary" contemporaries in Europe actually had more sense. He knew that simply trying to restore the old political and territorial status quo was not enough. That's why he planned his own sort of structural reforms to the Austrian Empire which would have likely pre-empted the Revolution in the first place. The issue with the Concert of Europe was that it didn't address the economic/social issues that led to Revolution becoming popular in the first place.

German nationalism unlike Italian nationalism is certainly not avoidable. It is bound to happen. As for Habsburg's multicultural empire, you could delay the inevitable with an earlier POD change, but that would only kick the can down the road. At best, you could have some kind of very decentralized confederacy with a powerless constitutional Habsburg monarch. That's really the best they can hope to do.

@oca2073 you honestly don't need such drastic divergences from otl. The peace of 1814/1815 are good enough as is to avoid both WW1 and the Franco Prussian War. Just change a few things and you could end up with a more stable France which likely would dampen any notions of German or Italian unification.

Britain is firmly against France gaining any of the Low Countries. It wouldn't accept a peace deal like this.

I don't see how with the OTL peace, German nationalism could be prevented or how Germany wouldn't demand/obtain Alsace-Lorraine and then France out to look for revenge and ally with other powers, Belgium eventually separating from the Netherlands which was a French demand OTL. And some variation of German Schlieffen Plan is put into action starting a massive modern European war since the balance of power grows so favourable to Germany vis a vis France.

Britain can get more French colonies, including their lucrative West Indies colonies. Let's say Napoleon captures the Tsar and King of Prussia just before Leipzig. He still loses Battle of Nations, but with fewer losses/less decisively. Subsequent defeats are less one-sided and a few even turn into French victories. Napoleon DIES in battle. And then this alternative peace is hashed out.

 

[oca2073]

Well, let me put it this way: pretending Denmark was stronger than Prussia in 1851 isn't any more silly than pretending Prussia was stronger than France in 1815, much less treating that as a consensus that would induce the British and others to prop up France to counteract Prussia.

I literally said:

The Congress of Vienna couldn't have known about France's future demographic decline or German unification and industrialization. But knowing these factors today, what would be the optimal treaty for dealing with Franco-German rivalry in the following century?

So the peace treaty is ACCIDENTALLY hashed out to take these factors into consideration due to extraneous factors (Napoleon's defeat is less severe). Good luck rather than foresight.

 

[Rattenfänger von Memphis]

On the contrary, I just did some research, it appears that the Frankfurt proposals were simply an Austrian initiative which would not have been acceptable to Britain in the first place. The British diplomat in attendance misunderstood Britain's position. Simply put, a Frankfurt peace was impossible historically.

I have to disagree that the Frankfurt proposals were “simply an Austrian initiative”. All of the Allies had input on this offer. And pending modifications, to especially please the British by taking modern-day Belgium out of the equation , such a peace settlement was by no means “impossible historically”. Another source on this topic, Frank McLynn’s “Napoleon: A Biography”, page 575, makes this clear:

”Napoleon’s position seemed hopeless, but the Allies were far from unanimous in their intentions after Leipzig. In November 1813 a conference at Frankfurt broke up in dissension. The stumbling block was the western European powers’ increasing unease with the presence of Russia in the West; the sleeping giant that had been aroused from its slumbers on the steppes could turn out to be as great a threat to them as to Napoleon.

Austria, having regained all her possessions, wanted to offer Bonaparte the natural frontiers, foreseeing that his downfall would benefit Russia and Prussia but not herself. Why should she collude in the Czar’s dream of a triumphal entry into Paris, sweet revenge for Napoleon in Moscow in 1812 ?

For balance-of-power reasons, too, Britain was inclined to go along with Austria, always provided France did not retain Antwerp and the Scheldt. The machiavellian Bernadotte (French-born King of Sweden), representing Sweden, had his own reasons for opposing an invasion of France: he actually hoped he would be summoned back as the next Emperor after a coup by the notables dislodged Bonaparte.

To save face, the feuding Allies offered Napoleon the natural frontiers in November 1813, imagining that the Emperor would refuse and that in the meantime they could hammer out a common policy. Napoleon dithered, then surprised everyone by accepting the terms though, oddly, he would not allow his acceptance to be promulgated in France.

Meanwhile in Britain there were second thoughts, once it was understood that ‘natural frontiers’ must inevitably collide with British insistence on a neutral Belgium…The Allies therefore replied early in 1814 that the ‘natural frontiers’ terms were no longer on offer, that France would have to accept the pre-1792 boundaries.”

If Napoleon had quickly agreed to the Frankfurt peace proposals presented to him by the Allies in November 1813 during the Napoleonic Wars, as per your POD, the "most optimal" conditions you want for a better future balance of power could probably have been met.

You'd have to change who Napoleon was for him to accept terms like that. Plus it wasn't really a substantive peace offer.

Yet Napoleon did accept “terms like that”, to the surprise of the Allies, but not fast enough that they didn’t have to “save face”, again, by refusing to honor them.

To save face, the feuding Allies offered Napoleon the natural frontiers in November 1813, imagining that the Emperor would refuse and that in the meantime they could hammer out a common policy.

The POD should be later than this..

I’m not clear what you mean here though you directed this at my post. Later than what? Your very first post said:

Finally, what kind of POD needs to happen to create this sort of peace deal during the Napoleonic Wars?

