WI the Franco-Prussian War went the other way?

[Husky_Khan]

Well unless someone win's an early knock-out blow or the non-British side has developed some version of the Boach-Haber process their going to lose, probably within a year or two. Although Russia would probably accept a limited defeat as invading deep inside it would be pretty much pointless.

Well there's too many butterflies to count but if we want a good long thick Great War it should be noted then that Fritz Haber and Carl Bosch both did a lot of their work and IIRC met each other through their alma mater of the University of Heidelberg and did their work on the Haber-Bosch Process while the former was the Professor of Chemistry at the University of Karlsruhe, both of which were in Baden-Wurttenburg and then they opened the first Haber-Bosch process plant (that sounds funny) in Baden-Wurttemberg as well since the first chemical company that sponsored and industrialized the process, BASF, was also based in Baden-Wurttemberg.

Baden-Wurttemberg throughout the 19th Century was also rather firmly in the Austrian camp then the Prussian one as well. That changed with the sweep of Germanic patriotism (though they'd always be antagonistic of Prussia and vice versa) with the Franco-Prussian War but if there's a reversal there's little reason to see this go to Austria (and France's) gain in the wake of a French victory in 1870. Plus France (as well as other countries like Norway and the USA etc) had found more expensive alternatives or methodologies of doing something similar to the Haber-Bosch process. There were many skilled French Chemists at the time including Henry Le Chatelier who in fact had some good experiments with often even more explosive results (though that was due to pressure ) which may or may not have the same effects it does in OTL.

So excusing other butterflies, the non-British coalition could potentially get amany of the ammonia noms.

 

[Navarro]

So I'd guess that it'd end up with Russia, Prussia, Italy, and possibly the Ottoman Empire against France and Austria (not including various lesser powers on each side). Assuming things actually line up like this, Britain would likely end up joining France and Austria to balance things a bit. Though, it's also possible other significant changes happen. Perhaps some of the minor powers become significant. Perhaps Spain joins France instead of maintaining neutrality. Perhaps Denmark and Sweden ally with Prussia, or the Netherlands and Norway with Britain. So many potential butterflies between the two events, and nothing saying it has to have the same cause or happen at the same time (could be earlier, could be later, could have the exact same things happen but the alliances unfold differently).

Russia and the OE going on the same side is impossible. Russia viewed itself as the direct legacy of Byzantium and defender of the Orthodox Church as well as the Slavic peoples; and for this and various other geo-strategic reasons (WARM WATER PORT) had a long-standing strategic goal of dismantling the Ottoman Empire and taking Constantinople.

 

[Navarro]

Well, in the leadup to this timeline's WW1, we have two main groups of opponents: France-Prussia and Russia-Austria (possibly in control of southern Germany). Either combination of the two groups should be reasonable, though from what other people are saying Prussia+Russia and France+Austria seem most likely.

Ottoman Empire just wants to not collapse, but is an opponent to both parts of the Austria/Russia conflict. In real life, they were friendly with Germany, Britain, and France, so they could still end up neutral or on either side.

Italy wants territory that belongs to Austria, which is what led to them joining the Allies. They'll almost certainly align against them.

Britain just wants there to not be a winner on the continent. Given the weaker Prussia instead of the German Empire (and evidence of France being stronger than Prussia given their victory).

Not to mention the other factors. What if France carries out *Plan XII and invades through Belgium, for instance?

 

[Buba]

Russia and the OE going on the same side is impossible.

There is no such thing as impossible in politics.
IIRC Russia sided with the Ottomans against Egypt in the mid 1830s.

 

[Skallagrim]

Russia and the OE going on the same side is impossible. Russia viewed itself as the direct legacy of Byzantium and defender of the Orthodox Church as well as the Slavic peoples; and for this and various other geo-strategic reasons (WARM WATER PORT) had a long-standing strategic goal of dismantling the Ottoman Empire and taking Constantinople.

There is no such thing as impossible in politics.
IIRC Russia sided with the Ottomans against Egypt in the mid 1830s.

