A heartbeat away from greatness: a timeline of missed opportunities

[abc123]

I guess so- didn't realize they were so closely related. Though he became vice Marshal later I think (OTL that is. TTL his career and life are cut short by French naval artillery). Did they have any other brothers?

I take it you are from Croatia or somewhere in used to be Yugoslavia- do you have any good sources on this guy? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josip_Šokčević.

Based on his protest and resignation after the Austro-Hungarian compromise I take it he has some national identity (unlike many Magyar, Croat, and Czech officers serving the Habsburgs) and might break from the habsburgs under certain circumstances. Do you know of any any significant anti-habsburg, non establishment Croat nationalists at the time?

I'm not sure, but I dont think that he had any more brothers...

Yes, I'm from Croatia.
About sources, I'm sorry, I don't have anything special about ban Šokčević, IIRC he was pretty good ban, but you can see that in wikipedia.

He definitly had national identity, but you have to be aware that Jelačić ( both of them ) had national identity too, but circumstances were not so favourable to break from Monarchy. TTL circumstances are much more favourable to do that, so I don't think that it is impossible for Šokčević to do.
But, I would rather say that Šokčević will first ask Ban's Conference what to do, and maybe even make an elections for Sabor and then let them to decide.. That could lead to Parliament of 1861 two years earlier...

 

[yboxman]

Croat nationalism

I'm not sure, but I dont think that he had any more brothers...

Yes, I'm from Croatia.
About sources, I'm sorry, I don't have anything special about ban Šokčević, IIRC he was pretty good ban, but you can see that in wikipedia.

He definately had national identity, but you have to be aware that Jelačić ( both of them ) had national identity too, but circumstances were not so favourable to break from Monarchy. TTL circumstances are much more favourable to do that, so I don't think that it is impossible for Šokčević to do.
But, I would rather say that Šokčević will first ask Ban's Conference what to do, and maybe even make an elections for Sabor and then let them to decide.. That could lead to Parliament of 1861 two years earlier...

Interesting Idea....

a few other potential characters:

Ante Starcevic- the more Moderate Co-founder of the party of rights. "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ante_Starčević". He seems to have contradictory attitude towards Serbs And Bosniaks- defining Bosnia and Serbia as parts as Greater Croatia and their inhabitants as Croats- except for those possessing a Serbian nationalism which he defined as "slavo serbs" and the lowest breed of humanity (and he was, like many other nationalist politicians anti-semitic. But that doesn't matter much in Croatia as there were almost no Jews there, or in Bosnia or Serbia at the time. Banat is another story). Oddly enough catholicism seems to have played little part in his nationalism which seems to imply his Serb hatred was motivated primarily from political control and power issues rather than prejudice.

Eugene Kvaterik- The more radical founder of the party of rights. He actualy launched an armed rebellion in 1871 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rakovica_Revolt (also considered doing it OTL in 1859 but didn't receive backing from Italy or Hungary. TTL?) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugen_Kvaternik

Do you know anything about how the Croat, Slavonian and Banat military frontier distircts were managed back then? My impression was that many of the 1 million inhabitants of the frontier (mostly Croats and Serbs) were effectively reserve soldiers and that they were the largest such reserve in the Austrian empire (about 80,000 troops or 20-25% of the Austrian armed forces). If they are all mobilized and then ordered North to defend Vienna from the Russians while Croatia and the Banat are threatened by Hungarian nationalists... well, how do you think they would react? If the Turks use the occasion to reannex Serbia and Montenegro would that effect their inclinations? Were the officers commanding the frontier reserve formations mostly locals or German-Bohemian-whatever from elsewhere in the empire?

Another issue is administrative unity. Dalmatia, Croatia, Slavonia (and the two military frontiers. And the Banat) are all separate administrative units (or "kingdoms")- does the Ban of Croatia have some kind of overarching authority over all of them or is there no higher authority closer than Vienna? When everything falls apart who is the most authoritative "legitimate authority"?

For that matter, how were Croat-Serb Relations within Croatia at the time? I had the impression they fought mostly on the same side in 1848 but had tensions developed since? This is mostly relevent in terms of the military frontier where the Serbs are about equal in number to the Croats- and this is where Ante Starcevics "Serb issue" might play a role- but I'm not sure at what point it actually became an issue. Only after 1875? or before?

 

[abc123]

About Starčević, Starčević was in fact national liberal by political philosophy. I wouldn't say that he hated Serbs ( his mother was Orthodox ) he used "Slavo-Serbs" title for those in Croatia that didn't think that Croatia is strong enough to be independent, he wanted to say that they are slaves ( not free man ) and not Croats. He only started to use that name for Serbs after some Serbs said that all Croats are in fact Serbs...
Starčević was Croatian nationalist par excellance, but yes, he was anti-clerical, because he thought ( with right ) that leading members of Catholic Church in Croatia are foreigners who don't serve to interests of Croatia.
I wouldn say that he was anti-Semite, especially because his heir as president of Party of Rights was a Jew, Josip Frank.

His opinion on Bosnian Muslims as ethnic Croats of islamic faith was nothing special at the time, that was the prevailing view in Croatia at the time.
But Starčević did not wanted the territory of Serbia for Croatia. He wanted current Croatia and Bosnia-Hercegovina, and current Slovenia ( if Slovenians wanted to be part of Croatia ).

Yes, Kvaternik was more radical than Starčević, or better to say, less willing to wait.

About Military Frontier, they were commanded by generals, Croatian-Slavonian Military Frontier had general in Zagreb and he was commander. Soldiers from Military Frontier were not reservists, they were peasants-soldiers, whose profession was to be soldiers and they were allways ready for military service.
I presume that they are allready in battlefields, they were part of active army...

About Croatia-Slavonia, they are one political unit, ruled by ban and Sabor. Dalmatia formally belongs to Croatia-Slavonia but de facto is ruled separatly- by Vienna named governor.
Military Frontier also formally belongs to Croatia, but they are de facto ruled by military general in Zagreb.

