Discussion:
WIF: Franco, British, Prussian War
(too old to reply)
Alex Milman
2018-03-18 21:52:32 UTC
Permalink
WIF by <whatever reason> Great Britain sides with the 2nd Empire in the Franco-Prussian War?

Say, the British throne is occupied by another clown who is also a King of Hanover or the British government is, prior to the OTL time frame is concerned about the growing might of Prussia and wants to prevent unification of Germany, or whatever. The reason is not important, just the course of the events.
Pete Barrett
2018-03-19 17:33:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alex Milman
WIF by <whatever reason> Great Britain sides with the 2nd Empire in the
Franco-Prussian War?
Say, the British throne is occupied by another clown who is also a King
of Hanover or the British government is, prior to the OTL time frame is
concerned about the growing might of Prussia and wants to prevent
unification of Germany, or whatever. The reason is not important, just
the course of the events.
If the British throne is occupied by someone (clown or otherwise) who's
also King of Hanover, there are huge differences long before 1870, both
in the unification of Germany and in British imperial policy.

But if the British back France, how effective can they be? It was never
going to be a naval war, and while Britain might be able to bombard the
north German coast (I assume the Prussian navy can't stop them, and that
the Danes will allow them through the Sound), they can't do anything
anywhere that is going to stop Bismarck from defeating Napoleon III.

But once Bismarck has won, he can't simply dictate terms, as in OTL.
There would have to be a peace conference between the three participants
(and any other countries which have joined in in the hope of getting some
pickings), and there's a chance that France might retain Alsace-Lorraine,
or at least some of it. I don't think Napoleon III can realistically
retain his throne, but he might be able to hand it on to his son
(perhaps). Things might actually be a bit better in the future if Germany
hadn't won so overwhelmingly.
--
Pete BARRETT
Alex Milman
2018-03-20 17:31:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by Alex Milman
WIF by <whatever reason> Great Britain sides with the 2nd Empire in the
Franco-Prussian War?
Say, the British throne is occupied by another clown who is also a King
of Hanover or the British government is, prior to the OTL time frame is
concerned about the growing might of Prussia and wants to prevent
unification of Germany, or whatever. The reason is not important, just
the course of the events.
If the British throne is occupied by someone (clown or otherwise) who's
also King of Hanover, there are huge differences long before 1870, both
in the unification of Germany and in British imperial policy.
But if the British back France, how effective can they be? It was never
going to be a naval war, and while Britain might be able to bombard the
north German coast (I assume the Prussian navy can't stop them, and that
the Danes will allow them through the Sound), they can't do anything
anywhere that is going to stop Bismarck from defeating Napoleon III.
But once Bismarck has won, he can't simply dictate terms, as in OTL.
He can dictate them to France, as happened in OTL in WWII. The GB will have an option of either continuing to be at war with Germany (with which end-game scenario?) or to negotiate the Hanover status within Germany (say, something similar to Bavaria or Saxony) and a personal problem of the British ruler (either King of Hanover who is a subordinate to the German Emperor or the title is passed to one of the German relatives to avoid embarrassment).
Post by Pete Barrett
There would have to be a peace conference between the three participants
Not necessarily, see above.
Post by Pete Barrett
(and any other countries which have joined in in the hope of getting some
pickings),
Which ones?
Post by Pete Barrett
and there's a chance that France might retain Alsace-Lorraine,
or at least some of it.
IIRC, it retained at least one fortress in the area in OTL.
Post by Pete Barrett
I don't think Napoleon III can realistically
retain his throne, but he might be able to hand it on to his son
(perhaps).
Again, with the British participation being just a remote side show, why substantial differences?
Post by Pete Barrett
Things might actually be a bit better in the future if Germany
hadn't won so overwhelmingly.
On this we are in a complete agreement but would the British involvement be enough for not-overwhelming victory?
Rob
2018-03-21 01:10:45 UTC
Permalink
On Tuesday, March 20, 2018 at 1:31:02 PM UTC-4, Alex Milman wrote:


With Britain involved might the French try to drag things out longer, thus delaying settlement and actually expanding the area under Prussian occupation?

If the French settle at about the same time and terms as in OTL, it's a grave embarrassment for the British government, and Britons might direct more of their anger internally at the pro-war forces for getting Britain involved than at the Germans for defeating their ally.

