What If

world war 1 happens earlier because the eternal anglo cannot stand competition in the colonial business

>>2689966
Another coalition develops and Germany gets partitioned in 1848 for upsetting the concert of Europe.

>>2689966
>world war 1 happens earlier
There wouldn't even be a WWI.

>>2689980
why didn't a coalition happen in 1871? Why would 1848 make a difference considering France fell under another revolution around the same time and didn't suffer a coalition

>>2689988
Big difference between the situations. France's 1848 revolution weakened the shit out of it but was still watched very warily by the other powers until Napoleon coronated himself thus affirm that the 1848 revolution wasn't all that liberal. A united liberal Germany? Not so much. Austria would be fucking livid at being cheated out of what they saw as their rightful position (Empire of the Germans), Russia would be fucking livid at a new liberal power(Russia bullied the fuck out of any attempted liberalization and even helped quash the Hungarian revolution in Austria), Britain would be fucking livid by a new Germany upsetting the balance of power (and easily being able to form another coalition with the other two). By 1871, Austria had already accepted that Grossdeutschland was not happening after the Austro-Prussian War. Russia was alienated from Britain and France to the point that they were looking for allies anywhere and everywhere and Germany was just that. Britain was focused elsewhere. France got their shit slapped. Comparing and 1848 German unification with OTL unification is like night and day. I'd give it until 1850 before Germany was crushed.

>>2690004
Except the revolution also happened in Austria, Hungary and former Poland. If the revolution suceeded Europe would look completely different.

>>2689988
France had managed to piss off Russia (Crimean War) and Britain (Sudan), and Austria and Denmark had both been defeated by Germany and we're wary of fighting them again.

Thus, France was on its own against Germany.

>>2690004
>>2690027
Yeah, what if liberal Germany finds a liberal ally, Austria maybe or even France ?

>>2690027
>>2690035
that's a littel too many "mays". If the liberal revolution had succeeded everywhere, the world would have been a vastly different place.

>>2690035
It's likely that the revolution could even spread to Russia.

>>2690027
And outside of Hungary, they were quickly crushed by intervening powers. No one wanted to go through a round of Napoleonic Warfare II: New Liberal State Boogaloo.

>>2690035
>France
>liberal
Their 1848 revolution installed a fucking Emperor.

>Austria
Never going to happen. Russia made damn sure of it.

>>2690043
[laughs in Nicholas I]

You people have no idea what the fuck you're talking about.

>>2689966
The only period in history when Germans were good guys.

>>2690049
They were crushed because liberal Prussia didn't help them. This revolution wasn't even planning to change the whole system. They wanted a unified German constitutional monarchy, not some French republic.

>>2690057
>because liberal Prussia didn't help them
Prussia wasn't liberal tho. They didn't adopt a constitution until over a year after the German revolution had fucking failed. All of this is simply affirming my statement: You people have no idea what the fuck you're talking about.

>>2690049
1951 coup installed an emperor, the revolution installed a modern democratic republic.

>>2690079
Under that conservative dude who installed himself as Emperor before the next election.

>>2690073
But in our scenario Prussia and other German states became liberal.

>>2690049
> Their 1848 revolution installed a fucking Emperor.
It didn't. It installed a republic. Then people voted for this guy named napoleon, and he became emperor two years later.
But anyway, even after 1851, Nappy III had no reason not to ally with Germany, except for the fact that it did not exist.

>>2690083
And he was elected by people. And yet no one formed a coalition against the second French republic.

>>2690085
So let's run this down the line here:

In order for your shit to succeed we need the German revolution to succeed, we need the French to intervene on behalf of a united Germany, we need Austria to liberalize or otherwise not care, we need Britain to not intervene for some reason and we need Russia to either liberalize and/or otherwise not intervene. There. You've cracked it. The only way the German revolution succeeds: a situation completely different from reality that requires a set of circumstances extremely unlikely to exist.

>doubt.jpg

>>2690093
See >>2690083

>>2690095
Probably because the Second French Republic didn't immediately step all over everyone else's toes simply by existing and Napoleon III, no matter who elected him, wasn't exactly a liberal individual.

>>2689966
WWI happens earlier.

