Belle Epoque alliance system without the Habsburg Empire

[Eurofed]

I objected to the word "fixed". Alliances change, especially those which aren't based partly on political considerations like the Austro-German alliance.

Sometimes they change, sometimes they don't. Many people expected NATO to break down with the fall of Communism, but it didn't, since the interests of the US and Europe remain quite complementary.

Tsar and kaiser toppled, Germany a republic with socialists running around waving red flags in the streets, a revolutionary Marxist regime, Prussian estates expropriated by a Polish ex-socialist-terrorist, the king of the sheep-stealers and Bohemian peasants carving up the Austrian empire between them, and everything's fine?

Let's think back to the partition of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, another venerable monarchist power past its prime carved up by three other monarchist powers. A quite similar case to the TTL partition of the Austrian Empire (and the precedent that OvB and co. would use to guide their actions).

Either ignore him or respond to him. Bad form to tell him a) he's wrong and b) he is beneath being told why.

I mentioned him just because you declared your explicit support of his arguments.

I repeat: I keep naysaying your scenarios because they keep being the same,

Actually, the present thread explores a different aspect of the no-Habsburg Victorian Europe scenario. I think that with LordKalvan's invaluable assistance, I have pretty much nailed down the first decade or so after the PoD, but the course of the alliance system still leaves me quite uncertain (of course, taking into account what I regard as high-probability outcomes). It is true that I often revisit old ideas I left dormant for a while, in an attempt to further develop and polish them. You must always remind how I approach the genre in these cases, from outcome to cause, so a fair degree of optimization effort is inevitable.

politically motivated,

And this is a problem, why ? Not to mention that pretty much everyone on this board has its favorite causes.

and none too plausible.

History is full of events that a lot of people on this board would scorn and howl against as ASBish, and happen for reasons no more compelling or likely than my TLs'.

I try not to be a naysayer, but as I say, people sometimes (often) act like Austria was held together by jammy luck.

And other people sometimes (often) act like a bloody dynastic state was a necessary pillar of European civilization, which existed before and after the cousin-marriage-fetishists' rise to power. 1848 was a narrow-miss for Austria, and so did 1867, it had just lost two wars in 1859 and 1866, ITTL the latter gets worse and the sequence gets topped by suffering another major foreign policy and military disaster.

This stuff isn't measured on a spectrum. So, the Russians invade Bulgaria. Are you going to urge moderation or not? If the Russians aren't going to moderate, what are you going to do? It's not a chore, its a possible war.

And since Austria was never in the position to win a war with Russia, or diplomatically intimdate it, without German assistance, TTL differs from OTL how ? Remember, apart from giving Galicia and Bukovina to Russia, the partition only redistributes the assets of the Habsburg between Germany and its clients and allies.

Overblown comparisons to the max! Nicely ironic that we're drawing comparisons to situations arising from total war in relation to the policies of a man who's whole system was supposed to prevent total war.

The existence of Austria in no shape or form was necessary or sufficient to prevent a total war, as Gavrilo Princip discovered.

There we go again. I didn't say they were allied, but the word 'detente' belongs to the Cold War. There have been states of cold war before the Cold War (Elizabethan England against Spain, say), but 19th century Franco-German relations were not among them.

Terminological nitpicking. It may have been invented in the Cold War, but "detente" IMO aptly describes pre-Cold War situations where powers that have strong background reasons to be hostile achieve a phase of warming relations nonetheless.

 

[Earling]

Real countries are not strategy-games AI ones, bound by software to automatically gang up on a rising hegemon, regardless of circumstances. There is always going to be some other junior or regional powers that align with the rising star, because their respective interests are compementary, or because they opportunistically expect to profit from cooperation, or because they have a greater enmity with a third power that is also inimical to the rising star. OvB's Germany was far from being overly aggressive. The partition of the Habsburg empire does not overturn the European balance of power: Britain stands unchanged, Russia becomes a bit stronger, Germany significantly stronger but not overwhelmingly so (in different ways, Britain and Russia still match it), France is weakened but not destroyed, Italy rises to take the place of Austria, the Ottomans are unchanged. The dance continues to a slightly different music.

I don't think you appreciate just what has happened. Yes, Germany and Austria were close for this period, but they were not the same power. Here Germany has annexed the wealthier and more populous areas. In OTL it was possible to believe that in 1871 France, with her 35 million people, is comparable to Germany with 40 million. True, by 1914 Germany's 67 million dwarfed France's 40 million or so, but people are not privy to future demograhics.