The British could end up being unwilling to make any "continental commitments" in the early 20th century if it's remembered as a rewardless, pointless disaster.
Alex Milman
2018-03-21 16:12:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rob
With Britain involved might the French try to drag things out longer, thus delaying settlement and actually expanding the area under Prussian occupation?
How would it happen?
Post by Rob
If the French settle at about the same time and terms as in OTL, it's a grave embarrassment for the British government, and Britons might direct more of their anger internally at the pro-war forces for getting Britain involved than at the Germans for defeating their ally.
Yes, but this would not help France and hardly could influence Germany. Or are you saying that the French would try to keep fighting a lost war just because their capitulation may embarrass Britain?
Post by Rob
The British could end up being unwilling to make any "continental commitments" in the early 20th century if it's remembered as a rewardless, pointless disaster.
Well, _this_ may prevent the greater disasters like WWI.
Rob
2018-03-21 16:43:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Rob
With Britain involved might the French try to drag things out longer, thus delaying settlement and actually expanding the area under Prussian occupation?
How would it happen?
Post by Rob
If the French settle at about the same time and terms as in OTL, it's a grave embarrassment for the British government, and Britons might direct more of their anger internally at the pro-war forces for getting Britain involved than at the Germans for defeating their ally.
Yes, but this would not help France and hardly could influence Germany. Or are you saying that the French would try to keep fighting a lost war just because their capitulation may embarrass Britain?
Not because it would embarrass Britain - but, in OTL, the French fought on an unrealistically long time after they should have quit. The new regime tried to raise new armies, they tried the francs-tireurs.

None of this had any useful result, but with Britain formally as France's ally, the French could be encouraged to continue on this line for longer. The French "reasoning" would be: a) Britain always beat us in wars and b) we are allied to Britain, so we can't lose, c) so let's keep fighting and hope something turns up for the better.
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Rob
The British could end up being unwilling to make any "continental commitments" in the early 20th century if it's remembered as a rewardless, pointless disaster.
Well, _this_ may prevent the greater disasters like WWI.
Alex Milman
2018-03-21 17:31:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rob
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Rob
With Britain involved might the French try to drag things out longer, thus delaying settlement and actually expanding the area under Prussian occupation?
How would it happen?
Post by Rob
If the French settle at about the same time and terms as in OTL, it's a grave embarrassment for the British government, and Britons might direct more of their anger internally at the pro-war forces for getting Britain involved than at the Germans for defeating their ally.
Yes, but this would not help France and hardly could influence Germany. Or are you saying that the French would try to keep fighting a lost war just because their capitulation may embarrass Britain?
Not because it would embarrass Britain - but, in OTL, the French fought on an unrealistically long time after they should have quit. The new regime tried to raise new armies, they tried the francs-tireurs.
None of this had any useful result, but with Britain formally as France's ally, the French could be encouraged to continue on this line for longer. The French "reasoning" would be: a) Britain always beat us in wars
Not "always" (and the British performance during the Crimean War had not been too impressive) but, anyway, how this is relevant if these ever-victorious Brits are nowhere to be seen?
Post by Rob
and b) we are allied to Britain, so we can't lose,
Again, rather shaky logic unless the Brits are showing their support by landing in France in the impressively big numbers (which would not go to happen).
Post by Rob
c) so let's keep fighting and hope something turns up for the better.
Did not work in 1940 so why would it work in 1878? What could happen to turn things to the better except for a meaningful help from an ally?
Pete Barrett
2018-03-21 17:33:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rob
Post by Alex Milman
Yes, but this would not help France and hardly could influence Germany.
Or are you saying that the French would try to keep fighting a lost war
just because their capitulation may embarrass Britain?
Not because it would embarrass Britain - but, in OTL, the French fought
on an unrealistically long time after they should have quit. The new
regime tried to raise new armies, they tried the francs-tireurs.
None of this had any useful result, but with Britain formally as
France's ally, the French could be encouraged to continue on this line
for longer. The French "reasoning" would be: a) Britain always beat us
in wars and b) we are allied to Britain, so we can't lose, c) so let's
keep fighting and hope something turns up for the better.
I think we can be a bit more specific than that. In 1870, Britain can
call on the Indian army - the main problem is transporting soldiers in
large enough numbers in a short enough time to make a difference. France
could be encouraged to fight on in the expectation that Indian troops
will arrive to reinforce them.
--
Pete BARRETT
Alex Milman
2018-03-21 19:11:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by Rob
Post by Alex Milman
Yes, but this would not help France and hardly could influence Germany.
Or are you saying that the French would try to keep fighting a lost war
just because their capitulation may embarrass Britain?
Not because it would embarrass Britain - but, in OTL, the French fought
on an unrealistically long time after they should have quit. The new
regime tried to raise new armies, they tried the francs-tireurs.
None of this had any useful result, but with Britain formally as
France's ally, the French could be encouraged to continue on this line
for longer. The French "reasoning" would be: a) Britain always beat us
in wars and b) we are allied to Britain, so we can't lose, c) so let's
keep fighting and hope something turns up for the better.
I think we can be a bit more specific than that. In 1870, Britain can
call on the Indian army - the main problem is transporting soldiers in
large enough numbers in a short enough time to make a difference. France
could be encouraged to fight on in the expectation that Indian troops
will arrive to reinforce them.
In OTL the post-NIII government managed to raise armies more numerous than the opposing Germans but the problem was in their low quality. Would the Indian troops be numerous enough and of a quality that would give the French a real chance? Or, rather would the French believe that these troops could make all the difference? Especially after the earlier defeats.
Pete Barrett
2018-03-22 18:26:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by Rob
Post by Alex Milman
Yes, but this would not help France and hardly could influence Germany.
Or are you saying that the French would try to keep fighting a lost
war just because their capitulation may embarrass Britain?
Not because it would embarrass Britain - but, in OTL, the French
fought on an unrealistically long time after they should have quit.
The new regime tried to raise new armies, they tried the
francs-tireurs.
None of this had any useful result, but with Britain formally as
France's ally, the French could be encouraged to continue on this
line for longer. The French "reasoning" would be: a) Britain always
beat us in wars and b) we are allied to Britain, so we can't lose, c)
so let's keep fighting and hope something turns up for the better.
I think we can be a bit more specific than that. In 1870, Britain can
call on the Indian army - the main problem is transporting soldiers in
large enough numbers in a short enough time to make a difference.
France could be encouraged to fight on in the expectation that Indian
troops will arrive to reinforce them.
In OTL the post-NIII government managed to raise armies more numerous
than the opposing Germans but the problem was in their low quality.
Would the Indian troops be numerous enough and of a quality that would
give the French a real chance? Or, rather would the French believe that
these troops could make all the difference? Especially after the earlier
defeats.
I don't know what the strength of the Indian Army was at the time, but
the total number of Indian soldiers who fought in WWI was 1.75 million,
according to Wikipedia. The peace time strength would be a lot smaller
than that, and I don't know how many could be spared, but they'd all be
professional troops. Would two or three hundred thousand be reasonable?
It's a significant number (and of course there's more where they came
from, though new recruits wouldn't be of the same quality), though it
wouldn't make for an overwhelming advantage.

