It wasn't a dead country then and no one, no matter how far-sighted, could have foreseen WW1 in the way that it actucally unfolded.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
It wasn't a dead country then and no one, no matter how far-sighted, could have foreseen WW1 in the way that it actucally unfolded.
Assuming such a war would have been won. Germany won't be the country it was without the Rhineland.
In the event of such an intervention, we'd have to assume that Prussia penetrated through Bohemia and into Austria. With that done, even with French help in defeating the Prussians, at the end of the day, the Austrians would still be tremendously fragilized. First because their military was utterly defeated by the Prussians and the prestige and leadership of the Habsburgs put in cause. That would certainly stir the Hungarians up, and the likely result is an Augsleich like it happened in real life. Second because Austria, as the leader of the of the German Confederation was first almost defeated by one member of it, and then had to accept a foreign power invading and annexing part of the Confederation. That would result in a major blow to Austria as the leader of the German states. Prussia couldn't also lead since they had for all purposes lost the confrontation once the French started flooding into Germany.
So such a scenario would leave the German political arena leaderless between two German powers that had for all purposes, been both defeated. It would certainly make from an extremely interesting scenario.
Germany might see another wave of 1848-style political agitation in the aftermath of the war. Possibly leading to violent political and social protests, i.e. the Paris commune uprising happens in Berlin and Frankfurt instead of Paris. Austria would seek to play the German hegemon once again and crack down on political dissent. Bringing about another round of political repression, like in the 1820s and 1830s... if Germany remains politically deadlocked, all that anger might ultimately channel into a socialist revolution in the 1880s or 1890s. Europe would tremble.
I think Napoleon would be all too happy to see Prussia shaken under social strife and revolution (Russia on the other hand might be more helpful, especially considering the problems that would innevitably arise in the Polish parts of both Austria and Prussia if they were both broken by the war). As for Austria trying to rally the German states by itself after it had time to recover, any wise leader could see that a united Germany could pose a significant threat to France, so Napoleon would try to do his utmost to keep the German states as autonomous and divided as possible. If Austria tried to be a wise guy, Napoleon had them by the balls with something called Italy. Contrary to Prussia, Italian politicians and Italians in general (Fuelled by their own nationalism) had no qualms whatsoever of marching into the Tyrol and to the Dalmatian coast and taking it all away from Austria. With a victorious France in the Austro-Prussian War, the only leach Italy had was French support itself. To Italy and (by intervention in the conflict, helping Austria against Prussia) to Austria. Napoleon wasn't stupid at all, and he would play that factor on Austria.
In that scenario, the best way out that I can think of (And that actually makes sense) would be the resurrection of the Three Emperors League (Especially considering the radicalism that would be incoming to Prussia and Austria whose surpression was one of the purposes of the original Holy Alliance), but there would have to be a LOT more good faith and cooperation between all three countries if it was to work. Only with Russia's backing could the both Prussia and Austria actually come to some terms over how German influence was to be divided. Russia would have to be very careful in stirring Pan-Slavic movements (Although with a weaker Austria put in check by Italy and France, the Czar would probably feel that Austria depended on Russian support too much to cause a hassle).
I guess ultimately, with French victory, a weaker Austria would fuel Russian imperialism over the Balkans. Napoleon would also certainly try to shift Austrian interests away from Germany and Italy and into imperialism against the Ottomans and the Slavs (Which would be doubly good as besides leaving status quo in divided Germany, it could sow dissension with its ally Russia; instead of just promoting independence movements in the Balkans as it did in real history)
Russia would certainly try to do its Russo-Turkish War of 87-88, but in this scenario, France as the de jure true protector of Christians in the Ottoman Empire (After the Crimean War), and as one of the guarantor of the Ottoman Empire's intergrity in the Treaty of Paris and ally of the Ottoman Empire, along with their pals Sardinia-Piemont/now, the more powerful Italy in the last Crimean War, Napoleon would certainly use this opportunity to try to manuever Austria against Russia with his own support and would most probably support the Ottoman Empire against Russia (Considering they didn't in real life since they were still reeling from the tremendous war indemnizations of the Franco-Prussian War.), which would in turn probably convince Britain and Italy to fall in line and also support the Ottomans integrity (Though I'm not sure if Italy would actually do it).
I guess with such forming opposition, Russia would then have to make concessions to Austria in the Balkans for carrying out the war, (as it did in real history) and it would be a question of who would Austria support. Either France to make Russia recede in its imperialist intentions over the Balkans, leaving Austria as the primary contender for future annexations and hegemony in the Balkans, or would it support Russia, provided it recieves a share of the spoils of the Ottoman Empire (The latter option would certainly convince Italy to side with France and the Ottoman Empire), nevertheless in case of victory, Russia would always be seen as the hegemon over the Balkans and not Austria (And Austrian manuevering space into the Balkans would be very reduced considering all countries in the Balkans were Slavic and very Russian friendly).
Prussia, on it's side would view this war as an opportunity to (Especially if the Austrians sided with Russia) give way to nationalism and try to expel together with Austria and the German states, France from the Rheinland.
In this German war, Britain most probably wouldn't intervene on France's behalf. Italy on the other hand, if Austria sided with Russia, would join with France in trying to get Venice and Tyrol from Austria, at least.
As to the results of the war, that's too much second guessing already.