Even if "impossible" is always a big word, it's still exceedingly unlikely here. The Ottomans have to choose between blocs containing two historical foes; Austria and Russia. But at this time, the Ottoman holdings in the Balkans have really crumbled away over the past few decades (entirely or almost so, depending on when this war breaks out). This means that the bone of contention with Austria is basically gone.

Meanwhile, the Ottomans and Russia are still at odds -- and heatedly so -- over the Caucasus region, where they have overlapping ambitions. Literally the only reason the Ottomans are going to join any bloc with Russia in it is if Russia agrees to recognise the Ottoman claims there. Which Russia won't do. Therefore, the Ottomans are neutral, or join the anti-Russian bloc in order to reap the spoils of victory. I find the latter more plausible, because France is historically friendly to them (and in the anti-Russian bloc), and because the Ottomans would understand that if the Russian side wins, they'll dominate Europe. Which means that after the war, Russia will be free to wage war on the Ottomans... without any other power being able to help the Ottomans out.

If Britain joins against France, however, they should be able to enforce a policy keeping the Ottomans neutral. That is: Britain guarantees Ottoman security post-war, thus ruling out Russian aggression even if the Ottomans sit the war out. That's possible.

The Ottomans joining the Russian side, however, remains vanishingly unlikely.

 

[Circle of Willis]

Spain was mentioned - a different France may have bearing on the IIIrd Carlista War.
Maybe French intervention to put Carlos on the Spanish throne? Or maybe France backs the Republic?
Or breakup of Spain into Castille (republic? King Afonso?) and Aragon-Biscaya/Navarra (King Carlos)?
Even a shorter Carlista War - four years in OTL - changes the playing board as Spain will be less damaged i.e. stronger.
Also - changes in Spain = different course of events in Cuba and Philippines ...

I could definitely see a longer-lived Second French Empire backing the Carlists. Empress Eugenie and Napoleon IV were both staunch Catholics as I've said before, in particular Eugenie was a zealous ultramontane who was one of the prime pushers for Napoleon III to maintain a Roman garrison for the Pope's protection in the first place, and until (and if) he abdicates Amadeo of Spain is the second son of the Italian king Victor Emmanuel - sure to be a strategic enemy of France's because of said Roman garrison. Supporting Infante Carlos seems like the most logical move they'd make, not just out of personal sentiment but to buttress their southern flank against Savoyard ambitions.

Not sure Britain would look favorably on France setting up an allied regime in Spain, however - IIRC they were traditionally backers of the Spanish liberals, or at least they were during the First Carlist War 40 years prior. If they do nothing and the Burgundian cross flies over Madrid again, what changes do you think they'd make to colonial policy? To my understanding the Carlists were an extremely reactionary bunch who wanted to grant Catalonia & the Basque country some medieval-era privileges (in opposition to the centralizing policies of their modernist opponents), but does that mean they'd be inclined to do the same for the colonies?

 

[Husky_Khan]

Not to mention the other factors. What if France carries out *Plan XII and invades through Belgium, for instance?

That would be dependent perhaps on the status of the Rhineland territories and other borderlands I would think. It's probably easier to move troops through friendly territory even if it's limited or elongated supply lines from France if the risk is having to go through Belgium as an aggressor.

 

[stevep]

Spain was mentioned - a different France may have bearing on the IIIrd Carlista War.
Maybe French intervention to put Carlos on the Spanish throne? Or maybe France backs the Republic?
Or breakup of Spain into Castille (republic? King Afonso?) and Aragon-Biscaya/Navarra (King Carlos)?
Even a shorter Carlista War - four years in OTL - changes the playing board as Spain will be less damaged i.e. stronger.
Also - changes in Spain = different course of events in Cuba and Philippines ...

Now that could give some strong butterflies. Not just in terms of the US of course, Either a slightly harder Spanish American war - or a lot harder if an allied French empire is drawn into the conflict which could escalate into an earlier WWI - or possibly avoid it altogether.

I think a conservative French empire would be more likely to support the Carlists in Spain, which is likely to cause tensions with Britain among others. In which case this is more likely to put Britain on the Prussian/N German side in a later conflict regardless of where Russia and Austria end up.