Relations between Croats and Serbs were actuall pretty good at the time, alltrough Serbs were angry because of dissolution of "Serbian Vojvodina" and since parts of that Vojvodina were after that returned to Croatia, they were dissatisfied with that. You have to be aware that Starčević and his Party is still unknown in Croatia, only Sabor 1861 made them famous.

When evreything fells apart IMO the highest authority is Ban and Sabor.

 

[MerryPrankster]

Found this TL while I was self-kicked and liked it so much, I put it on my blog.

http://accordingtoquinn.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-second-napoleonic-wars-alternate.html

I am definitely watching this and I will comment, but my knowledge of this time period isn't very strong.

 

[yboxman]

Croatian and other nationalist movements

About Starčević, Starčević was in fact national liberal by political philosophy. I wouldn't say that he hated Serbs ( his mother was Orthodox ) he used "Slavo-Serbs" title for those in Croatia that didn't think that Croatia is strong enough to be independent, he wanted to say that they are slaves ( not free man ) and not Croats. He only started to use that name for Serbs after some Serbs said that all Croats are in fact Serbs...

So the anti-Serbian animosity wouldn't surface before 1875. or at least 1867 (When Serbia became independent).

Starčević was Croatian nationalist par excellance, but yes, he was anti-clerical, because he thought ( with right ) that leading members of Catholic Church in Croatia are foreigners who don't serve to interests of Croatia.

Hmmm.... If he gets his way would he try to establish a "national" catholic church, purge the top posts of the church (bishops, etc) from germans and other foreigners or seperate church from state? And how would his anti-clerical attitude impact his orientation Vs the Greek orthodox church and/or Muslims?

I wouldn say that he was anti-Semite, especially because his heir as president of Party of Rights was a Jew, Josip Frank."

Frank was a convert to catholic christianity at age 18. At that time antisemitism (which wasn't called that then. The term would be invented in Vienna to describe a racially rather than religiously based hatred. Call it Jew hatred for anti-clerical progressives) was based an religious affiliation, not "race". Some of the worst Jew bashers were converts from Judaism (Jew bashing was sort of their ticket into the gentile world). "Modern" racially based Antisemitism started precisely because converted Jews were so successful in integrating into the social-economic (and eventually political) elite and aroused envy and hatred from their Gentile competitors. Sort of similiar to the dynamic in Spain between 1391-1492. Point is that in the late 19th century there is no contradiction between being rabidly anti-Jewish and being friendly with converts from Judaism and even (if you are anti-clerical) with anti-religious assimilationist Jews. The crunch for those groups occurs much later at the dawn of the 20th century and reaches a crisis after WWI (1)

His opinion on Bosnian Muslims as ethnic Croats of islamic faith was nothing special at the time, that was the prevailing view in Croatia at the time.
But Starčević did not wanted the territory of Serbia for Croatia. He wanted current Croatia and Bosnia-Hercegovina, and current Slovenia ( if Slovenians wanted to be part of Croatia ).

Well, the question of Bosnia is rather academic during the crisis of Austrian dissolution. But it could become... interesting if Russia comes out on top and turns south. If Serbia survives, whether as puppet state or ally of Russia then some kind of conflict in Bosnia seems ineveitable. in an era where religious affiliation is a primary determinant of national alleigance Bosnian serbs will probably prefer to be part of a Greek orthodox Serb state rather than an Croat dominated Catholic majority state.

Then again, part of the reason Croats found Serb rule so unacceptable was that Serbs were more backward than Croats (Who were more backward than Slovenes). If the croat and slovene national movements fuse, whether as part as a federal Austrian empire or an independent state, then Serbs may be more willing to accept a subordinate position- sort of like White russians and Ukrainians in post WWI Poland (Mind you, they eventually broke away. Many of the later WWII partisan actions in eastern Poland were German backed Poles fighting Soviet backed White Russians and Ukrainians.)

As for Slovenia I can't see it being taken from Austria by force under almost any circumstances (for one thing it's officialy part of the German confederation and Prussia would probably oppose this). But possibly it could become fused with Croatia as part of a federal union compromise solution in a surviving Rump Austria. What would the Slovenes think about this? Would it generate the same anti-Croat feelings in Slovenia (Undeveloped oriental rural bumpkins lording it over "western" civilization) as the inclusion of Croatia in Yugoslavia generated anti-Serb feelings? I tend to think that the smaller difference in development, the common religion and Latin script and the smaller Slovene population would make integration eventually possible but not smooth.

Yes, Kvaternik was more radical than Starčević, or better to say, less willing to wait.

How long would he be willing to wait in TTL? Long enough for the moderates to come around to his way of thinking? The question is how willing is he to work with moderates and Habsburg officials and how successful will he be in suborning them , or being suborned by them. If those groups pull in different directions Croatia will see civil war between moderates, radicals and habsburg loyalists. If they work together Croatia may assume either independence or federal union within Austria (which would lead the Czechs to demand and probably get the same).

About Military Frontier, they were commanded by generals, Croatian-Slavonian Military Frontier had general in Zagreb and he was commander.

Who was he in 1859? The relevent question is whether he was Croat or an "outsider". If he's croat he may be suborned by nationalists. If outsider there's going to have to be a coup or an "accident" for Croatia to gain control of a real millitary rather than a "national guard" militia no better (and less numerous) than that of the Magyars .

Soldiers from Military Frontier were not reservists, they were peasants-soldiers, whose profession was to be soldiers and they were allways ready for military service.
I presume that they are allready in battlefields, they were part of active army...

My understanding was that they took a heck of a long time to mobilize for deployment outside the frontier (like, three months) and would only be used outside the frontier as last resort, especialy in the harvest season (because they were peasents with their own crops to tend). They were also less well equipped in artillery and other heavy equipment than regular units (since this required more training than they had and more funding than the empire had and more serious opponents than the ottomans were at the time.). That was one reason the frontier was eventually disestablished. I'm assuming they would be used to put down the Hungarian revolt rather than on the Italian/Galician front- until matters became desperate and the Habsburgs bug out of Hungary.