Here however you have Germany as OTL plus the 20 million or so people of former Austria. With 60 million people Germany approaches twice the population of France. Is France a remote threat to Germany? Can she act as a counter measure? No. Could people in St Petersburg really expect to stand against Germany alone and prevail? Seems doubtful. Are the British going to be confident they can defend the neutrality of the low countries? Unlikely.

Flash forward to 1914 (for irony's sake) and, assuming demography remains much the same, and you have Germany with some 95 million people to France's 40 and going on for three times the wealth, industry and so on. Can France in this sense be judged a great power? The answer it would seem is no.

In short Germany has gone from "the most powerful state in Europe, but would probably struggle or lose alone to two other states" to "most powerful state in Europe and even against most of the rest of Europe could probably prevail". Certainly if demography plays out like OTL. Now yes, states do not obey some computer game AI, but as a rule real people have ambitions and they have pride. Is this Germany going to ruffle no feathers over Russia's ambitions in the Balkans? Is she going to raise no issue with Britain or France over a place in the sun? Since such happened in OTL it seems likely here, since the extent of German power is only going to further encourage ambition and arrogance.

Yes, it is possible the French and the Russians and even the British may look upon this Germany and viewing her invincible shrug their shoulders and accept what scraps the new dance provides. It is possible the French, British and Russians are stupid enough to let Germany play them off against each other. I however think that this is unlikely for any lengthy period of time.

 

[archaeogeek]

Yes, it is possible the French and the Russians and even the British may look upon this Germany and viewing her invincible shrug their shoulders and accept what scraps the new dance provides. It is possible the French, British and Russians are stupid enough to let Germany play them off against each other. I however think that this is unlikely for any lengthy period of time.

Indeed, this is assuming that OTL was a computer game run by an AI...

 

[Eurofed]

While there are certainly some similarities between the late-Habsburg empire and the Polish Commonwealth, the two situations are not the same and the partition of Austria would not proceed as the Polish one had.

And as a matter of fact, ITTL the partition of Austria occurs after losing a general war (and the third major military defeat in a dozen years, the second one worse ITTL than IOTL, not to mention domestic divisions that nearly caused a collapse in 1848 and 1867), while the partition of Poland was accomplished peacefully. So the situations are not indeed the same.

While it still lagged between the west, like Russia, the Austro-Hungarian economy was growing at a rapid pace. Manufactures were springing up in Prague and Vienna, while a strong agriculture and food industry sprung up in Hungary: rapid economic growth sprung out into the Hungarian plains.

This has little relevance to the issue.

The Russians would not get Transcarpathia, however. Why would Germany and Russia antagonize a potential of their bloc by chopping away a portion of the Kingdom of Hungary. Sure you can argue it is not even ethnically Hungarian, but it forms a portion of the Crown of St. Stephen. Russia's not going to want it, and it would immediately earn the ire of Hungary to rip it away from them, and probably make them friendly to the French. Let's face it, anyways: The Hungarians opposed any war plan with Germany in 1870 OTL, and probably would IATL, even if they are dragged in kicking or screaming. Bismarck would do well to treat them leniently.

A fair argument. I drop the Transcarpathia point (I put it in the dubitative, anyway).

I also disagree about Russia not caring about Czech irredentism. The Slav Congress was held in Prague only twenty-two years ago, and the Czechs were certainly considered Slavs, and 1870, the Pan-Slav movement was still relevant in Russia. Is Russia going to annex Bohemia? Hell no. Of course not. It won't succeed, but maybe it'll force to admit Bohemia as a member of the Germany Empire. Perhaps with a Wittelsbach king (echoing back to the Winter King of the Thirty Years War). Bohemia might even get a fair point of autonomy, it's own Ausgleich of sorts.

In 1870, Russian Pan-Slavism was essentially oriented on the Slav subjects of the Ottomans (i.e. it was an excuse to screw up the Sultan, not the Hohenzollern). Anyway, there are indeed a number of ways that German Austria and Bohemia-Moravia can be settled within the German Empire. The links I provided include some discussion of this issue.