The real question is what the French would think of them, I suppose.
Napoleon I's opinion of Indian troops (never having fought any) would
probably resonate with the French, so they might feel that it's not a
reinforcement worth having.
--
Pete BARRETT
Alex Milman
2018-03-22 21:14:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by Rob
Post by Alex Milman
Yes, but this would not help France and hardly could influence Germany.
Or are you saying that the French would try to keep fighting a lost
war just because their capitulation may embarrass Britain?
Not because it would embarrass Britain - but, in OTL, the French
fought on an unrealistically long time after they should have quit.
The new regime tried to raise new armies, they tried the
francs-tireurs.
None of this had any useful result, but with Britain formally as
France's ally, the French could be encouraged to continue on this
line for longer. The French "reasoning" would be: a) Britain always
beat us in wars and b) we are allied to Britain, so we can't lose, c)
so let's keep fighting and hope something turns up for the better.
I think we can be a bit more specific than that. In 1870, Britain can
call on the Indian army - the main problem is transporting soldiers in
large enough numbers in a short enough time to make a difference.
France could be encouraged to fight on in the expectation that Indian
troops will arrive to reinforce them.
In OTL the post-NIII government managed to raise armies more numerous
than the opposing Germans but the problem was in their low quality.
Would the Indian troops be numerous enough and of a quality that would
give the French a real chance? Or, rather would the French believe that
these troops could make all the difference? Especially after the earlier
defeats.
I don't know what the strength of the Indian Army was at the time, but
the total number of Indian soldiers who fought in WWI was 1.75 million,
according to Wikipedia.
According to the same source, this army was created only in 1895 which makes the number above a little bit irrelevant. :-)

In the relevant time frame (1876, the numbers are from Wiki, you just did not bother to click on the relevant links :-)) there were:

Bengal Army - 105K
Madras Army - 47K
Bombay Army - 44K

Even putting aside an obvious fact that only a part of these troops could be moved to a far away theater, even their sum total would not make a noticeable difference in the war we are talking about, especially keeping in mind that they'd arrive after defeat of the French regular army.
Post by Pete Barrett
The peace time strength would be a lot smaller
than that, and I don't know how many could be spared, but they'd all be
professional troops. Would two or three hundred thousand be reasonable?
See above. :-)

[]
Post by Pete Barrett
The real question is what the French would think of them, I suppose.
That they are being too few and too late. Their quality at that time is anybody's guess and from the fact that they were good against the Chinese does not directly follows that they would be good against the Germans.
Post by Pete Barrett
Napoleon I's opinion of Indian troops (never having fought any) would
probably resonate with the French, so they might feel that it's not a
reinforcement worth having.
Probably the French would make some allowance to the fact that Nappy expressed his opinion quite a few decades earlier but, as I said, the numbers would make the whole issue rather moot.
Pete Barrett
2018-03-23 13:50:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alex Milman
According to the same source, this army was created only in 1895 which
makes the number above a little bit irrelevant. :-)
In the relevant time frame (1876, the numbers are from Wiki, you just
Bengal Army - 105K Madras Army - 47K Bombay Army - 44K
Even putting aside an obvious fact that only a part of these troops
could be moved to a far away theater, even their sum total would not
make a noticeable difference in the war we are talking about, especially
keeping in mind that they'd arrive after defeat of the French regular
army.
I clicked the links, but missed the figures! I'm surprised it was so
small - the British Army of the time was probably larger. No, it wouldn't
have made much of a difference.
Post by Alex Milman
--
Pete BARRETT
Alex Milman
2018-03-23 18:04:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by Alex Milman
According to the same source, this army was created only in 1895 which
makes the number above a little bit irrelevant. :-)
In the relevant time frame (1876, the numbers are from Wiki, you just
Bengal Army - 105K Madras Army - 47K Bombay Army - 44K
Even putting aside an obvious fact that only a part of these troops
could be moved to a far away theater, even their sum total would not
make a noticeable difference in the war we are talking about, especially
keeping in mind that they'd arrive after defeat of the French regular
army.
I clicked the links, but missed the figures! I'm surprised it was so
small - the British Army of the time was probably larger. No, it wouldn't
have made much of a difference.
Even if it arrives BEFORE the French imperial armies are defeated.