That would be dependent perhaps on the status of the Rhineland territories and other borderlands I would think. It's probably easier to move troops through friendly territory even if it's limited or elongated supply lines from France if the risk is having to go through Belgium as an aggressor.

I would agree. Presuming that such a state is still friendly, which isn't certain to be the case if a conservative France overplays its big brother/overlord relation, it would be easier than through Belgium. Not to mention the latter would pretty much make certain British opposition even if not before. Also would Belgium give access to much of a N German state as I would think the Rhineland would be in the way? As such pretty much pointless unless your planning to loop even further north through the Netherlands.

 

[Jarow]

Might as well add in Asian powers to my previous list of countries' opinions on the two sides:

China wants people to get off it's lawn. Unfortunately for them, everyone (well, Europe and Japan) is still nibbling at it. Either side costs it to participate, but it costs about as much not to participate, so there's no reason not to get involved in some side in an attempt to reclaim something. If it sides with anyone, it'll probably join with the one power not to try taking it over - the United States (assuming it does join in).

Japan wants to be seen as an equal to the European powers. Therefore, it needs to get involved in one side or the other. In our timeline, it was a British ally, but this was built as an alliance against Russia. Given a more active anti-French focused British Empire, it's not improbable Japan ends up French allied instead.

Maybe bring up some minor powers too. Denmark and Sweden were both pro-Prussia, but neither was willing to get involved. Norway was strongly pro-British but neutral. With Prussia and Britain together (along with their biggest threat Russia), it wouldn't be unreasonable for them to get pulled in, though it's not impossible the different alliance setup makes them more pro-France than in our world. Belgium was being defended by everyone, and officially neutral as part of that defense setup. Netherlands had no allies, but relied on people not wanting their opponents to take its territory for protection.

So we're currently at:

Highly Probable Prussian Side:
Prussia/North Germany
Russia
Italy
British Empire

Highly Probable French Side:
France
Austria/South Germany
Japan

Likely Prussian Side/Neutral:
Denmark
Sweden
Norway
USA

Likely French Side/Neutral:
Ottoman Empire
Spain

Unknown:
Belgium (probably against whichever of France/Prussia gets the idea of attacking the other through it)
Netherlands
South American Nations
China

Neutral:
Switzerland

So, Europe looks a lot like WWI switching Germany and France and adding Spain to the Central Powers-equivalent, but in Asia Japan is on the opposite side. If I had to guess China would probably align with the United States, meaning likely Prussia. Pacific Theatre might end up getting interesting as opposed to everyone teaming up to get rid of the handful of German colonies in the area we saw in our timeline.

 

[Navarro]

China being involved at all in alt-WW1 is doubtful. I don't see any of this butterflying away the fall of the Qing and consequent chaos.

 

[Skallagrim]

Might as well add in Asian powers to my previous list of countries' opinions on the two sides:

China wants people to get off it's lawn. Unfortunately for them, everyone (well, Europe and Japan) is still nibbling at it. Either side costs it to participate, but it costs about as much not to participate, so there's no reason not to get involved in some side in an attempt to reclaim something. If it sides with anyone, it'll probably join with the one power not to try taking it over - the United States (assuming it does join in).

Japan wants to be seen as an equal to the European powers. Therefore, it needs to get involved in one side or the other. In our timeline, it was a British ally, but this was built as an alliance against Russia. Given a more active anti-French focused British Empire, it's not improbable Japan ends up French allied instead.

Maybe bring up some minor powers too. Denmark and Sweden were both pro-Prussia, but neither was willing to get involved. Norway was strongly pro-British but neutral. With Prussia and Britain together (along with their biggest threat Russia), it wouldn't be unreasonable for them to get pulled in, though it's not impossible the different alliance setup makes them more pro-France than in our world. Belgium was being defended by everyone, and officially neutral as part of that defense setup. Netherlands had no allies, but relied on people not wanting their opponents to take its territory for protection.