Austria-Hungary doesn't become a thing.

France more wrecked than usual.

>>2690098
There would be no coalition. The Germans simply wanted a unified country under Prussian constitutional monarchy. They wouldn't kill a king or go full Robespierre. The only real threat were Austrians and Russians. But if the revolution succeeded in Austria (also a German country) then Russia wouldn't do anything.

>>2690098
In order for our shit to succeed we need the German revolution to succeed, then we need to avoid a successful foreign intervention.
It could be the French intervening on behalf of a united Germany, or just acting though in their favor. Or we need Austria to liberalize too or otherwise not care, or we need Britain to not intervene for some reason (they have quite a few). Russia with less than two allies has little chance to succeed.
In case of russian/austrian/british coalition, Napoleon has the choice between joining it and fighting it. He would choose the safest option for him. So it all depends on whether the eternal Anglo can convince him that he is not next on the list.

>>2690139
>if the revolution that was crushed with the assistance of Russia succeeded then Russia wouldn't do anything even though that's a prerequisite for the situation to occur in the first place
Bravo. On top of this, the 1848 revolution in Austria wasn't committed by Germans, but by other ethnicities in Austria.

>The only real threat were Austrians and Russians
And Britain who intervened on the continent for far less when it came to upsetting the Concert before it ended.

Too many what ifs for it to be a reliable scenario, but all of you seem to want to worm your way into a very unlikely scenario where your precious 1848 revolution succeeds so I'm out. Enjoy your implausible alt-history fiasco.

>>2690156
>Russia with less than two allies has little chance to succeed
doubt.jpg

It took considerable cost for a combined British and French military venture to stop Russia from ending Turkey during the Crimean War. Germany is largely still unindustrialized and is only in the infancy stages when it comes to industrialization. Also if you assume that France allies with the newly united Germany, red flags are going up EVERYWHERE and you can bet your sweet ass that Britain is going to find a coalition of the willing SOMEWHERE.

>>2690098
> Probably because the Second French Republic didn't immediately step all over everyone else's toes simply by existing and Napoleon III, no matter who elected him, wasn't exactly a liberal individual.
As a side note, you are wrong on this point. The second republic was much less of a threat than Napoleon III. Most of the elected representatives were royalists, and the revolutionaries were massacred by the new regime. Everyone knew what to expect from this republic. But Napoleon was a dangerous, ambitious opportunist that might just try to conquer Europe again.
If the brits did not intervene to nip that in the bud, it's because they learned that starting a nationalistic war is easier than ending it, and that also applies to an intervention in Germany.

>>2690164
Why leave ? Yes, we build up unlikely scenarios, that's the point of alt-his.
But you're exaggerating the unlikelyhood of it.

As for Russia, they had not industrialized either. Their strength is in numbers, but projecting that strength into Germany is quite harder than in crimea or around the black sea. In a defensive war, Germany alone has a good chance.
They would need help if Britain gets involved, but see >>2690185.

>>2690049
>And outside of Hungary, they were quickly crushed by intervening powers.
Hungary was also crushed by outside power (Russia), tho you are right, slowly.

>>2689988
Bismarck Said they were fine.

>>2690185
>But Napoleon was a dangerous, ambitious opportunist that might just try to conquer Europe again
That's wrong though. He was elected because he was a safe choice. He wasn't a radical revolutionary and he wasn't a murderous royalist.

>>2690211
>but projecting that strength into Germany is quite harder than in crimea or around the black sea
I dunno man. They projected that strength deep into the Balkans and the Caucasus WHILE fighting in the Black Sea and Crimea. They projected strength into fucking France. Germany was within spitting distance of the bulk of Russia's population.

>>2690697
Napoleon was elected because of his name. But what that name meant for French peasants was not the same thing it meant for English MPs.

File: gsg-down1.png (206KB, 326x451px) Image search: [Google]

206KB, 326x451px

>>2689966
willy memes are never a thing

>>2689966
I have an alternative: What if the Prussian King had accepted the title of "German Kaiser" (Note: NOT "Kaiser of Germany") in a constitutional monarchy by the Frankfurt Assembly?

>>2690917
Austro-Prussian war kicks off a decade early.