BTW, I'm not sure how much up to day the British troops of that time were in the terms of tactics and overall organization. It seems that during the Crimean War their main advantage was in the better arms, not in tactics (the French were clearly ahead of the Russians in the tactical issues).
Pete Barrett
2018-03-24 18:30:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alex Milman
BTW, I'm not sure how much up to day the British troops of that time
were in the terms of tactics and overall organization. It seems that
during the Crimean War their main advantage was in the better arms, not
in tactics (the French were clearly ahead of the Russians in the
tactical issues).
If the Charge of the Light Brigade is anything to go by, the British were
behind even the Russians!
--
Pete BARRETT
Alex Milman
2018-03-24 18:48:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by Alex Milman
BTW, I'm not sure how much up to day the British troops of that time
were in the terms of tactics and overall organization. It seems that
during the Crimean War their main advantage was in the better arms, not
in tactics (the French were clearly ahead of the Russians in the
tactical issues).
If the Charge of the Light Brigade is anything to go by, the British were
behind even the Russians!
Not exactly. This charge is a historic example of the military idiocy but, with all related brouhaha, it was a minor episode that change nothing. Charge of the Heavy Brigade, IIRC, was reasonably successful and, while the Brits did not demonstrate any (AFAIK) tactical sophistication during the CW the Russians were doing even worse on a greater scale and not just because of the obsolete weaponry but because for the few previous decades their army was intentionally developed as a parade ground instrument ("war spoils soldier") without any real military training, especially as far as firing practice was involved (IIRC, 5 shots per soldier per year) and all its commanders had been bound by the strict regulations prescribing everything all the way to the battlefield formations.

