WI: Napoleon accepts the Frankfurt Proposals

[History Learner]

Historically, the French Emperor gave a somewhat-yes, but far too late and the unilateral conditions of his acceptance (Concerning the thrones of his family in Germany and Italy) resulted in the Coalition rejecting it and pressing home their advantage. This would result in Napoleon's overthrow in 1814, and the onset of the historical Concert of Vienna they shaped geopolitics in Europe for the next century. Given Napoleon did lean towards yes overall, what if he moved to accept the terms soon after their offer and did not engage in his delusions concerning his family retaining power outside of France itself?

For those that don't know, besides allowing Napoleon to keep his throne, the Proposals would have allowed France to retain its "Natural Frontiers":

The retention of Belgium and the Saarland will be a great boon for France once industrialization starts, as well as its influence over the Rhine River trade:

 

[History Learner]

After the abdication of Napoleon in early 1814, the British moved roughly six brigades to North America to fight in the War of 1812. With the war over much earlier in 1813, those formations will be available much earlier for use. Would this be sufficient for the British to win a decisive victory?

 

[IMTATRSS]

One question this scenario raises is how German Unification changes - or the Congress of Vienna itself, for that matter.

Maybe the Coalition makes stronger states on France's western and southern borders?

French support for Austria, if it still happens, could frustrate Prussian ambitions too.

 

[History Learner]

One question this scenario raises is how German Unification changes - or the Congress of Vienna itself, for that matter.

Maybe the Coalition makes stronger states on France's western and southern borders?

French support for Austria, if it still happens, could frustrate Prussian ambitions too.

I think it's safe to say that, at a minimum, German unification is derailed. Without the Trans-Rhine coal fields, Prussia is going to be much weaker and France much stronger which, combined with their control over the Rhine river, will give them much influence in Germany. How the Congress of Vienna shakes out is more difficult to discern; the Polish-Saxon Crisis will be far more interesting, given the obvious friction between Napoleon and Britain which would hamper something like the Secret Alliance that contained the Russo-Prussians from taking place.

I could see Britain being more inclined to back the Prussians and Russians as a counter-balance to the Franco-Austrians. In which case, Prussia gets all of Saxony and Russia gets Posen, but that still leaves the question of Westphalia. Maybe the British accept the inevitable, and forge a "Grand Duchy of Saxony" from a Greater Hannover and keep it in personal union as their watch-dog on the Rhine vis-a-vis France?

 

[Jackson Lennock]

I think it's safe to say that, at a minimum, German unification is derailed. Without the Trans-Rhine coal fields, Prussia is going to be much weaker and France much stronger which, combined with their control over the Rhine river, will give them much influence in Germany. How the Congress of Vienna shakes out is more difficult to discern; the Polish-Saxon Crisis will be far more interesting, given the obvious friction between Napoleon and Britain which would hamper something like the Secret Alliance that contained the Russo-Prussians from taking place.

I could see Britain being more inclined to back the Prussians and Russians as a counter-balance to the Franco-Austrians. In which case, Prussia gets all of Saxony and Russia gets Posen, but that still leaves the question of Westphalia. Maybe the British accept the inevitable, and forge a "Grand Duchy of Saxony" from a Greater Hannover and keep it in personal union as their watch-dog on the Rhine vis-a-vis France?

Wait ... didn't I make that map before leaving the other forum?

Also, I can see France supporting a mini Germany unification. Unification of the "Third Germany" (meaning Germany excluding Prussia and Austria) serves French ends dandily. They already did this OTL with the Confederation of the Rhine after all.

 

[Jackson Lennock]

What is the status of Germany here anyway?

I suspect that the Prussian desire to swap Rhineland for Saxony might translate here into desiring to swap Westphalia for Saxony. Saxony will always be the preferred territory for Prussia.

Prussian strength would be lessened, but not by as much as one might expect. Even without a land swap, much of the Ruhr is east of the Rhine.



Prussia was still trying to swap Rhineland for Saxony as late as the 1820s. If Germany is thoroughly Austrian-dominated here ... I suspect France might identify Prussia as the Country to make a deal with to undermine Austria.

Meanwhile, Russia and Austria get a lot more credit for whooping France here. Britain won't have the weight to throw around for Hanover to get all the additional territory it got OTL, I assume.

 

[Alexander Rooksmoor]

Assuming France retains the borders shown in the initial map, into the late 19th/20th Century, then it seems there would be no Belgium and no Belgian Congo. This is likely to have changed the balance in central Africa. Flemish-speaking 'Belgians' would be a small minority in the larger France and yet would be alienated from the slightly smaller Netherlands on religious grounds. Switzerland would be more clearly German-speaking even than in our world.

Great changes might come when a Franco-Prussian War broke out as there would need to be a Prussian invasion across the Rhine. However, the Prussians might still be victorious and claim a long slice of French territory to the West of the Rhine. This would set up the antagonism between the two countries pretty much as in our world. However, this land is likely to have been returned to France in 1919, maybe making French politicians less anxious about their eastern frontier.

A larger France would not only mean more raw materials for industrialisation but a slightly larger population, something which long concerned French leaders when looking at German competition. After Britain, Belgium was one of the next states to industrialise and it seems probable that benefit would have come to France instead. With the bulk of the Ruhr and all of Saxony in Germany when established, the two countries would be rather more equal industrial rivals. This might have a knock-on effect as in our world lots of French investment went into Russia but in this alternative may have stayed within France. There might also be less sense of an imperative to establish such a large overseas empire but that depends in part on how this different Franco-Prussian War would have run.

A German attack in 1914 would not have to go through neutral Belgium and, assuming the Germans did not attack the Netherlands as proved to be the case in our world anyway, there would have been less reason for Britain to enter the war, though it would still have been concerned about Germany directly sitting across the Channel from British ports. Still, getting a British intervention might have been an even harder 'sell' to British politicians and the public than it was in our world.

 

[Death's Companion]

Assuming France retains the borders shown in the initial map, into the late 19th/20th Century, then it seems there would be no Belgium and no Belgian Congo. This is likely to have changed the balance in central Africa. Flemish-speaking 'Belgians' would be a small minority in the larger France and yet would be alienated from the slightly smaller Netherlands on religious grounds. Switzerland would be more clearly German-speaking even than in our world.

Great changes might come when a Franco-Prussian War broke out as there would need to be a Prussian invasion across the Rhine. However, the Prussians might still be victorious and claim a long slice of French territory to the West of the Rhine. This would set up the antagonism between the two countries pretty much as in our world. However, this land is likely to have been returned to France in 1919, maybe making French politicians less anxious about their eastern frontier.

A larger France would not only mean more raw materials for industrialisation but a slightly larger population, something which long concerned French leaders when looking at German competition. After Britain, Belgium was one of the next states to industrialise and it seems probable that benefit would have come to France instead. With the bulk of the Ruhr and all of Saxony in Germany when established, the two countries would be rather more equal industrial rivals. This might have a knock-on effect as in our world lots of French investment went into Russia but in this alternative may have stayed within France. There might also be less sense of an imperative to establish such a large overseas empire but that depends in part on how this different Franco-Prussian War would have run.

A German attack in 1914 would not have to go through neutral Belgium and, assuming the Germans did not attack the Netherlands as proved to be the case in our world anyway, there would have been less reason for Britain to enter the war, though it would still have been concerned about Germany directly sitting across the Channel from British ports. Still, getting a British intervention might have been an even harder 'sell' to British politicians and the public than it was in our world.

If there is an Alt WW1 1914-1918 seems rather unlikely.