Say that appropriate butterflies mean that Germany gets unified as a Grossdeutschland under Austrian Hapsburg rule, rather than a Kleinedeutschland under the Prussian Hohenzollerns. How would this affect Germany's culture, foreign policy and so forth? I've read that the Austrian court was less militarised than the Prussian, so would a Hapsburg Germany be less militaristic?
How would an Austrian-ruled Germany differ from its OTL equivalent?
- Thread starter Fabius Maximus
- Start date
Culturally it could be a bit different from the Prussian militarism of OTL. However, I think that a united Germany under Austria would still be a massive threat to the post-1815 balance of power in Europe so you can expect that the other powers in Europe will be eager to contain and cut down this state. This Austrian lead Germany might still turn to militarism.
I don't believe it would aim for germanization of non-german people. It would be more accepting of other cultures. Although that may change when German becomes a majority. Correct me if I'm wrong, though.
If it came to pass in the 19th century, it would be a decentralized mess full of autonomies, regionalisms, centers of influence and so forth. It would be rich and brilliant but incapable of forward action and thus not a threat to the established powers. Perhaps it would be seen as a bulwark against the far more aggressive Russia.
One should keep in mind the difference between Austrian and German mindset.
TEH AHnsburgs viewed their Empire as lands ruled by the House Habsburg(Lothringen)
Germany was seen as Land where Germans live.
UP to the 18xxs the Habsburg Emperor was nominal head of the German Confederation. Ultimately a Habsburg led GErmany would be much less centralised and probably initially not seen as a threat.
If You assume the POD is somewhere near the 1866 war then you also have a stronger Habsburg dominion - not the dual monarchy.
For Austrai to win 1866 you probably need an Austria that has also win in 1859 (vs France/Italy) and probably have taken an active role in the Crimean war.
At best you get an Austrian Emperor in the 1830s who recognises the signs of the time and "federalises" the Empire while maintaining a strong grip in the Empire as a whole.
A parliament in Vienna, one in Zagreb, one in Prag, one in Krakau/Lemberg, one in Milano and one in Budapest (and some more maybe) is better than only two
...
TEH AHnsburgs viewed their Empire as lands ruled by the House Habsburg(Lothringen)
Germany was seen as Land where Germans live.
UP to the 18xxs the Habsburg Emperor was nominal head of the German Confederation. Ultimately a Habsburg led GErmany would be much less centralised and probably initially not seen as a threat.
If You assume the POD is somewhere near the 1866 war then you also have a stronger Habsburg dominion - not the dual monarchy.
For Austrai to win 1866 you probably need an Austria that has also win in 1859 (vs France/Italy) and probably have taken an active role in the Crimean war.
At best you get an Austrian Emperor in the 1830s who recognises the signs of the time and "federalises" the Empire while maintaining a strong grip in the Empire as a whole.
A parliament in Vienna, one in Zagreb, one in Prag, one in Krakau/Lemberg, one in Milano and one in Budapest (and some more maybe) is better than only two
...I suppose such a "Germany"s hereditary enemy would not be France, but would instead be Russia. Also, that it's policy in southeast Europe would be pro-Ottoman. There would be no interest in "compensatory" expansion into the Balkans, but Russian expansion into the Balkans would be feared, so the default course would be support for the Ottoman territorial status quo.
I agree it would be less centralized. It's main fleet would be in the Mediterranean, with the Baltic and North Sea fleets playing second fiddle. However, to keep northern German states in line, Austria would likely have to project some power in the Baltic to defend confederal/federal interests against Denmark. Conceivably, Russia could use that as an excuse for war.
But details need to be worked out, like the physical extent of Prussia, and its role (or lack of a role) in the confederation/federation.
Also, relations with the west would not be all wine and roses. The French would have their territorial agenda around Belgium, Luxemburg, Rhineland, and both Britain and France would be opposed to Habsburg rule in Italy, they were inveterate Piedmont-ophiles.