So we're currently at:

Highly Probable Prussian Side:
Prussia/North Germany
Russia
Italy
British Empire

Highly Probable French Side:
France
Austria/South Germany
Japan

Likely Prussian Side/Neutral:
Denmark
Sweden
Norway
USA

Likely French Side/Neutral:
Ottoman Empire
Spain

Unknown:
Belgium (probably against whichever of France/Prussia gets the idea of attacking the other through it)
Netherlands
South American Nations
China

Neutral:
Switzerland

So, Europe looks a lot like WWI switching Germany and France and adding Spain to the Central Powers-equivalent, but in Asia Japan is on the opposite side. If I had to guess China would probably align with the United States, meaning likely Prussia. Pacific Theatre might end up getting interesting as opposed to everyone teaming up to get rid of the handful of German colonies in the area we saw in our timeline.

This list has a bunch of assumptions that don't hold up.

-- Britain is a huge question mark, depending on who is looking like the greater threat to the balance of powers. Calling Britain a "highly probable" Prussian ally is very much an over-hasty conclusion.

-- Japan siding against Britain? Guess again. Britain can actually threaten them. Japan will be 100% neutral if Britain sides with Prussia/Russia, and 100% with Britain if Britain sides against Russia.

-- Denmark is not "likely Prussian", because russia scewed them over. They'll be neutral until and unless Prussia is losing, in which case they'll jump on the anti-Prussian bandwagon in order to be rewarded with a mild border adjustment.

-- USA as "likely" on the Prussian side, too? No way. Neutrality until and unless American interests are harmed. If Britain sides with Prussia, you may see Atlantic warfare, and a Lusitania-esque incident may follow. If Britain is neutral or pro-French, the Atlantic is less likely to be heavily contested, and the USA will presumably just stay out.

-- The 'Unknowns' and Scandinavia are all bound to be neutral, unless attacked.

-- China is barely a factor to be considered. Assuming its history proceeds roughly as in OTL, it may join the Prusso-Russian revanchist bloc in a hypothetical Second Great War. (In which case we'll get the war Mackinder saw coming, in its archetypal form: the combined Eurasian Heartland versus the united Periphery.)


Anyway, this produces the following list:

Highly Probable Prussian Side:
Prussia/North Germany
Russia
Italy

Highly Probable French Side:
France
Austria
South Germany
[Rhenania, if it exists]

Likely Prussian Side or Pro-Prussian Neutral:
Serbia ("because fuck Austria, that's why")

Likely French Side or Pro-French Neutral:
Ottoman Empire
Spain
Denmark (neutral until/unless France is winning)

Neutral Unless Attacked:
Switzerland
Belgium
Netherlands
Sweden
Norway
USA
South American Nations
China

Unknown:
Britain
Japan (neutral, or pro-French if Britain is also pro-French)
Portugal (follows Britain's lead)
Greece (likely pro-Prussian because anti-Ottoman, certainly if Britain is also pro-Prussian)
Bulgaria (likely pro-Prussian because anti-Ottoman, but may be in conflict with Greece and/or Serbia)
Romania (definitely doesn't like Austria, but doesn't like Russia, either)


....This is all an exceedingly long way of saying "Britain decides who wins this thing".

 

[Buba]

the Carlists were an extremely reactionary bunch who wanted to grant Catalonia & the Basque country some medieval-era privileges

It is either restoring (if lost over the last 40 years) or preserving medieval-era privileges, not granting them new ones.
The Carlist movement is complicated ... its support in the north was in major(?) degree based upon their association with preservation of Aragonese (Catalan) and Basque autonomy. I believe that more than a few Basque liberals were in bed with the Carlists because of that.
Like I said - it is complicated, I'm no expert, and I've no idea what the Carlists (who were not a monolith, to say the least), thought about the colonies.

Denmark and Sweden were both pro-Prussia,

Denmark? A decade after being raped over Schlesvig-Holstein? I'd say neutral at best ...
Neutral in the sense of WWII Ireland - behave or you'll get invaded.