About Croatia-Slavonia, they are one political unit, ruled by ban and Sabor. Dalmatia formally belongs to Croatia-Slavonia but de facto is ruled separatly- by Vienna named governor.

Who was he at the time? German or Croat?

Military Frontier also formally belongs to Croatia, but they are de facto ruled by military general in Zagreb.

Ditto. And is he subordinate to the Ban or only to Vienna? Who does he take orders from if communication to Vienna is cut off?

Relations between Croats and Serbs were actuall pretty good at the time, alltrough Serbs were angry because of dissolution of "Serbian Vojvodina" and since parts of that Vojvodina were after that returned to Croatia, they were dissatisfied with that. You have to be aware that Starčević and his Party is still unknown in Croatia, only Sabor 1861 made them famous.

Hmmm. Which means what for internal warfare in the Banat? Could a Croat faction, Serbian faction, Magyar faction, Rumanian faction and German/habsburg loyalist faction each with their own military forces develop or will it be everyone against the Magyars? or everyone against the Germans? Or will the Croat/Serbs be the dominant German backed faction fighting both Romanian and Magyar? Or would Serb and Croat bash it out? How would the principality of Serbia become involved? What if Ottoman empire re-annexes Serbia during the fighting- and leads to flood of refugees across the Danube?

WAS there a Sabor, or a framework for the Sabor before 1861? How long did it take it to be called into being OTL and what was the trigger/key personalities?

When evreything fells apart IMO the highest authority is Ban and Sabor.

My opinion too. But does he has authority over the military as well as civil affairs? Over the Governor of Dalmatia? Over the Generals commanding the military frontier?

(1) Don't want to degenerate this discussion to a defense/accusation of Croat nationalism. Or any nationalism for that matter.

Most East-central European nationalist movement, German, Polish, Romanian, Serbian, Magyar or what have you have had some strand of exclusionary chauvinism, including antisemitism, of some magnitude or another (Yes, so did Jewish nationalism).

At the same time each of those national movements had an inclusive, liberal strand which sought to involve national and religious minorities in the nation building project, sometime through assimilation and sometime through autonomy.

In the post WWI years when those national movements achieved "victory" and were able to implement there programs the exclusive chauvanistic strand seems to have predominated everywhere (The Czechs are notable for not having a strong antisemitic component. They compensated by vindictively discriminating the large German minority).

All modern nationally aware and PC MittleEuropans I met and discussed this with had some national myth which explained how THEIR national movement was an epitome of liberalism and everything chauvanist and/or antisemitic in their national history was the work of their national rivals or a reaction to it (Ukarainians/Germans for Poles, Croats for Serbs, Bulgars for Greeks, Romanians and Slovaks for Magyars, and vice versa etc, etc, etc). My analysis is that in the wider scheme of things they are all pretty much equally right

One interesting question is whether an early (and partial?) disintegration of the Austrian empire would change the internal struggle within each national movement and lead to national states which are more liberal and inclusive. Or would it simply result in an earlier occurence of OTLs Stalinist (TTL tsarist?) fasciliated population transfers which eliminated many of East-Central Europe's minorities and formed "chauvanist myth" states under Russian power brokerage?

How this affects the development and expression of Jewish nationalism is another interesting question. OTL the kickstart to zionism was the 1877-1878 Russo turkish war and the inter-communal strife it spawned. Emancipated Western (mostly German) Jews organized relief and fasciliate emigration for their unemancipated Kin. The Hungarian conflict or an earlier Russo-Turkish war could result in something similiar- but are Western Jews confident enough to respond to the crisis as they did OTL?.

Bear in mind that if Russia is going to be top dog in Central Europe and the Balkans it's going to be, unlike the early OTL communists, openly (rather than unofficially) anti-semitic, pressuring Jews to emigrate somewhere. Unless successful reformers emancipate the Jews in Russia in the 1860s. And be open minded enough to view Jews in Central Europe as a potential pro-imperial party (As the Hapsburgs largely did. And as OTL Russia partly did in congress Poland. not that this made/would make Jews more popular in the national states) interesting question(s).

But we're a bit far away from discussing that. Right now I just want to make clear that pretty soon I'm going to get to describing the ethnic warfare in Hungary-Croatia-Slovakia-Transylvania-Banat. And I want to be as objective and plausible as possible in extrapolating likely events. Since the events will probably be quite bloody that probably means offending the national myths of the relevent nations. Just to make clear I have no particular axe to grind against or for any of the national groups involved so I'm not gunning for a particular outcome. Just going to take what I know about intergroup relations and power balance at the time and proceed along the likeliest (or dice generated improbability) course.

I admittedly have an axe to grind with my own group- but I'm going to do my very best to maintain plausability and probability so if you catch me pulling a Jewish/Israel Wank call me up on it. I think a exploration of how Jews fare in a East-Central Europe with an earlier, and more partial nationalistic truimph under Russian tutelage (possibly with a divided North America as a less attractive, welcoming and accessible escape) is more interesting than pulling a fast one to create an 1890s "greater Israel" or "European Jewish homeland". Both outcomes seem unlikely- then again, OTLs outcome would have seemed outlandishly unlikely in 1859. To summarize, I'm going to devote a somewhat disproportionate effort to speculating about TTLs Jewish nationalism (because I know more about our history than that of, say, Croatia or Hungary and because I care about it more) development but I'm not gunning for a particular outcome- this is an exercise is speculative fiction so all possibilities are open.

 

[abc123]

I don't have much time right now for a thorough answer ( and I also don't have all the informations right now ) so just a short answer:

a)
About Starčević and his anti-Serb feelings, yes, IMO not before 1875, or even maybe later... I should check in literature trough...

b)
Starčević had ideas about establishing Croatian Orthodox Church where Catholics would join and I presume that he had also a hidden agenda of pulling other Orthodox population in Croatia/Serbs there...

c)
True, Frank was converted to Christianity, but what in fact is Judaism- religion or nationality or both? I'm not sure that this question is solved even today, AFAIK amongh Israelis who I know, they mostly think that it's both the religion and the ethnic affiliation...

d)
True, Bosnia is academic question now, but do not think that Croatia at the time will forget about Bosnia.

e)
I don't know who is commander of Military Frontier at the time, but he was under command of Vienna

f)
Croats do not live in Banat, they live in Bačka

g)
Yes, ban was supreme commander of all forces in Croatia

 

[yboxman]

Bloody hell

Was planning to make the next post about Bismark's and Gorchakov's machinations in St Petersburg. Only problem is I just found out he was "exiled to Siberia" from his post of Prussian ambassador to the confederation at Frankfurt OTL only AFTER William I became regent and jettirsoned the more conservative cabinet of his brother. As part as that rearrangement Bismark was reassigned to St Petersburg.