Just speaking as a devils advocate: even if you have a Russo-German alliance, there is no reason for there not to be sticking points. It makes it more interesting than the "German-Russian-Italian alliance carves up Austria-Hungary, is economically powerful, and wins it's war against France with no problems at all!"

Of course not. Please notice how the main discussion topic of this thread only takes the continuation of the German-Russian-Italian alliance after the war of 1870 as one possible option for the Victorian-Edwardian European alliance system among several.

In this scenario, does Hungary end up a Republic or Kingdom? I would assume a Kingdom (possibly without a King, ala Horthy's kingdom), given it is under German and Russian tutelage (with a new king, of course), but Gyula Andrássy, after seeing his advice of neutrality spurned in Vienna, might seek to fully break the ties between crown and altar, and declare the Second Hungarian Republic.

I would assume a kingdom would be most likely, because the powers and the Magyar ruling class would would see it as a guarantee of reliability. IMO Andrassy and co. would deem their revolutionary urges fulfilled with giving the Habsburg the "told you so" boot. An Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen or a Wittelsbach might be good candidates for the throne of Hungary.

 

[Eurofed]

Yeah, but it doesn't fit with the typical bland fare of ridiculous space-filling empires we get from Eurofed out of habit.

'Space-filling empire' does not really apply to a successful Pan-European Roman Empire, a Pan-American socially-progressive, multicultural USA, a German-Italian conservative-liberal constitutional-monarchist block, or a federal EU.

 

[Eurofed]

Yes, it is possible the French and the Russians and even the British may look upon this Germany and viewing her invincible shrug their shoulders and accept what scraps the new dance provides. It is possible the French, British and Russians are stupid enough to let Germany play them off against each other. I however think that this is unlikely for any lengthy period of time.

You may notice that the OP poll provides for the option of TTL alliance system turning out much like OTL, the German-Italian-Hungarian Triple Alliance vs. the Anglo-French-Russian Triple Entente, so this option was accepted as fully plausible (OTOH, I have exceeding skepticism on Italy betraying its allies ITTL just because, in the absence of the Habsburg, and I would likewise expect Turkey most likely sticking to the CP). I only balked at people saying that everybody, including Italians, Hungarians, Ottomans, etc. would turn turn against Germany because of its size, regardless of circumstances. This is what I regarded as AI computer game "badboy" thinking.

 

[Mirza Khan]

Well, to (sort of) defend Eurofed, I think that, if Austria manages to browbeat the Hungarians and joins the Franco-Prussian war, events could spin out of control really fast. Consider:

1) According to Eurofed (can someone provide a source for this?), Russia and Germany had a secret agreement that if Austria entered the Franco-Prussian war, Russia would enter it as well, on the Russian/German side. Russia honors it.

2)The Austrian army suffers three or four major defeats against the Germans and the Russians

3)The Hungarian parliament, angry at being forced into a war it doesn't like, declares independence from Austria. Due to dealing with the Russian and German invasions, and having suffered major losses against them, Austria's military isn't in much of a position to do anything about this

4)Inspired by the Hungarian declaration of independence, a major Czech rebellion occurs in Bohemia, leading to low-level conflict between the rebels and Bohemia's ethnic Germans.

5)Other ethnic rebellions (Croats, maybe Slovaks in northern Hungary or Italians in South Tyrol) occur

6)Seeing the Hapsburg empire effectively breaking up around them, German socialists rise up in Vienna. The uprising suceeds in gaining control of the city, and the Hapsburgs are forced to flee. The rebels proclaim their desire to unite all of Germany under a left-wing government.

Now, given this set of events, I don't see how the Hapsburg empire could be restored in a credible fashion, or the German parts prevented from uniting with Germany (the Austrian Germans would want it, most Germans in Germany would want it, and even Bismark, I think, will see the advantages or get overruled). That said, I think some of the other posters are right, in that TTL Germany will easily be the biggest power in Europe, and most other European countries will be very wary of it. Now, this can be mitigated-especially if Germany refrains from trying to challenge Britain navally and generally tries to act non-threatening and non-expansionist-but if Germany has the sort of post-Bismark leadership it had IOTL, I highly doubt any such "mitigation" will occur, and Germany will likely be percieved outside its borders as a threatening, expansionistic would-be hegemon that needs to be contained.

 

[Eurofed]

1) According to Eurofed (can someone provide a source for this?), Russia and Germany had a secret agreement that if Austria entered the Franco-Prussian war, Russia would enter it as well, on the Russian/German side. Russia honors it.