Napoleon III to maintain a Roman garrison

Good of you to remember the garrison. Quite a few butterflies here:
- Italy has capital in Florence. I know the mental draw of Rome - but if the capital is there for a few decades before the Kingdom of Italy gains Rome - would a transfer to Rome be even possible? Think of the inertia ... in OTL Florence was capital for a mere 10 years.
- the Vatican I Council - the one which introduced Papal Infallibility and something too complicated for me to understand involving the Mother of God as part of Catholic Dogma - is not cut short and might cough up some other new Dogma or Doctrine.
- the Vatican I Council inspired the Old Catholic movement in German-speaking lands, known as "loss von Rom". With a more - ahem - fruitful council, and perceived as protected by French bayonets, would its impact on the German-Catholic world be greater?
- Italy develops differently - IIRC in 1870 Rome was the 3rd largest city on the peninsula - behind Naples and Milan - ITTL this is not likely to change, it is certain that without the money involved with being the capital of Italy it stays there - and might be overtaken by Bologna and Florence, maybe even Turin. Even if at some point it gets gobbled by Italy and made the capital - it will have a few decades of catch up ...

 

[Basileus_Komnenos]

The Carlist movement is complicated

Biggest understatement of the century regarding them. Though I always play as them in Victoria II for the memes.

For the Franco-Prussian War to really be a French victory, you'd need a pod well before the war. A Franco-Austrian alliance for example would do just the trick.

 

[Buba]

[for] French victory, you'd need a pod well before the war. A Franco-Austrian alliance for example would do just the trick.

Yes! Yes! Yes!
The Dolchstosslegende fifty years earlier!
The Austrians get recast from the shackled to a corpse legend to the much more kewl! good old stab in the back legend
All the prussabos (no wehrabos here, sorry) would keep on going Dey so awesome and they'd had so like totally curbstomped the Frogs had it not been for those Wienerschnitzels!

 

[Circle of Willis]

It is either restoring (if lost over the last 40 years) or preserving medieval-era privileges, not granting them new ones.
The Carlist movement is complicated ... its support in the north was in major(?) degree based upon their association with preservation of Aragonese (Catalan) and Basque autonomy. I believe that more than a few Basque liberals were in bed with the Carlists because of that.
Like I said - it is complicated, I'm no expert, and I've no idea what the Carlists (who were not a monolith, to say the least), thought about the colonies.

Denmark? A decade after being raped over Schlesvig-Holstein? I'd say neutral at best ...
Neutral in the sense of WWII Ireland - behave or you'll get invaded.


Good of you to remember the garrison. Quite a few butterflies here:
- Italy has capital in Florence. I know the mental draw of Rome - but if the capital is there for a few decades before the Kingdom of Italy gains Rome - would a transfer to Rome be even possible? Think of the inertia ... in OTL Florence was capital for a mere 10 years.
- the Vatican I Council - the one which introduced Papal Infallibility and something too complicated for me to understand involving the Mother of God as part of Catholic Dogma - is not cut short and might cough up some other new Dogma or Doctrine.
- the Vatican I Council inspired the Old Catholic movement in German-speaking lands, known as "loss von Rom". With a more - ahem - fruitful council, and perceived as protected by French bayonets, would its impact on the German-Catholic world be greater?
- Italy develops differently - IIRC in 1870 Rome was the 3rd largest city on the peninsula - behind Naples and Milan - ITTL this is not likely to change, it is certain that without the money involved with being the capital of Italy it stays there - and might be overtaken by Bologna and Florence, maybe even Turin. Even if at some point it gets gobbled by Italy and made the capital - it will have a few decades of catch up ...

Well, yeah. Similar I'm not an expert on what exactly Carlism was a proponent of, but from what I've managed to gather over the years, the Kaiserreich meme about 'organic monarchy' comes fairly close: staunch social traditionalism, hostility to modern concepts of a liberal democracy, and crucially advocacy for a decentralized state that returns to its feudal roots with a king (from the agnatic line considered legitimate, of course) at its head. Conversely it had been the modernizers and liberals who had been pushing for a more centralized authority since the first Bourbon rulers back in the 1700s, though I could be wrong about that.