Given that TTL William becomes regent in the middle as a massive international crisis I don't think he's going to reshuffle his ambassadors. Would Bismark have fallen afoul of liberals in court TTL as well even with Fredric William at the helm? Probably eventually but I don't think it will happen within a year of OTL.

This means that Bismark is going to be close to the decision making centers in Berlin and Frankfurt and will have a chance to make his input- but how much will William trust him? I think his personal friendship with Von Roon preceded his return from exile. If that is the case he has a friend in court. OTOH Bismark can not be the fascilitator of a Russian Prussian understanding.

In some ways this fits in better with where I thought the timeline would go (more likely for Prussia to seek power grab within German confederation rather than upholding Austrian power without it. Also more finesse in taking German consolidation one step at a time) in some ways it fits it less so (No master diplomat In St petersburg to negotiate understanding with Russia).

Thoughts and advice from Germanophiles and Bismarkphiles?

 

[yboxman]

I don't have much time right now for a thorough answer ( and I also don't have all the informations right now ) so just a short answer:

b)
Starčević had ideas about establishing Croatian Orthodox Church where Catholics would join and I presume that he had also a hidden agenda of pulling other Orthodox population in Croatia/Serbs there...

A croatian Orthodox Church?????????? You mean actually converting Catholic Croats to Orthodoxy? Or you mean an Orthodox church controled by the Croat government rather than a Patriach in Constantinopole? If you have any records on that Idea I'd like to see them. It would certainly make the Tsr more sympathetic to Croatian national aspirations... or not.

d)
True, Bosnia is academic question now, but do not think that Croatia at the time will forget about Bosnia.

Question is what they will be able to do about it. That depends on whether they remain part of the Austrian empire or not.

f)
Croats do not live in Banat, they live in Bačka

Touche. When referring to events from a Croat viewpoint or charcters I'll refer to it as Bačka.

g)
Yes, ban was supreme commander of all forces in Croatia

But not of the military frontier, right?

c)
True, Frank was converted to Christianity, but what in fact is Judaism- religion or nationality or both? I'm not sure that this question is solved even today, AFAIK amongh Israelis who I know, they mostly think that it's both the religion and the ethnic affiliation...

Well the question of "who is a Jew" is an interesting one to debate(1). but it's not the question. The Question is "who is an anti-semite"? And the answer is- one who hates Jews out of Predjudice rather than any significant cause. Obviously in 1859 that definition fits nearly everyone in Europe. However, the term is generally applied to those who put the hatred high in their list of public priorities and are active rather than passive about it.

In 1859 a "Jew" is someone who identifies himself as a Jew and someone who adopts Christianity turns his back on affiliation with the group. There is no ideological framework for hating such individuals back then so someone who accepts converts as "fellow Croats" or "Fellow Germans" does not show himself to be non anti-semitic. In this period at least.

For various reasons the term "anti-Semite" is used to define Jew hatred even before a certain http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Marr developed the pseudo scientific framework for rejecting assimilation (in 1881). Note that Wilhelm Marr was also a national liberal (though of the more leftist variety).

For the purposes of our discussion, once the idea that Jews remained Jews "racially" even if they abandoned their religion and language got into the air most of the people who put hatred of "Jewish Jews" as a high priority in their public agenda latched on to the Idea and also expressed hatred and distrust for "Non Jewish" Jews (again as in 15th century Spain). those who continued hating "Jewish Jews" while accepting "Non jewish jews" were usualy catholic clergy. Which way would Starčević have went if he those Ideas had spread to Croatia sooner? don't know. But certain of his succecors certainly adopted Marr's ideas- when they got there.

As on aside, and I'll refer to the issue later, Antisemitism as a political phenomenon is relevent to Jews for, well, obvious reasons. But this is not a "alternate Jewish history timeline- it's an alternate European histroy timeline.
So why bother referring to it except as an aside?

Because in terms of national development and international relations it is important for reasons which have nothing whatsoever to do with Jews. Without giving specific examples of contemporary countries (no, not Croatia. Or at least I don't think so.) large parties (over 10% of electorate) exist in certain Central and East European countries whose platform includes strong anti-semitic items.... even though almost no Jews are left in those countries! This was an especialy weird phenomenon in Communist Poland where internal strife in party leadership was fasciliated by accusing certain functionaries of having Jewish roots.

Hence antisemitism should also be viewed as a means to an end which may have nothing to do with anti-Jewish aims as such. But by obscuring the real issues at stake it prevents a open discussion of the real choices facing each society and distorts the political process and allows people and forces to come to power who could not have achieved power otherwise.

In the 19th-early 20th century, when Jews formed large minorities in Eastern and central Europe, hatred of them provided a strong organizing principle and social mobilization platform for various populist parties, both "progressive" and "reactionary". As Deinkin stated in 1919 "the antisemitic card is the only means by which we may win over the peasants of the Ukraine". The Jewish issue formed divisions even in Western countries such as France (Eg the Dreyfus affair). Like it or not, Those who adopted an Antisemitic public platform (as opposed to private views) were usually aligned with a particular side in the developing struggle for the social contract in each nation state.

It seems absurd to suggest that a minority consisting of less than 2% of Europe's population was so crucial in defining political development. But it seems that the existence of a group which couldn't easily be fitted into any prevailing political theory of citizenship and community forced a constant challenge to either develop such a theory or to force society to undergo convulsions until the "foreign element" was expelled. The romantic period was a period of moral and ideological absolutes. People wanted a total answer as to how to organize their nations- and the presence of Jews challenged that total answer.