This wiki page describes the Prusso-Russian secret accords.

That said, I think some of the other posters are right, in that TTL Germany will easily be the biggest power in Europe, and most other European countries will be very wary of it. Now, this can be mitigated-especially if Germany refrains from trying to challenge Britain navally and generally tries to act non-threatening and non-expansionist-but if Germany has the sort of post-Bismark leadership it had IOTL, I highly doubt any such "mitigation" will occur, and Germany will likely be percieved outside its borders as a threatening, expansionistic would-be hegemon that needs to be contained.

Again, after Bismarck all bets are off, and it may well be that Britain, France, and Russia band together. I would just argue that as long as OvB is alive and in charge, he's going to apply his considerable skills to accomplish the "mitigation", and ITTL the Kaiser may easily never dare to remove him up to his death in the late 1890s.

 

[Snake Featherston]

Austria would never be put in that situation. First, the situation in the Balkans would be immeasurably more complicated, second, Russia doesn't want to set that precedent that might up and bite it in the ass at this point, and third, Austria's alliance with Germany makes a fair degree of sense, but it was not entirely inevitable. It *is* possible that Austria would ally with France in an 1870/ATL WWI scenario, but it is improbable in the extreme for a German Empire to split Austria in 1870. Now, in the aftermath of a WWI-equivalent, sure it is more possible but that is a completely different scenario from the height of the Victorian age.

Austria's not the paper empire people mistake it for, and Prussia/Germany is not a society of Mary Tzus.

 

[AuroraBorealis]

What exactly is the political situation / government form of this partitioned Hapsburg Empire. I cannot see it disintegrating entirely. I cannot see a fall of the Hapsburgs in their entirety in the Austrian portions of Empire..the dynasty itself had wide support, abdication of the current emperor perhaps yes... I can under a most liberal suspension of disbelief see the incorporation of the Austrian Empire within the German Empire yes... either as two constituent constitutional monarchies ( Bohemia-Moravia, and Austria-Slovenia) under junior Hapsburgs ( Rudolf in Austria proper and Karl Ludwig in Bohemia), though personal Union is more likely under a single Junior Hapsburg.
From a Prussian perspective the former is better, but neither is really desireable as it places many Catholics with liberal tendencies within said Empire. Hungary is likely a second republic not a welcome development under the circumstances...

Not an unwelcome development in the grand scheme of things but it will change the domestic agenda within the Empire and no doubt have a huge impact on its foreign policy decisions as well. Overall Prussian dominance will wane in terms of political influence though not in terms of actual military power. This is exactly why Bismarck did not want this to happen. Prussian political influence would still be a huge factor but it would not have the over-riding dominance that it enjoyed in OTL.

 

[Snake Featherston]

One scenario which I find quite interesting and which saw some recent discussion sees the partecipation of Austria in the Franco-Prussian War. This inevitably makes it expand in a Prussia-Italy-Russia vs. France-Austria general war (Russia does so because of existing secret Russo-Prussian alliance accords for such a contingency), which all but surely would cause a defeat of France even worse than OTL and the collapse and partition of the Habsburg empire between Germany, Italy, Russia, and an independent Hungary. See the linked threads for an extensive discussion of how and why this scenario may come into being.

It would also in all likelihood cause the swift formation of a German-Italian-Hungarian Central Powers/Triple Alliance block that, differently from the OTL version, would be very stable, since the Austro-Italian antagonism is gone and the interests of the three partners are complementary. France, in all likelihood is going to have a foreign policy quite similar to OTL, except that ITTL it expands its revanchist enmity to the German-Italian bloc.

Short of very unlikely butterflies, these two poles of the European alliance system are all but made fixed by the initial events of the scenario. The really interesting and seemingly open-ended geopolitical issue is how the other European great powers, Britain and Russia, would align in the alliance system of this scenario.

For simplicity, we may assume that in all likelihood the United States shall keep their isolationist attitude and the Ottomans shall ally with the side opposite to Russia, although of course things might go differently.

Which alliance system do you see as most likely to emerge ?

So in a general war in 1870, Germany is able to fight France, with superior-quality weaponry and Austria which is not by any means a paper tiger, especially with the majority of German troops facing France, with Russia which in 1870 is not half of what it became by 1914 able to fight Austria and all of this in a Europe where only Prussia has the kind of WWI-style organization that became prevalent later on?