The Russians were doing well defending fortifications of Sevastopol (it was rather difficult to follow regulations in such an environment) but in the field their performance was abysmal along the same lines as was the case with the Light Brigade: they were led idiotically.
Pete Barrett
2018-03-21 17:47:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by Alex Milman
WIF by <whatever reason> Great Britain sides with the 2nd Empire in
the Franco-Prussian War?
Say, the British throne is occupied by another clown who is also a
King of Hanover or the British government is, prior to the OTL time
frame is concerned about the growing might of Prussia and wants to
prevent unification of Germany, or whatever. The reason is not
important, just the course of the events.
If the British throne is occupied by someone (clown or otherwise) who's
also King of Hanover, there are huge differences long before 1870, both
in the unification of Germany and in British imperial policy.
But if the British back France, how effective can they be? It was never
going to be a naval war, and while Britain might be able to bombard the
north German coast (I assume the Prussian navy can't stop them, and
that the Danes will allow them through the Sound), they can't do
anything anywhere that is going to stop Bismarck from defeating
Napoleon III.
But once Bismarck has won, he can't simply dictate terms, as in OTL.
He can dictate them to France, as happened in OTL in WWII. The GB will
have an option of either continuing to be at war with Germany (with
which end-game scenario?) or to negotiate the Hanover status within
Germany (say, something similar to Bavaria or Saxony) and a personal
problem of the British ruler (either King of Hanover who is a
subordinate to the German Emperor or the title is passed to one of the
German relatives to avoid embarrassment).
I don't see this - OTL there was a single defeated nation, and the
winners could dictate terms. In the ATL, even after Napoleon's surrender,
there's a undefeated participant, so dictating terms doesn't really end
the war. I think by far the most likely outcome is a peace conference.
(Britain may refuse to participate, which would be awkward for everyone,
but I think that's unlikely.)
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Pete Barrett
There would have to be a peace conference between the three
participants
Not necessarily, see above.
Post by Pete Barrett
(and any other countries which have joined in in the hope of getting
some pickings),
Which ones?
Well, Denmark and Austria both had a grudge against Prussia. Austrian
involvement would alter things considerably, but if Denmark joins in in
the hope of getting Holstein back, it doesn't tip the balance very far.
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Pete Barrett
and there's a chance that France might retain Alsace-Lorraine,
or at least some of it.
IIRC, it retained at least one fortress in the area in OTL.
Did it? But I was thinking of rather more than that, enough to avoid the
revanchism the French felt until 1918. It's even possible that Bismarck
might welcome that.
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Pete Barrett
I don't think Napoleon III can realistically retain his throne, but he
might be able to hand it on to his son (perhaps).
Again, with the British participation being just a remote side show, why
substantial differences?
Because the war doesn't end so suddenly and one-sidedly. If there's a six
month peace conference, France has an opportunity to regain in diplomacy
some of the standing it's lost in the war, particularly if it's supported
by a still undefeated Britain.
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Pete Barrett
Things might actually be a bit better in the future if Germany
hadn't won so overwhelmingly.
On this we are in a complete agreement but would the British involvement
be enough for not-overwhelming victory?
The simple facts that Britain can't defeat Germany, and Germany can't
defeat Britain, make for a much more even end to the war in my opinion.
--
Pete BARRETT
Alex Milman
2018-03-21 19:31:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by Alex Milman
WIF by <whatever reason> Great Britain sides with the 2nd Empire in
the Franco-Prussian War?
Say, the British throne is occupied by another clown who is also a
King of Hanover or the British government is, prior to the OTL time
frame is concerned about the growing might of Prussia and wants to
prevent unification of Germany, or whatever. The reason is not
important, just the course of the events.
If the British throne is occupied by someone (clown or otherwise) who's
also King of Hanover, there are huge differences long before 1870, both
in the unification of Germany and in British imperial policy.
But if the British back France, how effective can they be? It was never
going to be a naval war, and while Britain might be able to bombard the
north German coast (I assume the Prussian navy can't stop them, and
that the Danes will allow them through the Sound), they can't do
anything anywhere that is going to stop Bismarck from defeating
Napoleon III.
But once Bismarck has won, he can't simply dictate terms, as in OTL.
He can dictate them to France, as happened in OTL in WWII. The GB will
have an option of either continuing to be at war with Germany (with
which end-game scenario?) or to negotiate the Hanover status within
Germany (say, something similar to Bavaria or Saxony) and a personal
problem of the British ruler (either King of Hanover who is a
subordinate to the German Emperor or the title is passed to one of the
German relatives to avoid embarrassment).
I don't see this - OTL there was a single defeated nation, and the
winners could dictate terms. In the ATL, even after Napoleon's surrender,
there's a undefeated participant, so dictating terms doesn't really end
the war.
It ends war with France leaving the Brits in a position where they can do very little. Something similar to WWII but without many components which were making the continued British fighting much more meaningful.
Post by Pete Barrett
I think by far the most likely outcome is a peace conference.
(Britain may refuse to participate, which would be awkward for everyone,
but I think that's unlikely.)
I tend to disagree. France could not keep resisting based upon a sole fact of the British reluctance to make a peace.
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Pete Barrett
There would have to be a peace conference between the three
participants
Not necessarily, see above.
Post by Pete Barrett
(and any other countries which have joined in in the hope of getting
some pickings),
Which ones?
Well, Denmark and Austria both had a grudge against Prussia.
Austrian
involvement would alter things considerably, but if Denmark joins in in
the hope of getting Holstein back, it doesn't tip the balance very far.
Mighty Denmark was hardly of any practical importance and Austria already was almost completely in the Prussian pocket: Bismark already took care of this.
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Pete Barrett
and there's a chance that France might retain Alsace-Lorraine,
or at least some of it.
IIRC, it retained at least one fortress in the area in OTL.
Did it?
Yes, the French managed to keep defending that fortress and it remained in their hands.
Post by Pete Barrett
But I was thinking of rather more than that, enough to avoid the
revanchism the French felt until 1918. It's even possible that Bismarck
might welcome that.
Bismark could welcome that anyway but he was not an absolute ruler of Germany and the military (and not only them) wanted France humiliated.
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Pete Barrett
I don't think Napoleon III can realistically retain his throne, but he
might be able to hand it on to his son (perhaps).
Again, with the British participation being just a remote side show, why
substantial differences?
Because the war doesn't end so suddenly and one-sidedly.
There was nothing "sudden" in the end of this war. There was a protracted French agony and they asked for peace only when the fight started looking really hopeless. As for being one-sided, well they lost. The fact that there are the British warships sailing somewhere along the German coast (I'd assume that there were significant coastal fortifications in the important points) would change nothing: Germany was not, yet, a naval and/or colonial power.
Post by Pete Barrett
If there's a six
month peace conference, France has an opportunity to regain in diplomacy
some of the standing it's lost in the war, particularly if it's supported
by a still undefeated Britain.
I can't see a single reason for France to keep fighting simply based on such a hope or for the Germans to give away any of their gains just because there are the British ships somewhere in the sea: the German target was France and if the Brits decided to have a token participation it would be entirely up to them.
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Pete Barrett
Things might actually be a bit better in the future if Germany
hadn't won so overwhelmingly.
On this we are in a complete agreement but would the British involvement
be enough for not-overwhelming victory?
The simple facts that Britain can't defeat Germany, and Germany can't
defeat Britain, make for a much more even end to the war in my opinion.
But the German goal was to defeat France, not Britain. This goal was achieved and if the British government decided to play scenario similar to one of the Napoleonic times, it could keep playing it forever because situation on the continent was quite different: Austria was already in the Prussian camp and Russia did not anymore depend upon the British trade. Aka, no coalitions ready to fight for the British interests and not too much in the terms of the economic or financial leverages.
Pete Barrett
2018-03-22 19:10:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by Alex Milman
WIF by <whatever reason> Great Britain sides with the 2nd Empire
in the Franco-Prussian War?
Say, the British throne is occupied by another clown who is also a
King of Hanover or the British government is, prior to the OTL
time frame is concerned about the growing might of Prussia and
wants to prevent unification of Germany, or whatever. The reason
is not important, just the course of the events.
If the British throne is occupied by someone (clown or otherwise)
who's also King of Hanover, there are huge differences long before
1870, both in the unification of Germany and in British imperial
policy.
But if the British back France, how effective can they be? It was
never going to be a naval war, and while Britain might be able to
bombard the north German coast (I assume the Prussian navy can't
stop them, and that the Danes will allow them through the Sound),
they can't do anything anywhere that is going to stop Bismarck from
defeating Napoleon III.
But once Bismarck has won, he can't simply dictate terms, as in OTL.
He can dictate them to France, as happened in OTL in WWII. The GB
will have an option of either continuing to be at war with Germany
(with which end-game scenario?) or to negotiate the Hanover status
within Germany (say, something similar to Bavaria or Saxony) and a
personal problem of the British ruler (either King of Hanover who is
a subordinate to the German Emperor or the title is passed to one of
the German relatives to avoid embarrassment).
I don't see this - OTL there was a single defeated nation, and the
winners could dictate terms. In the ATL, even after Napoleon's surrender,
there's a undefeated participant, so dictating terms doesn't really end
the war.
It ends war with France leaving the Brits in a position where they can
do very little. Something similar to WWII but without many components
which were making the continued British fighting much more meaningful.
German-occupied France? Puppet government in the south-west? Attempt to
invade Britain, perhaps using the French navy? I don't see it, to be
honest. I think that needs an ideological conviction, and 19th century
wars weren't really ideological, not the ones between countries.