A breakup of the Austrian empire, earlier ethnic warfare with no multinational empires to prevent it, a different unification of Germany and successful, or collosal failure of reforms in Russia is going to change how the "Jewish problem" (which is really a gentile problem) is discussed and adressed in Europe- and that will in turn affect European politics.

(1) My "simple" answer: to be a Jew is to be a member of a tribe defined by it's self identification. A certain common genetic heritage exists (except for yemenites, ethiopians, Indians and caucasians) but it's not a important part of the self-identification. Judaism as a religious-social system is a large part, though not the only part, of the means of identification. One can wish to change the symbols of identification (reform, conservative) or reject them as anachronistic and seek to maintain their "inner meaning" in secular terms (Such as the socialist founders of Israel...). But adopting the symbols and belief systems of other "tribes" means that one is no longer a member of the Jewish tribe.

In practical terms, studying the statistics in the U.S, the children of Jews who are non-religious or who define their Jewishness in cultural terms tend to reject Jewish identity to a far larger degree than Religious Jews. So whatever the self identification the objective reality is that outside Israel, in the long term, it's religious Judaism or no Judaism.

 

[EnglishCanuck]

Oh I'm sincerely looking forward to the butterflies that will crop up in the civil war

 

[abc123]

Starčević was proponent of integration of all people living in Croatia ( never mind their ethnic background ) into one single Croatian political nation. That includes Jews. That's why I said that he was nationalist ( his prime goal was establishment of Croatian state ) liberal ( he was for universal suffrage, parliamentary monarchy, written Constitution, rule of law, Croatia as political nation... ).

Here's a citation of part of one of his speeches:
mi iskreno ljubimo i za brata deržimo i Serba, i Nemca, i Talijana, i Žida, i Ciganina, i Luterovca, itd., svakoga tko radi za obćenito dobro svega naroda i cele domovine, a plašimo se jednako i Hervata i Serba, itd., svakoga tko je proti onim skupnim svetinjam

"We sincerely love and hold as our brother Serb, German, Italian, Jew, Gipsey or Lutheran etc., evreybody who works for greater good of whole nation and whole Homeland, and we are afraid of Croat, Serb etc., anybody who is against those sacret things"

I can't find any source about Croat Orthodox Church ( and conversion of Croats catholics ) so please ignore that part.

You don't think that coalition of Croatia, Serbia, Montenegro, Bulgaria, Greece, with support of Russia, wouldn't be able to defeat the Ottomans?

No, ban was not commander of military frontier, but until recently there were 2 regiments in Military Frontier that were under command of Ban.

About officers in Military Frontier, I presume that there was a mixture of officers, Gremans, Croats, Serbs, Hungarians etc...

Antisemitism in Croatia was allmost unexistant at the time, at least I'm not aware of it, there maybe was somewhere hatred of peasnats/debtors towards some Jew that was marchant/money lender, but in general- no.

In fact, Eugen Kvaternik was one of first proponents of establishing of Croatian Orthodox Church.

 

[Hashoosh]

Great timeline! Just finished reading it, and you've really done an extraodinary job on the details.

Just a minor tidbit, OTL Napoleon III stopped the Italian War before the acquisition of Venetia, as a hedge against Italy growing too powerful (and threatening French interests), at least IIRC.

Could the Anglo-Prussians construe FJ's death reasonably near to the Bund's borders as a Franco-Piedmontese violation? I assume that at Garibaldi's presence within the borders was already a sore spot, not to mention French forces dogging them so closely in pursuit!

Thanks for writing this yboxman, I love this period of European History. It'll be interesting to see how Sweden reacts to the Second Schlesswig war as well, given Prussian involvements against France and Russia.

 

[yboxman]

Russian-Ottoman prospects, and a FINAL word on Jews in Croatia

You don't think that coalition of Croatia, Serbia, Montenegro, Bulgaria, Greece, with support of Russia, wouldn't be able to defeat the Ottomans?

In 1860? Define defeat. If you mean march on Constantinopole and free all of Europe from Ottoman rule then I'm not sure.

Bear in mind that:
1. The Russians are at the Nadir of their relative power to the Rest of Europe and the Ottomans. Their social system, military organization and civil bueracracy are outdated. They have 0 industrialization. No railways beyond the Moscow-St Petersburg line. And The Black sea has been demilitarized after the Crimean war so no fleet and no coastal fortifications. Ottomans can raid their shores and outflank them with marines with impunity.

2. This isn't 1911. Greece, Serbia, Montenegro don't have a real army. indeed the latter two are still under partial Ottoman occupation. And Greece won't join the war if Britain intervenes. Bulgaria doesn't exist. And the Bulgarian uprisings may be butterflied away with no Circassian resettlement to incite them.

3.Speaking of which the Russians ending the Circassian war without eliminating the Circassains (see post #3) may mean that a war against the Ottoman will force them to start the Cricassian war all over again.

OTOH:

4. While the Crimean war is generally viewed as an abbysmal Russian military disaster, on the caucaus front where Russia and the Ottomans clashed directly the Russians were generaly victorious and made some modest gains (Kars) in spite of having Chechen, Circassian and Abkhaz uprisings at their backs.

5. 1825 and 1877 ended in fairly sweeping Russian victories on the field. However, Russia was operating as part of a general European coalition in 1825 and had railways, a superior fleet and a greater demographic/technological advantage in 1877. And the campaigns were still typified by early bungling and required more than one campaigning season to conclude.

6. Egypt and Persia are real threats to the Ottomans in 1860. If they could be induced to backstab the Ottomans in Asia....

7. A croatian, or Austro-Croatian ally in the Western Balkans is a major drain on Ottoman forces.

8. Russia does have a 3:1 demographic advantage and is has (at least) parity in technology and organization.

My take is that absent British intervention Russia will eventually grind the Ottomans out of most of the Balkans over a long war lasting more than a year but be unable to take Constantinopole. That's only possible if they can get Egypt and Persia to join in the fun (which may also shorten the war).