How does this general war become logistically affordable? Which ASB gave a personality transplant to the Tsar Liberator?

 

[Mirza Khan]

Again, after Bismarck all bets are off, and it may well be that Britain, France, and Russia band together. I would just argue that as long as OvB is alive and in charge, he's going to apply his considerable skills to accomplish the "mitigation", and ITTL the Kaiser may easily never dare to remove him up to his death in the late 1890s.

Well, thing is, Bismark's not immortal, you see. After he kicks the bucket, Wilhelm II is still going to be Kaiser, still going to have his OTL personality, and will probably see Germany's increased power as an opportunity to act even more like a prick towards every other country than he did IOTL. And remember, it wasn't just Kaiser Wilhelm-there were plenty of other imperialists in the German government who enabled (and were enabled by) the kaiser. So to go back the OP, I think this TTL's alliance system will probably come down to how the German government acts in the early 1900's. If Germany doesn't develop a large navy, and doesn't otherwise try to challenge Britain's empire, then I can see them coming to an understanding where Britain likewise agrees not to make things difficult for Germany. If Germany doesn't pursue any expansionist policies (either in Eastern or Western Europe), then I think Russia, Italy, Hungary, and possibly one or two other countries might decide that a newly powerful Germany is something they can at least live with. But honestly, this scenario requires the German leadership to display a whole lot more common sense than they did in OTL, and I don't see any reason for them to do so. More likely, by 1910-1915, we'll have a Germany that has managed to scare the bejeezus out of everyone else in Europe through its sheer size and professed expansionism, and as a result has managed to get Britain, France, and Russia to ally against it.

 

[Eurofed]

Austria would never be put in that situation. First, the situation in the Balkans would be immeasurably more complicated,

False, because the partition does not create a 1919-like Balkanization.

second, Russia doesn't want to set that precedent that might up and bite it in the ass at this point,

The way its destruction of the PLC never did bite it up in the ass in any noticeable way ?

It *is* possible that Austria would ally with France in an 1870/ATL WWI scenario, but it is improbable in the extreme for a German Empire to split Austria in 1870.

They just fought two wars in half a decade.

Austria's not the paper empire people mistake it for,

All hail the immortal Habsburg Empire, it never dies unless one drops a nuke on Vienna.

and Prussia/Germany is not a society of Mary Tzus.

No, they are just completing their national unification, in the age of nationalism, after their second victorious war in half a decade against a collapsed state.

 

[AuroraBorealis]

This wiki page describes the Prusso-Russian secret accords.



Again, after Bismarck all bets are off, and it may well be that Britain, France, and Russia band together. I would just argue that as long as OvB is alive and in charge, he's going to apply his considerable skills to accomplish the "mitigation", and ITTL the Kaiser may easily never dare to remove him up to his death in the late 1890s.

That same Wiki page states that Franz Josef was not in favour of the French alliance unless Italy was on side as well... something which you have blatantly ignored as an inconvenient fact...how are you getting around that.

given that Victor Emmanuel actually favoured the French...

 

[Eurofed]

How does this general war become logistically affordable? Which ASB gave a personality transplant to the Tsar Liberator?

Sigh. This scenario is built on OTL diplomatic offers and secret alliances between the European governments of 1868-70, so they apparently thought this kind of general war would be a plausible contingency. Now, don't you think that they would know far better than you what kind of war their armies can logistically afford to fight ?

 

[Snake Featherston]

False, because the partition does not create a 1919-like Balkanization.

And yet the 1870s war is fought remarkably like a 20th Century war, not a late 19th Century one on steroids.

The way its destruction of the PLC never did bite it up in the ass in any noticeable way ?

You don't realize the extent to which partitioning Austria on ethnic lines just gave the Poles a wonderful idea about how they can get their country back? Or say, Finland and the Baltic states?

They just fought two wars in half a decade.

And Egypt and Israel had been at war continuously since 1967 when Rabin and Sadat negotiated peace. Your point?

All hail the immortal Habsburg Empire, it never dies unless one drops a nuke on Vienna.