I still think a peace conference is the most likely outcome after France
is defeated militarily.
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Pete Barrett
I think by far the most likely outcome is a peace conference.
(Britain may refuse to participate, which would be awkward for
everyone, but I think that's unlikely.)
I tend to disagree. France could not keep resisting based upon a sole
fact of the British reluctance to make a peace.
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Pete Barrett
There would have to be a peace conference between the three participants
Not necessarily, see above.
Post by Pete Barrett
(and any other countries which have joined in in the hope of getting
some pickings),
Which ones?
Well, Denmark and Austria both had a grudge against Prussia.
Austrian
involvement would alter things considerably, but if Denmark joins in in
the hope of getting Holstein back, it doesn't tip the balance very far.
Mighty Denmark was hardly of any practical importance and Austria
already was almost completely in the Prussian pocket: Bismark already
took care of this.
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Pete Barrett
and there's a chance that France might retain Alsace-Lorraine,
or at least some of it.
IIRC, it retained at least one fortress in the area in OTL.
Did it?
Yes, the French managed to keep defending that fortress and it remained in their hands.
Post by Pete Barrett
But I was thinking of rather more than that, enough to avoid the
revanchism the French felt until 1918. It's even possible that Bismarck
might welcome that.
Bismark could welcome that anyway but he was not an absolute ruler of
Germany and the military (and not only them) wanted France humiliated.
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Pete Barrett
I don't think Napoleon III can realistically retain his throne, but
he might be able to hand it on to his son (perhaps).
Again, with the British participation being just a remote side show,
why substantial differences?
Because the war doesn't end so suddenly and one-sidedly.
There was nothing "sudden" in the end of this war. There was a
protracted French agony and they asked for peace only when the fight
started looking really hopeless. As for being one-sided, well they lost.
The fact that there are the British warships sailing somewhere along the
German coast (I'd assume that there were significant coastal
fortifications in the important points) would change nothing: Germany
was not, yet, a naval and/or colonial power.
Post by Pete Barrett
If there's a six
month peace conference, France has an opportunity to regain in
diplomacy some of the standing it's lost in the war, particularly if
it's supported by a still undefeated Britain.
I can't see a single reason for France to keep fighting simply based on
such a hope or for the Germans to give away any of their gains just
because there are the British ships somewhere in the sea: the German
target was France and if the Brits decided to have a token participation
it would be entirely up to them.
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Pete Barrett
Things might actually be a bit better in the future if Germany
hadn't won so overwhelmingly.
On this we are in a complete agreement but would the British
involvement be enough for not-overwhelming victory?
The simple facts that Britain can't defeat Germany, and Germany can't
defeat Britain, make for a much more even end to the war in my opinion.
But the German goal was to defeat France, not Britain. This goal was
achieved and if the British government decided to play scenario similar
to one of the Napoleonic times, it could keep playing it forever because
situation on the continent was quite different: Austria was already in
the Prussian camp and Russia did not anymore depend upon the British
trade. Aka, no coalitions ready to fight for the British interests and
not too much in the terms of the economic or financial leverages.
I don't think we're talking about Britain holding on against a Europe
totally under German control. Germany didn't want that, and had no
ideological reason to do it; nor did Britain. Once Napoleon surrenders,
signs an armistice, and Wilhelm is declared Emperor of Germany, then they
can make peace proposals. Or Britain can, once it becomes obvious that
France can't fight on.