As for the colonies, if the British want to oppose French support of the Carlists without confronting them directly, perhaps they could try constructing a 'legitimate Spanish government in exile' either headed by Amadeo (if he doesn't abdicate) or the Isabeline bloodline in Havana? It'd deny a victorious Carlist kingdom back on the mainland, and by extension their French backers, access to the Spanish colonies. (And also give the Carlists another reason to hate Britain, as if they don't have enough of those already)

IIRC, Vatican I already agreed on Papal infallibility even before the Franco-Prussian War broke out, and Pope Pius IX had been going in an arch-reactionary direction for a while before 1870 anyway. (The Syllabus of Errors which condemned socialism, modernism and liberalism was issued in 1864, for example) So if the Council manages to reconvene after the war as originally planned, I'm not sure exactly what additional doctrines it would produce, but I am reasonably sure it'd be more stridently conservative stuff that'd please ultramontanes and anger modernists & non-Catholic governments. If Prussia retains the 'Rhenania' area, maybe there'd be a bigger backlash tied in with pan-German nationalist revanchism and consequently a bigger Old Catholic Church in that region if the Pope & France are perceived to be joined at the hip?

Biggest understatement of the century regarding them. Though I always play as them in Victoria II for the memes.

For the Franco-Prussian War to really be a French victory, you'd need a pod well before the war. A Franco-Austrian alliance for example would do just the trick.

That seems like it'd just turn the FPW into a Russo-Prussian stomp of the Franco-Austrians, since Russia had a deal with Bismarck to invade Austria if they attacked Prussia in support of France.

I do agree that the easiest way to get a not-insignificant victory for France in the FPW would be to have Napoleon III avoid antagonizing literally every European power of note near him in some way or other, but a 'Nappy III isn't a complete moron whose entire foreign policy fails at best or backfires in his face at worst' POD seems like it'd spawn 10-20 years' worth of butterflies before we even get to 1870. To avoid all that extra work, I'd be happy to imagine France actually trying to win at Mars-la-Tour and the other early battles of the war (where they momentarily had the advantage on occasion, but historically pissed it away for no readily apparent reason every single time) will be enough to get them to at least a limited victory over Prussia, extend the life of the 2nd Empire and get Bismarck fired.

 

[Navarro]

To avoid all that extra work, I'd be happy to imagine France actually trying to win at Mars-la-Tour and the other early battles of the war (where they momentarily had the advantage on occasion, but historically pissed it away for no readily apparent reason every single time) will be enough to get them to at least a limited victory over Prussia, extend the life of the 2nd Empire and get Bismarck fired.

I imagine that makes the most plausible sense for a POD.

 

[Navarro]

IIRC Britain was also fairly sympathetic to Prussia, at least popularly, before the annexation of Alsace-Lorraine and France's humiliation, and the concurrent shifts in the European balance of power.

 

[Airedale260]

Now that could give some strong butterflies. Not just in terms of the US of course, Either a slightly harder Spanish American war - or a lot harder if an allied French empire is drawn into the conflict which could escalate into an earlier WWI - or possibly avoid it altogether.

I think a conservative French empire would be more likely to support the Carlists in Spain, which is likely to cause tensions with Britain among others. In which case this is more likely to put Britain on the Prussian/N German side in a later conflict regardless of where Russia and Austria end up.

The Spanish forces actually outnumbered the U.S. ones in the Spanish-American War; what actually did the Spanish in was the Cuban and Filipino independence movements and the USN bitch-slapping their squadrons at Manila Bay and Santiago de Cuba -the Spanish ended up recalling the rest of their navy (the more modern parts) in order to protect Spain itself.

I’m not sure what the Carlists’ attitude towards the colonies would be, but unless they’re really good at placating the locals (and given Spain’s track record in dealing with its colonies I wouldn’t bet on that), then it’s a sideshow between the two -historically, the European powers told Spain just to accept the Americans’ demands, but between split public opinion in Cuba and then the Maine exploding, it was too late.