If Britain makes a crimean war level intervention then Russia will only make limited gains (Regain Besarbia independence for Romania and Serbia). If a naval intervention then possibly an independent Bulgaria. If France counteracts Britain in the meditirianian then the ultimate result is similliar to no British intervention but the war is longer (Russia gives it it's all since they believe this is the best chance they have for total victory).

Would Britain intervene? I think that largely depends on what else is going on. If Britain needs to balance:
a. Defending Canada from an all out U.S invasion/Fighting localized war in Pacific Northwest/ maintianing credible force to resolve the Puget sound dispute without losing face
b. Fighting gull blown naval war with France/Blockading France as punishment for invading Belgium/Deterring France from invading Belgium
c. Keeping France from anahiliating Prussia/Keeping Prussia from anahliating France/Mediating an end to a stalemated war.
d. Keeping Russia from taking constantinopole/ Keeping Russia from Driving Ottoman empire out of Balkans/Maintaining Ottoman suzerainty in Romania-Serbia-montenegro

Well, what would their priorities be? Would it matter which crisis erupts first? Would they try to keep a handle on everything or triage and retreat in one theater or another?

Antisemitism in Croatia was allmost unexistant at the time, at least I'm not aware of it, there maybe was somewhere hatred of peasnats/debtors towards some Jew that was marchant/money lender, but in general- no.

Jews were nearly nonexistant in Croatia at the time. Remember, we were banned from entering the country until the 1783 Habsburg edict of toleration and were forbidden from owning land or homes until 1859. Full emancipation only occured in 1873. Most of the 4,000 Jews in Croatia in 1860 were migrants from Hungary. Their numbers would increase, mainly through migration to 12,000 in 1880 and 20,000 in 1900 But would drop after WWI when Yugoslavia expelled recent immigrants, made the lives of the remainder unpleasent and prohibited further immigration. Thus in WWII there were only 23,000 Jews in Croatia. By which point modern antisemitism had reached Croatia.

What happens if Croatia recieves independence early? Don't know. Since the decision to "gradually" emancipate the Jews was made by the Sobor in 1840 I imagine it will eventually be implemented. But I suspect that no further immigration would be welcome. What happens later? That depends on the general course of European progress from there.


the point is:
1. Modern antisemitism had not reached croatia in 1859 (and was only starting to emerge in Germany and Western Europe) but the medevial attitudes still prevailed, else the anti-Jewish laws would have been canceled sooner.

2. Modern antisemitism generally emerged exactly because Jews accepted the liberal, anti-clerical, nationalist invitation to integrate and assimilate into gentile society. When they proved too successful- wham, a pseudo scientific theory explaining why they could never be "true" Magyars/Germans/Poles/Frenchmen/Croats.

Croatia developed it's own version of this and it emerged from within the "party of rights" and it's ideology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ante_Pavelić#Birth_and_education, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ustaše. Those are the facts and I trust I need not go into details. What Starčević himself would have thought of subsequent developments to his party and ideology we can only speculate.

here is one of his tracts from the 1880s: ""Jews ... are the breed, except a few, without any morality and without any homeland, the breed of which every unit strives to its personal gain, or to its relatives' gain. To let the Jews to participate in public life is dangerous: throw a piece of mud in a glass of the clearest water - then all the water will be puddled. That way the Jews spoiled and poisoned the French people too much"."

Did he say this because Jews were (mostly) pro-Habsburg or Pro-Magyar? Because he was trying to raise support through populist agitation with the peasants? Because Jewish immigration into Croatia was rising? Because he was genuinely infatuated with the ideas of modern Anti-Semitism? I don't know.

There's an interesting analysis of him here http://books.google.co.il/books?id=...EcQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=Starčević jews&f=false

but I won't go too far into this here.

Why? since my point, in this timeline, is not to either malign or defend him or other nationalist leaders of the time. It is, among other things, to speculate on how the movements they started would have evolved under different political circumstances.

(And yes, I'm aware of the paradox of many of the Utase leadership being married to spouses, or having themselves, some Jewish parentage. They also decided out of the blue that they were the descendents of German goths rather than Slavs. just goes to show that there is nothing logically consistent about ideological racism. And that some people trying to "Fit in" by denying their origin have no moral compunctions about how far they are willing to go in doing so)

3. If I were making a nice timeline it would of course assume that an earlier national liberation from the habsburgs would result in greater acceptance of the Jews, and atittudes that are PC in OTL But I'm aiming at a realistic timeline. Historically, Jews did better in Polygot empires than in nation states. Would this be the case if nation states in East-Central Europe arose earlier? don't know. But as this is heavily dependent on Russian internal developments, the new balance of power in Europe, the level and duration of the upcoming period of warfare, demographic outlets, etc I'll lay off the topic and continue developing the timeline. Let's see where it takes us, shall we?

 

[yboxman]

Great timeline! Just finished reading it, and you've really done an extraodinary job on the details.

thanks man, spread the word! The more readers, the more feedback and the more detailed and realistic the timeline.

Just a minor tidbit, OTL Napoleon III stopped the Italian War before the acquisition of Venetia, as a hedge against Italy growing too powerful (and threatening French interests), at least IIRC.

That was the Piedmontese perception. Most analysis suggests that he stopped because of the near stalemate at Solefino, deficiencies in the French army, personal squeemishness at the French casulties and fear of prussian mobilization. he WANTED to fulfill his end of the bargain with Piedmont so he could annex Nice and Savoy (OTL he made the annexation a condition for agreeing to Piedmontese acquistion of Tuscany and the papal legations). My take is that with no Prussian mobilization following Solefino and with a gretaer victory AND a great power ally to whom he has commitments and wishes to collaborate with in the future he'd go for the kill. Literaly as it turned out.

P.S. what the blazes is IIRC????

Could the Anglo-Prussians construe FJ's death reasonably near to the Bund's borders as a Franco-Piedmontese violation? I assume that at Garibaldi's presence within the borders was already a sore spot, not to mention French forces dogging them so closely in pursuit!