Horseshit, I partitioned Austria into Cislethania and Royal!Hungary in my TL, but that was in the context of a WWI scenario where the bitter fighting's created the necessary bitterness. This is the age of Alexander II and Otto von Bismarck when Europe didn't do that to fucking Ottoman territory and they're going to do this to Austria-Hungary? Nonsense. For that matter, Austria-Hungary held together for a long time IOTL WWI despite losing every major battle except the ones against Italy.

No, they are just completing their national unification, in the age of nationalism, after their second victorious war in half a decade against a collapsed state.

So the European powers that refused to allow this kind of thing with San Stefano have a completely different attitude WRT a good-sized chunk of Central Europe? Whose personalities did the ASB transplant into people of the 1870s?

 

[Eurofed]

Well, thing is, Bismark's not immortal, you see. After he kicks the bucket, Wilhelm II is still going to be Kaiser, still going to have his OTL personality, and will probably see Germany's increased power as an opportunity to act even more like a prick towards every other country than he did IOTL. And remember, it wasn't just Kaiser Wilhelm-there were plenty of other imperialists in the German government who enabled (and were enabled by) the kaiser. So to go back the OP, I think this TTL's alliance system will probably come down to how the German government acts in the early 1900's. If Germany doesn't develop a large navy, and doesn't otherwise try to challenge Britain's empire, then I can see them coming to an understanding where Britain likewise agrees not to make things difficult for Germany. If Germany doesn't pursue any expansionist policies (either in Eastern or Western Europe), then I think Russia, Italy, Hungary, and possibly one or two other countries might decide that a newly powerful Germany is something they can at least live with. But honestly, this scenario requires the German leadership to display a whole lot more common sense than they did in OTL, and I don't see any reason for them to do so. More likely, by 1910-1915, we'll have a Germany that has managed to scare the bejeezus out of everyone else in Europe through its sheer size and professed expansionism, and as a result has managed to get Britain, France, and Russia to ally against it.

I have no objection whatsoever to this kind of scenario.

 

[Snake Featherston]

Sigh. This scenario is built on OTL diplomatic offers and secret alliances between the European governments of 1868-70, so they apparently thought this kind of general war would be a plausible contingency. Now, don't you think that they would know far better than you what kind of war their armies can logistically afford to fight ?

Judging by World Wars I and II, no I do not.

Seriously, this is 1870. Prussia is the only state with an army of World Wars-style power and numbers. The other states in Europe at this point lack the logistics and 30+ years of preparation that went into general warfare. In 1870, you have relatively limited numbers of troops and quite minimal logistical infrastructure to pull this kind of thing off. It'd look somewhat like the US Civil War hybridized with WWI (about a year to get the armies going, then the WWI Eastern Front on a continental scale).

 

[Douglas]

Poor Eurofed...unable to source anything, unable to provide evidence for any of his positions, saddled with an ahistorical idea that Austria-Hungary was ready to fall at a moment's notice, and unable to understand the very basic realities behind Italy's economic and diplomatic position.

 

[Eurofed]

And yet the 1870s war is fought remarkably like a 20th Century war, not a late 19th Century one on steroids.

Nobody is saying that but you. In all likelihood, this lasts not that much more than the F-P war, say an extra six months on tops.

You don't realize the extent to which partitioning Austria on ethnic lines just gave the Poles a wonderful idea about how they can get their country back? Or say, Finland and the Baltic states?

The Poles certainly did not need or would benefit from any further encouragement about putting their relations with Russia into question, after their 1831 and 1863 attempts. If anything, union with Galicia might make them marginally less unhappy.

This is the age of Alexander II and Otto von Bismarck when Europe didn't do that to fucking Ottoman territory

If Alexander II had gotten his way, they would have.

So the European powers that refused to allow this kind of thing with San Stefano have a completely different attitude WRT a good-sized chunk of Central Europe?

You fail to realize this is a wholly different case from San Stefano (where, however, if the Tsar had gotten his way, something quite similar would have been done). SS was the other powers intervening to limit Russian gains. In this case, Germany, Russia, and Italy are all partners to the act, France is a defeated power and powerless, Austria has collapsed in military defeat and internal revolution, Britain can't act without support on the continent.

For that matter, Austria-Hungary held together for a long time IOTL WWI despite losing every major battle except the ones against Italy.

And in WWI France held together for four years, while in 1870 it fell in a few months.

Whose personalities did the ASB transplant into people of the 1870s?

You know, the arbitrary way you call all kinds of things ASB about all kinds of scenarioes is really off-putting.