My responses in this thread are being made under these conditions of "during the Napoleonic Wars".

At this point, Saarland, southern Luxembourg, Wallonia aren't known to have important natural resources so it wouldn't be seen as too much of a concession to France.

I agree totally. This is the reason why some sort of modified Frankfurt proposals, excluding Belgium, could have worked.

 

[oca2073]

I have to disagree that the Frankfurt proposals were “simply an Austrian initiative”. All of the Allies had input on this offer. And pending modifications, to especially please the British by taking modern-day Belgium out of the equation , such a peace settlement was by no means “impossible historically”. Another source on this topic, Frank McLynn’s “Napoleon: A Biography”, page 575, makes this clear:

Thus it was impossible because the British would not concede Belgium and any peace deal would look substantially different than what the Austrian diplomat proposed. If Napoleon accepted in November, very quickly in Britain there would be opposition and the treaty would founder.

Yet Napoleon did accept “terms like that”, to the surprise of the Allies, but not fast enough that they didn’t have to “save face”, again, by refusing to honor them.

As I understand it, the preliminary peace plan was not publicized therefore they had no need to fear saving face.

I’m not clear what you mean here though you directed this at my post. Later than what? Your very first post said:

1814, rather than 1813. Plus Napoleon dead. But France in a better position militarily. Maybe they have captured the Tsar and King of Prussia before Leipzig.

I agree totally. This is the reason why some sort of modified Frankfurt proposals, excluding Belgium, could have worked.

Britain wanted to keep the French out of the Low Countries, but giving them just Wallonia and not Flanders might be possible. Wallonia has no coastline, with a stronger Netherlands possessing Flanders and a British guarantee of Netherlands, that should be enough to satisfy Britain that it is safe from land invasion. France is close enough to 1792 boundaries, Wallonia is seen as insignificant and it is Romance speaking/Catholic and would prefer France over the Netherlands.

 

[Basileus_Komnenos]

But barring a massive POD, France will realistically not be able to prevent a German unification scenario.

Why are you so deterministic about a german unification. It wasn't inevitable at all. In fact the Austria nearly won the Austro-Prussian War at Konnigratz. The Prussian King and the general staff during the battle were in the range of Austrian artillery shell fire. All it takes is one lucky shot and the Austrians could easily come on top.

TTL with France already possessing these territories + Wallonia, they would feel less insecure against the Prussians, and since they weren't sure about defeating them in a war, the wisest policy would be to develop ties with South German states (Bavaria) against Prussia. Rather than risk a conflict that would bring these German states in with Prussia.

Gaining Wallonia is pretty arbitrary. Wallonia as a concept was pretty vague and not clearly defined as well. Britain also didn't want France to annex more of the Low Countries. So France gaining this at the peace talks in 1814 is basically ASB.

A more stable (and strong) France would be better able to manage the challenge posed by German unification by making better alliances for example rather than risk a war with Prussia + German powers and potentially bring Russia and the UK into the mix.

France under Napoleon III was perfectly willing to threaten war with Prussia such as with the Luxembourg crisis. Napoleon III backed down after he realized how badly messed up his army was with the debacle in Mexico. Bismarck wouldn't dare try to openly provoke a much stronger France like that. If anything he might try to ally with France against Austria or something.

Both Britain and Russia would be more in favour of German unification (than OTL) to act as a check to France.

Except that didn't work out in otl. Just look at the result of the Erfurt Union Crisis in 1850. It was a meeting of the German princes to discuss the prospect of German Unification after the collapse of the Frankfurt Parliament. Austria and Prussia nearly came to blows over this, and Russia clearly indicated that in such a war that Austria would have its support. Russia deeply cared about the balance of power and would not want another strong European power neighboring it. Prussia during the napoleonic wars was a client state in all but name to Russia. Prussia being able to challenge Russia on an equal footing as a "German Empire" would be deeply be concerning to Russia.

Bismarck only managed to attain unification in otl simply because he managed to provoke France into declaring war first. And then with the war's end the creation of the Kaiserreich was seen as a fait accompli.

German nationalism unlike Italian nationalism is certainly not avoidable

Nationalist uprisings weren't unavoidable, but for them to thoroughly prevail in the way they did is not. Just look at Scandinavia. Pan-Scandinavianism was heavily supported by the people, the nobility, the monarchs, and the intelligentsia of the region, but Scandinavia is still divided to this day.

The other princes have a vested interested in maintaining their own territorial sovereignty. In the case of the 1848 uprising, King Ernest Augustus was able to keep Hannover virtually unaffected by the wave of Revolutions.

Plus not all parts of Germany wanted to unify. Many of the Nationalists were divided themselves which was why time and time again the Conservatives/Reactionaries who were much more organized were able to regroup and crush them. Bismarck who was of this group didn't originally set out on this path. He however eventually pursue it to pursue the enlargement of Prussia's own glory and power.

Wallonia has no coastline, with a stronger Netherlands possessing Flanders and a British guarantee of Netherlands, that should be enough to satisfy Britain that it is safe from land invasion. France is close enough to 1792 boundaries, Wallonia is seen as insignificant and it is Romance speaking/Catholic and would prefer France over the Netherlands.

there's not really a concept of a "Walloon" or Flemming identity during this period, so using these terms and using the modern boundaries are pretty anachronistic and arbitrary.