Now there's a thought! I actually hadn't considered that, Mostly because I was considering the Prussian viewpoint through a realpolitik strategic lens- would they stand more by intervening than they would risk. And from that viewpoint a smashing Austrian defeat supports a strategy of consolidating Germany at the expense of Austria rather than defending Austria in hopes of increased prestige in Germany. But of course in the real world Realpolitik isn't the only consideration.

Thanks for writing this yboxman, I love this period of European History. It'll be interesting to see how Sweden reacts to the Second Schlesswig war as well, given Prussian involvements against France and Russia.

Well, there may not BE a Second Schlesswig war, or at least not stemming from the same reasons (succession crisis), happening at the same time, and with the same participants. As for Sweden their sympathies were heavily with the Danes but OTL they saw fighting against the combined armies of Austria, Prussia and the confederation as a lost cause. If it looks like the Danes have a great power ally (France or a Franco-Russian alliance) they may very well weigh in on the side of the Danes... though the Danish royal family may end up regretting it.

 

[yboxman]

Oh I'm sincerely looking forward to the butterflies that will crop up in the civil war

May take a while if I stick to a detailed progression.... probably look to an update regarding a certain pig in Puget sound in about 5-6 posts.

 

[naraht]

Historically, Jews did better in Polygot empires than in nation states.

Oddly enough the best example of this I've seen in a TL is Decades of Darkness for which the idea of a Jew in high office in any of the 4 largest Powers (Germany, Russian Empire, *USA, or the Restored Empire) isn't out of the question and all of which appear to have >10% of people living within the boundaries of the Nation who have the primary language of Government as a Second Language.

 

[yboxman]

#15: Blood and Iron, Cloaks and daggers


The collected Correspondences, journals and speeches of Otto Von Bismark, Oxsford university press, 1922:

April 1st 1859, letters to Joanah Von Bismarck
I have spent another fruitless day of posturing in consultations regarding reform today. The truth, my dearest Johana, is that no compromise is possible. The petty rulers of the accursed Trias wish to prolong negotiations indefinitely so that they may keep their independence of action and be bought off, as the occasion suits them, by subsidies and honors from either Prussia or Austria. Their main aim is not to reach a resolution of outstanding issues but to simply drive up their price. With one exception perhaps. Maximillian of Bavaria has his own ambitions, his own dreams of power extending beyond the highlands of Bavaria. Absurd as these dreams are it may well be worth to cultivate them.

For Austria this state of affairs is precisely as they wish. After all, they realize that the rot runs too deep within their polygot empire to ever assume rulership of Germany as is Prussia's destiny to accomplish, if not in my own day, then in Herbert's. For them too it is better to maintain the petty states as vassals for they can be certain that they shall check Prussia's power even as Prussian arms protect them from both the French republicanism and Russian despotism.

May 1st 1859, Personal journal
So it is war. I will not write of this, even to Joanah. But this may yet prove to be the most fortuitous event to occur in my post as minister to the Confederation. The Austrian minister tries to keep up a light air but his tension is palapable. All can feel it, and those who have in the past showed deference and caution now whisper behind closed doors.

June 1st 1859, Letters to Alberecht Von Roon(1)
My dear friend. I must implore upon you to speak with all urgency with the king. This is the moment for Prussia to seize leadership. It is clear by now that the war may well last for months and is not a casual border scuffle. For Prussia to navigate these currents and lead the lesser states in a clear purpose we must clench our mailed fist, and clench it hard (2). I well understand political difficulties in court (3) but surely those difficulties cannot compare to those which will arise if we drift without purpose awaiting the tender mercies of others?

June 25th 1859 Letters to Alberecht Von Roon (4)
News have just reached us. Now. Now is the time to gather our armies and march south to lake Constance or wherever the dominance of Protestantism ends (5). Whatever the dangers of social revolution they are as nothing should we fail to seize Prussia's destiny (6). I understand of course our military limitations all too well. I may not have the benefits of your own exalted experience (7) but it seems to me that when faced with many potential enemies it is best to make some your allies. It makes no point to play chess while denying yourself 16 squares of the board! As to France we both know what Napoleon III lusts after- we can have no hope of reaching an accomodation with him at terms acceptable to the public or our own dignity and security (8). But Russia's aims are of no concern to us- Whether Turk or Slav predominates in the Balkans is an issue not worth the Bones of a single Pomeranian grenadier (9). Yet Russia's ultimate aims are in conflict with French mercentalism (10). Can something not be made of this?


July 25th 1859, personal journal
In spite of our past differences (11) the regent understands at least what must be done. I fear however that he acts too late. I must act quickly to make clear to him that I am not to be grouped with Mantufel and the other relics of the council and that the past must remain in the past. We, after all, are men of the future.

July 26th 08:00, Telegram to Johanna Von Bismark (12)
Pray inform our dear friend that I will be in Berlin on the Morrow and that I look forward to a small, private dinner with those whom he thinks appropriate.

July 28th personal journal
I have met with the Austrian and Bavarian ministers. They are mine!

July 29th 1859 48th Speech to the DeutchBund Diet
The Vaterland is in Peril! The struggle being waged on the plains of Lombardy with the bastard child of the French wars (13) is a danger not only for the Habsburgs but to all of Germany. Prussia, Austria, and now Bavaria have already called their manhood to arms. Will Hannover and Saxony, Baden and Wurtenburg stint of blood and treasure to defend our common homeland? (14) I call not for German soldiers defend the Habsburg realms lying outside the boundaries of Germany(15)- only to move, to the Bavarian Palatinate under the command of Bavaria and to the Prussian Rhineland under the command of Prussia to defend our common Western border (16). Problems arising from the Joint command of the two forces will be mediated by Austria (17)