However it comes about, that means a peace conference, and France will be
a participant, unless Germany flat out refuses to allow it. Is that
likely?
--
Pete BARRETT
Alex Milman
2018-03-23 18:18:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by Alex Milman
WIF by <whatever reason> Great Britain sides with the 2nd Empire
in the Franco-Prussian War?
Say, the British throne is occupied by another clown who is also a
King of Hanover or the British government is, prior to the OTL
time frame is concerned about the growing might of Prussia and
wants to prevent unification of Germany, or whatever. The reason
is not important, just the course of the events.
If the British throne is occupied by someone (clown or otherwise)
who's also King of Hanover, there are huge differences long before
1870, both in the unification of Germany and in British imperial
policy.
But if the British back France, how effective can they be? It was
never going to be a naval war, and while Britain might be able to
bombard the north German coast (I assume the Prussian navy can't
stop them, and that the Danes will allow them through the Sound),
they can't do anything anywhere that is going to stop Bismarck from
defeating Napoleon III.
But once Bismarck has won, he can't simply dictate terms, as in OTL.
He can dictate them to France, as happened in OTL in WWII. The GB
will have an option of either continuing to be at war with Germany
(with which end-game scenario?) or to negotiate the Hanover status
within Germany (say, something similar to Bavaria or Saxony) and a
personal problem of the British ruler (either King of Hanover who is
a subordinate to the German Emperor or the title is passed to one of
the German relatives to avoid embarrassment).
I don't see this - OTL there was a single defeated nation, and the
winners could dictate terms. In the ATL, even after Napoleon's surrender,
there's a undefeated participant, so dictating terms doesn't really end
the war.
It ends war with France leaving the Brits in a position where they can
do very little. Something similar to WWII but without many components
which were making the continued British fighting much more meaningful.
German-occupied France? Puppet government in the south-west?
Don't get the parallel too literally. Their goal was to defeat France militarily and to enforce the conditions they expected to be crippling (huge contribution which, to their dismay, France was capable to pay very fast). Alsace, Lorraine issue was a "tangible token" of a victory but they did not try to set up anything like Vichy government or to prolong occupation for indefinite time.
Post by Pete Barrett
Attempt to
invade Britain, perhaps using the French navy?
Why would they bother?

I'm not sure if, unlike WWII, Britain could do any serious damage to the German interests just by its navy.

OTOH, what would be a justification for the British government to continue a military effort on the issue which did not directly involve the British interests after the interested partner (France) capitulated?
Post by Pete Barrett
I don't see it, to be
honest. I think that needs an ideological conviction, and 19th century
wars weren't really ideological, not the ones between countries.
Completely agree.
Post by Pete Barrett
I still think a peace conference is the most likely outcome after France
is defeated militarily.
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Pete Barrett
I think by far the most likely outcome is a peace conference.
(Britain may refuse to participate, which would be awkward for
everyone, but I think that's unlikely.)
I tend to disagree. France could not keep resisting based upon a sole
fact of the British reluctance to make a peace.
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Pete Barrett
There would have to be a peace conference between the three participants
Not necessarily, see above.
Post by Pete Barrett
(and any other countries which have joined in in the hope of getting
some pickings),
Which ones?
Well, Denmark and Austria both had a grudge against Prussia. Austrian
involvement would alter things considerably, but if Denmark joins in in
the hope of getting Holstein back, it doesn't tip the balance very far.
Mighty Denmark was hardly of any practical importance and Austria
already was almost completely in the Prussian pocket: Bismark already
took care of this.
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Pete Barrett
and there's a chance that France might retain Alsace-Lorraine,
or at least some of it.
IIRC, it retained at least one fortress in the area in OTL.
Did it?
Yes, the French managed to keep defending that fortress and it remained in their hands.
Post by Pete Barrett
But I was thinking of rather more than that, enough to avoid the
revanchism the French felt until 1918. It's even possible that Bismarck
might welcome that.
Bismark could welcome that anyway but he was not an absolute ruler of
Germany and the military (and not only them) wanted France humiliated.
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Pete Barrett
I don't think Napoleon III can realistically retain his throne, but
he might be able to hand it on to his son (perhaps).
Again, with the British participation being just a remote side show,
why substantial differences?
Because the war doesn't end so suddenly and one-sidedly.
There was nothing "sudden" in the end of this war. There was a
protracted French agony and they asked for peace only when the fight
started looking really hopeless. As for being one-sided, well they lost.
The fact that there are the British warships sailing somewhere along the
German coast (I'd assume that there were significant coastal
fortifications in the important points) would change nothing: Germany
was not, yet, a naval and/or colonial power.
Post by Pete Barrett
If there's a six
month peace conference, France has an opportunity to regain in
diplomacy some of the standing it's lost in the war, particularly if
it's supported by a still undefeated Britain.
I can't see a single reason for France to keep fighting simply based on
such a hope or for the Germans to give away any of their gains just
because there are the British ships somewhere in the sea: the German
target was France and if the Brits decided to have a token participation
it would be entirely up to them.
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Pete Barrett
Things might actually be a bit better in the future if Germany
hadn't won so overwhelmingly.
On this we are in a complete agreement but would the British
involvement be enough for not-overwhelming victory?
The simple facts that Britain can't defeat Germany, and Germany can't
defeat Britain, make for a much more even end to the war in my opinion.
But the German goal was to defeat France, not Britain. This goal was
achieved and if the British government decided to play scenario similar
to one of the Napoleonic times, it could keep playing it forever because
situation on the continent was quite different: Austria was already in
the Prussian camp and Russia did not anymore depend upon the British
trade. Aka, no coalitions ready to fight for the British interests and
not too much in the terms of the economic or financial leverages.
I don't think we're talking about Britain holding on against a Europe
totally under German control.
Germany was not totally controlling Europe. It is just that in this specific scenario Britain finds itself out of the suckers who were ready to fight for her interests in the earlier wars.
Post by Pete Barrett
Germany didn't want that, and had no
ideological reason to do it; nor did Britain. Once Napoleon surrenders,
signs an armistice, and Wilhelm is declared Emperor of Germany, then they
can make peace proposals. Or Britain can, once it becomes obvious that
France can't fight on.
Agree. But the point is that Britain is not in a position to make demands or gain something besides the end of hostilities.
Post by Pete Barrett
However it comes about, that means a peace conference, and France will be
a participant, unless Germany flat out refuses to allow it. Is that
likely?
"Conference" to which end if France is ready to capitulate and Britain can't do anything to improve its situation? Of course, there could be a joined <whatever> in which Germany dictates its terms to France and makes peace "without annexations and contributions" with Britain.