I agree it would be less centralized. It's main fleet would be in the Mediterranean, with the Baltic and North Sea fleets playing second fiddle. However, to keep northern German states in line, Austria would likely have to project some power in the Baltic to defend confederal/federal interests against Denmark. Conceivably, Russia could use that as an excuse for war.
But details need to be worked out, like the physical extent of Prussia, and its role (or lack of a role) in the confederation/federation.
Also, relations with the west would not be all wine and roses. The French would have their territorial agenda around Belgium, Luxemburg, Rhineland, and both Britain and France would be opposed to Habsburg rule in Italy, they were inveterate Piedmont-ophiles.
I think one of biggest problems would be division between "Austria" and "Germany". Cultural, religious.
If they merge what is national composition? Assuming all Germans are lumped into single category what does that mean for minorities like Hungarians, Poles and other Slavs?
Not an expert but I'd think that in Austria Hungarians were able to achive more because they were relatively large group. Here they would be smaller. Unles this new state gives autonomy to various groups.
If they merge what is national composition? Assuming all Germans are lumped into single category what does that mean for minorities like Hungarians, Poles and other Slavs?
Not an expert but I'd think that in Austria Hungarians were able to achive more because they were relatively large group. Here they would be smaller. Unles this new state gives autonomy to various groups.
An Austrian "led" Germany would probably not look much like the actual Prussian led Germany. The only way I see it coming about is if there was a lack of leadership and direction in Prussia and Germany evolves along the lines of the abortive 1863 proposals.
So a collective Germany into which the Habsburg monarchy is not fully merged.
Outside of Austro-Bohemia, a federalism could come into being over time. This, as opposed to the Dualism brought about by Austria's exclusion from Germany.
The payoff for Austria is that there will likely come about a vast free trade zone
encompassing all of Central Europe with Vienna in the middle of it all.
So a collective Germany into which the Habsburg monarchy is not fully merged.
Outside of Austro-Bohemia, a federalism could come into being over time. This, as opposed to the Dualism brought about by Austria's exclusion from Germany.
The payoff for Austria is that there will likely come about a vast free trade zone
encompassing all of Central Europe with Vienna in the middle of it all.
Let us assume an early POD, preferably before 1700. Let us assume that Prussia is less successful in conquering more land. For instance it does not win Silesia or valuable areas in western Germany. And Saxony is stronger, thus being a counterforce to Prussia. In other words, The Habsburgs remain clearly much more dominant than any other German state.
What if it had been Prussia rather than Austria that got engaged in a large multinational empire? Poland/Lithuania and the Czech lands ends up in a personal union with Prussia, while. Hungary becomes independent from Austria, but Austria gets Bavaria instead. This could be a good start for an alternate unification. Maybe it would have been an alternate Klein Deutschland unification?
Very definitely less militaristic.
Also, more ethnically diverse. Hohenzollern Germany included only a few non-Germans: French in Alsace-Lorraine, Holstein Danes, a few Poles in the Posen area and Upper Silesia, and the Wendish or Sorbian remnant in Lusatia.
Hapsburg Germany would include the Czechs of Bohemia and Moravia, plus Slovenes in Styria and Carniola, and Italians in Istria and Trentino. If Austro-Germania was extended to include the rest of the Hapsburg lands, that would bring in Croatians, Serbs, Magyars, Romanians, Slovaks, and a lot of Poles and Ukrainians. (I assume that in a mirror of OTL, Prussia is excluded.)
One possible path to this is the removal of Frederick during the Austro-Prussian wars of the 1700s. This would allow the Hapsburgs to keep Silesia, and later to acquire Bavaria in exchange for Belgium. Holding Bavaria, the Hapsburgs would be much less willing to write off their patchwork of lands in upper Swabia when the HRE is mediatized. (That's going to happen around 1800, because it was just time.) Instead the Hapsburgs would probably consolidate their holdings and the surrounding petty states into a westward extension of Austria to the Rhine.
