Prussia without Bismarck

[Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_vo....29_of_Prussia

The regent became King William I upon his brother's death in 1861. The new monarch was often in conflict with the increasingly liberal Prussian Diet. A crisis arose in 1862, when the Diet refused to authorise funding for a proposed re-organization of the army. The King's ministers could not convince legislators to pass the budget, and the King was unwilling to make concessions. Wilhelm threatened to abdicate (though his son was opposed to his abdication) and believed that Bismarck was the only politician capable of handling the crisis. However, Wilhelm was ambivalent about appointing a person who demanded unfettered control over foreign affairs. When, in September 1862, the Abgeordnetenhaus (House of Deputies) overwhelmingly rejected the proposed budget, Wilhelm was persuaded to recall Bismarck to Prussia on the advice of Roon. On 23 September 1862, Wilhelm appointed Bismarck Minister-President and Foreign Minister.

So WI the king had abdicated instead? Keep in mind that the crown prince didn't have a very good opinion of Bismarck and is unlikely to ever appoint him minister-president. We would have a non-Bismarckian and quite possibly liberal Prussia.

[The Red]

Germany takes longer to unite.

[Grand Prince Paul II.]

Originally Posted by The Red

Germany takes longer to unite.

Or shorter from a certain point of view.
OTL Bismarck did block the reform of the German Confederation.

[Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy]

Bumping this to see if any new member has anything to say.

[mowque]

Tough. Asking this is like asking the USA without Washington or some other seminal figure. Relations with the rest of Europe would have been far different.

[Last of the Stuarts]

With no Bismarck we have two issues:

Firstly army reform. I think that the Prussian army would have been less formidable without Bismarck, so would have had difficultly with both Austria and France in the wars of 1860's and 70's. This may lead to no WWI, as the French didn't have to get back at the Germans for taking Paris.

Secondly there is the unification of Germany. I am never sure if the Prussian kings were as keen on this as Bismarck was. My feeling is that unification would have been much slower, and with a stronger Austria the north / south unification of 1871 may not have happened at all.

[arctic warrior]

Originally Posted by Last of the Stuarts

With no Bismarck we have two issues:

Firstly army reform. I think that the Prussian army would have been less formidable without Bismarck, so would have had difficultly with both Austria and France in the wars of 1860's and 70's. This may lead to no WWI, as the French didn't have to get back at the Germans for taking Paris.

Roon was the architect of army reform - Bismarck supplied the money by going against the Diet.
The money may come in but later; postponing:

Originally Posted by Last of the Stuarts

Secondly there is the unification of Germany. I am never sure if the Prussian kings were as keen on this as Bismarck was. My feeling is that unification would have been much slower, and with a stronger Austria the north / south unification of 1871 may not have happened at all.

Bismarck had the idea of a Prussian Germany by kicking the Austrians out.
Without him the German Confederation will hobble on led by Austria. The wars of 1864/66/70-71 is no longer a given even if the Prussian Kings may stumble into one on their own. And do quite nicely by the new model army reformed by Roon; led by Molkte!