Or there could be two separate events with the same outcome.
Pete Barrett
2018-03-24 19:42:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Pete Barrett
However it comes about, that means a peace conference, and France will
be a participant, unless Germany flat out refuses to allow it. Is that
likely?
"Conference" to which end if France is ready to capitulate and Britain
can't do anything to improve its situation? Of course, there could be a
joined <whatever> in which Germany dictates its terms to France and
makes peace "without annexations and contributions" with Britain.
Or there could be two separate events with the same outcome.
OK. Everything goes as OTL up to Sedan and just after. There's nothing
Britain can do to help France, and no reason to think things would go
differently. At this point Napoleon and his whole army are POWs, and a
republican provisional government is in charge in Paris, which is under
siege.

OTL, the provisional government tried to get neutral powers, including
Britain, to help negotiate an armistice. Britain did offer, but the offer
wasn't taken up. In the ATL, Britain makes contact with the new German
Empire (or perhaps they would make contact with Prussia before the
proclamation of the German Empire), suggesting a peace conference.
Bismarck probably will not accept until after the establishment of the
German Empire (that, after all, is what the whole exercise was about),
but once that is done (10th December or 18th January OTL, depending upon
which event you choose to use) he has no reason to continue the war,
unless his object is to thoroughly humiliate France. I've never heard
that it was.

And at this point, France is, at least formally, still in the field
(though all parties are well aware that it's been defeated and can't
continue for much longer), so the peace conference is between Britain and
France on the one side, and Germany on the other. There may be
participation by the US, as a neutral power.

Now, I think the French will see the peace conference as a way to avoid
the worst effects of defeat, and they may be able to do so if they're not
unreasonable. Perhaps they lose only Alsace from metropolitan France, but
also give the German Empire a colony or two.

If Bismarck is adamant, and France does have to give up the whole of
Alsace-Lorraine, then there may grow up a feeling in France that they
were stabbed in the back by Britain (with probably disastrous results for
the future). It's unlikely that Britain actually would abandon their
allies, because even Perfidious Albion would see that they'll need others
to trust them in then future - but that never stopped a myth from forming.
--
Pete BARRETT
The Horny Goat
2018-03-24 23:45:42 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 23 Mar 2018 11:18:46 -0700 (PDT), Alex Milman
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Pete Barrett
Attempt to
invade Britain, perhaps using the French navy?
Why would they bother?
I'm not sure if, unlike WWII, Britain could do any serious damage to the German interests just by its navy.
OTOH, what would be a justification for the British government to continue a military effort on the issue which did not directly involve the British interests after the interested partner (France) capitulated?
I don't see any scenario in any of the credible scenarios for the war
of 1870-71 where the war lasts long enough for a British blockade to
bite nearly deep enough to cause suffering in the various German
states the way it did in 1914-18.

Nor do I see any credible scenarios where a British landing anywhere
between Normandy and Denmark significantly could cause the Prussian
coalition significant problems. The disaster at Sedan happened much
too early in the war for Germany to be severely tested.

Loading...