(1) That is, mobilize
(2) Prussian minister of war http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albrecht_von_Roon
(3) Liberals are making a fuss about the costs of mobilization and the arch-conservative king Fredrik Willams prefers not to give them a chance to hold him over a fire. The downside of having a reserve army is that getting it mobilized is a really hard political decision to make.
(4) In a properly functioning civil service Bismark should be addressing this letter to his boss Von Mantufel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Theodor_von_Manteuffel. But in the upper levels the Prussian civil service is based on influence and friendship, not formal titles. And Mantuffel, unlike his soon to be successor, is a statist.
(5) OTL quote from his letters from St Petersburg. And lake Constance? It's in Switzerland…
(6) Bismark isn't actually the monomaniacal fanatic his opponents make him sound- this is just him playing to the crowd. Like many nationalist politicians of the time how he says something means more to his audience than what he actually says.
(7) Bismark is a lieutenant in the reserves. This is about as low as someone as his aristocratic background can be.
(8) Bismark would change his mind later in life. What Napoleon III wants is of course the Left Bank of the Rhine. The Prussian Rhineland, Dutch ruled and Prussian garrisoned Luxembourg, The Bavarian palatinate and Belgium.
(9) OTL when Bismark said this (1878) he didn't actually mean it and was just trying to make himself out as an honest broker. TTL the strategic situation is different.
(10) France at this time still dominates the East meditiranian markets- partly because of diplomatic privillage accorded to it by Egypt and the Ottoman empire.
(11) In 1848 Bismark tried to have Fredrick William replaced (after he effectively surrendered to the revolutionaries) by the teenage son of William (Fredrick Williams brother the current regent), the future Fredrick III. William's wife Augusta vetoed this and was massively offended. She distrusted Bismark ever since and infected William (who had fled to England during the revolution) with the same attitude.
(12) Bismark is worried about his letters being monitored and no longer wishes to commit sensitive information to writing.
(13) Bismark does not mention anything about Russia because he wishes to maintain good terms with them and also because the small German states have no border with Russia or history of conflict with it.
(14) Well, yes, he is laying it on a bit thick. But the speech isn't aimed at the delegates to the Diet or their rulers. They're aimed at the nationalist newspapers and the masses. He's backing the minor rulers into a corner where if they do not comply with the call for total mobilization they will face unrest from their own populations. The delegates and the rulers of the German states understand Bismark's game. What they don't realize is that he's playing another game within that game.
(15) Actualy, Posen and both East and West Prussia are not part of the German confederation though most in Germany view them as "german" in a way Hungary is not.
(16) This is Bismark's finesse at work. He realizes that neither Austria nor the Minor states will accept Prussian command of ALL German confederation forces. He also realizes that Bavaria is the only other German state with both a direct stake in collective security Vs France AND imperial dreams of it's own. So he's playing to their vanity. They aren't aware of his deeper design yet. In practice Bavaria will assume, or demand, command of the Baden, Wurtenburg and the grand margrivate of Hessen. Prussia gets the rest except for a Saxon detachment under the crown prince moving in to defend the Moravian approach to Vienna. Prussia and Austria both have their "vassal" states which vote automaticly with them. With Saxony supporting Austria and Bavaria lobbying for this measure as well the other states grudgingly avoid active and open opposition to the joint mobilization.
(17) Who will command no troops of their own on the Rhine. You can probably see where this is going, right?

 

[Codae]

P.S. what the blazes is IIRC????

If I Recall Correctly.

Another nice update. What are Bismarck's ultimate plans for the South--too Catholic for incorporation?

 

[yboxman]

Oddly enough the best example of this I've seen in a TL is Decades of Darkness for which the idea of a Jew in high office in any of the 4 largest Powers (Germany, Russian Empire, *USA, or the Restored Empire) isn't out of the question and all of which appear to have >10% of people living within the boundaries of the Nation who have the primary language of Government as a Second Language.

DOD rocks! But I only remember a Jewish president in the *USA. Not in Germany, the restored empire or Russia of all places.

Bear in mind that the minorities in each place have rather different statues. In Russia I think the North chinese are actualy the "majority" albeit ruled as a vassal state. It's left unstated but I sort of assume there is some kind of "official nationality" for the empire as a whole and that the Ukrainians and White Russians are being assimilated.

In Germany the Hungarians, Croats, Poles and Courland are autonomous states but excluded from central decision making processes while the Czechs, Flemish (and Dutch for that matter), North Italians and Valonese-Swissfrench are expected to become good Germans over time (just as Slovaks, Rumanians and Serbs are expected to become good Magyars).

Come to think of it the DOD Germany and DOD Russia have a similliar nationalities policy- assimilate those who are in the heartland and keep the rest as dependent states.

To be perfectly Honest Jews are unlikely to flourish in these surroundings in the long run, especially in Russia where they live in the hearland rather than the periphery and the "official nationality" is heavily based on Orthodox christianity. Eventually minister X realizes that some pressure to assimilate should be exerted. Same problem in Germany's dependent Kingdom of Poland.

As for the *USA.... well between the slaves, the peons and the jumped up haciendos Jews will fit right in. They did pretty well in OTLs confederacy, Brazil and South Africa (Though the early Boer nationalists had a brush with anti-semitism)

the restored empire seems to be a PC rainbow nation where anyone can keep their own culture and language so long as he knows how to put on a proper dinner jacket and shout "God praise the King"! That's probably the most congenial environment for Jews to both prosper and avoid assimilation.

However, while I admire the heck out of Jared the evolution of Russia towards federal constitutional monarchy seemed a bit too pat. I didn't feel it flowed organically from the POD the way *Germany did. I put it down to him focusing on other parts of the world.

 

[yboxman]

If I Recall Correctly.

Another nice update. What are Bismarck's ultimate plans for the South--too Catholic for incorporation?

That too but mostly too big to gulp down before the French and Russians disengage from Austria and too useful as an ally to hold the French at bay. Ultimately? in Bismark's mind the same as OTL (but probably vassalization instead of federalization). but France must first be crushed, hopefully with the aid of Bavaria.

Alternately, his dream project is a "triple alliance" and Custom union between North Germany, South Germany and rump Austria with a central decision making mechanism which is dominated by the Prussian Kaiser- but centered at Frankfurt.

 

[MerryPrankster]

So Prussia is intervening on Austria's side against France?

Oh boy. Big doings are afoot.