I seriously doubt that a new Spanish-American War would wind up being what spirals into World War I: Whether an empire or a republic, there is no upside to France going to war with the U.S., not to mention they have no staging ground for any worthwhile operations against the U.S. The only country that can do that is Britain, and as @Circle of Willis noted, they aren’t going to support the Carlists. In fact, the U.S. might actually leverage that to get a naval base in Cuba. Which would be...interesting.

As it is, if Bismarck gets fired for incompetence, then Prussia might turn out very differently (I think German unification still happens, but I don’t think it will be as belligerent, especially if Friedrich III manages to get a much more progressive regime in place.

Wouldn’t that be interesting...the militaristic belligerent on the Continent being France. Of course, they probably wouldn’t be able to wreak the havoc Germany did in both wars but still...

 

[Circle of Willis]

IIRC Britain was also fairly sympathetic to Prussia, at least popularly, before the annexation of Alsace-Lorraine and France's humiliation, and the concurrent shifts in the European balance of power.

Yes - I'm not sure if Britain was precisely inclined to be pro-Prussian, but at the very least their relations with France had definitely cooled after the Mexican intervention (where they were initially supportive but bailed out after realizing Napoleon III didn't just want to collect debts, he also wanted to turn Mexico into a client state) and Bismarck revealed to them that the French had asked for Prussian neutrality while they annexed Belgium and Luxembourg if they wanted French neutrality in the Austro-Prussian War.

And the Emperor had just spent his reign trying to cozy up with Britain, to the point where he fought with them in the Crimean War a little over a decade ago! Guy was a fine internal reformer and modernizer, but his incompetence at foreign affairs was so staggering as to actually be kind of impressive; the closest rival I can think of is Burgundy's Charles the Bold from 400 years prior.

 

[Jarow]

Admittedly I'm not a historian in any way, and Wikipedia was a major source, but thought I might as well expand on the whys of my choices

-- Britain is a huge question mark, depending on who is looking like the greater threat to the balance of powers. Calling Britain a "highly probable" Prussian ally is very much an over-hasty conclusion.

This one came from my understanding of the discussion, my post before that one had them unknown.

-- Japan siding against Britain? Guess again. Britain can actually threaten them. Japan will be 100% neutral if Britain sides with Prussia/Russia, and 100% with Britain if Britain sides against Russia.

I could definitely be overestimating WW1 era Japanese militarism and self-confidence here.

-- Denmark is not "likely Prussian", because russia scewed them over. They'll be neutral until and unless Prussia is losing, in which case they'll jump on the anti-Prussian bandwagon in order to be rewarded with a mild border adjustment.

This was indeed my fault, misread something (there was a statement about Danish people in Prussia joining the German army, read that as Danish volunteers joining German army).

-- USA as "likely" on the Prussian side, too? No way. Neutrality until and unless American interests are harmed. If Britain sides with Prussia, you may see Atlantic warfare, and a Lusitania-esque incident may follow. If Britain is neutral or pro-French, the Atlantic is less likely to be heavily contested, and the USA will presumably just stay out.

The Prussian "likelies" were far more likely to stay neutral, but had more things pointing towards them joining Prussia's side if they joined in (at least in my relatively uninformed opinion).

-- The 'Unknowns' and Scandinavia are all bound to be neutral, unless attacked.

Probably. A deeper look into things show that my understandings for Scandinavia was pretty off. Unknowns (minus China, will discuss at next point) either don't have a reason to get involved or are probably only going to get involved by being attacked, so can't really disagree with anything here.

-- China is barely a factor to be considered. Assuming its history proceeds roughly as in OTL, it may join the Prusso-Russian revanchist bloc in a hypothetical Second Great War. (In which case we'll get the war Mackinder saw coming, in its archetypal form: the combined Eurasian Heartland versus the united Periphery.)

Agreed on the first part. China isn't going to do anything effective regardless of joining any side. No idea about the rest. As for their participation, China did jump into WW1 on their own, so wouldn't be surprised if they did so for similar reasons in this timeline.

Overall, your chart is probably more accurate than mine, probably put too much of my own speculation in as opposed to just trying to record what had already been discussed (which had been my original thoughts when I started making it, then I got distracted).