With all this extra German territory, the Hapsburgs would be more interested in German affairs, and probably more interested in uniting the lion's share of Germany into their domain - leaving out Prussia, but still having enough Germans to balance all the non-German elements.
I would prefer if the border of PLC and the HRE or Germany is at the Oder River because North and East of Oder is where the Poles live in Silesia, I don't know how the PLC and Austria could have done such territorial transfer, perhaps Poland allied with France gains that territory.
Yes, before world war II but during the Late Medieval and Renaissance Periods,majority of the Poles in Silesia lived North and East of Oder, I think an Oder border would be the best border between Austria and the PLC.
Last edited:
But also more Germans. If it includes all of "Germany" then it has more non-Germans but also a lot more Germans. So for example same number of Hungarians means less relative size vis-a-vis Germans and as such less able to make same demands as OTL
Yes, I know the area used to be Polish-speaking back in the middle ages, but I got the impression that you meant that it had been Polish-speaking all the time.
But post 1815 it was majority German, so it makes zero sense if it goes to Poland in that period. And you are totally ignoring Pormmerania and (East) Prussia as well.
I was talking of a 16th Century POD wherein Poland allies with France or before the Partitions of Poland, in the same POD, East Prussia can be partitioned between Poland and Lithuania, Poland getting the Polish speaking areas and the rest to Lithuania where the Lithuanian population also live.
There are still parts of Upper Silesia where Poles are still the majority at 1815 but those are the areas that were given to Poland in WWI.
Pomerania is Kaszubian which is another branch of the Lechitic group of Languages, the Silesians and East Prussian Poles are ethnically Polish but were slowly drifting apart from the Mainstream Polish.
For me the Best POD is having Wenceslaus III survive and merge Bohemia and Poland!
Last edited:
Compared to OTL Austro-Hungary, yes, proportionately more Germans. But compared to OTL Germany (which is the comparison raised by the OP), proportionately more non-Germans - a lot more.
Alright, then in this case, 19c Germany has a bunch of independent states with strong industrial sectors: Saxony, Brandenburg, probably more than one state in the Rhineland. This would encourage more balanced federalism, as opposed to Brandenburger ("Prussian") domination. There might still be a Kleindeutschland if those midsize powers wanted to avoid dealing with the Habsburgs, even... Or alternatively the Frankfurt Parliament, having no equivalent of Prussia to deal with and only Austria, would succeed, which again implies there might well still be a Kleindeutschland.
So the domination in this ATL would be less by Austria and more by western Germany. In the west, unlike in Brandenburg, there was no Junker class, and the peasants had more rights; a Frankfurt-based government would be a lot more liberal than a Berlin-based one. Eastern Germany would be like the American South today: poorer and more rural, and full of resentment at domination by the western elites; race relations might well mirror American ones as well, with Poles taking the place of blacks, escaping eastern persecutions to the Rhineland only to find that none of the enlightened universal-vote types there actually wants to live next to a Pole.
Trying to figure out a Grossdeutschland in this scenario is a bit weird. For the record, my TL does have a Grossdeutschland, dominated by no one, coming from a very different ending of the *30 Years' War; it maintains a capital in Frankfurt, has the same east-west racial politics mentioned above, and has an uneasy situation with the Czech, Slovak, and Hungarian minorities, at the end of which they declare independence in 1999. But this assumes a weakened Austria.
With a strong Austria... you'd have the classical liberals in the west feeling neglected by Austrian domination, a weird situation involving Prague and probably Germanization of Slovaks and Hungarians, and a still-resentful east-of-Elbe German population full of Protestant nationalism. Czechs would probably be like the Rhinelanders - industrialized, resentful of paying more taxes than they get in services, and for geographic reasons more federalist than secessionist. They'd have the economic power to demand to be their own state within a federal Germany, rather than part of Austria.