Different German unification

[Mikestone8]

Hi!

One can always misunderstand on purpose. That episode was before the King decided not to go to Frankfurt.

You sure of that? According to Crankshaw [1]

"On and on [Bismarck] hammered until, just before eleven o'clock, the king burst into tears and gave in. Bismarck himself, hurrying off to impart the news to Count Beust - - - was so worked up that he slammed the door behind him, pulling off the handle in an access of nervous violence. Later, when he reached his own apartments, he picked up a glass jug and hurled it to the floor."

Crankshaw goes on to describe the conversation with Beust in which Bismarck threatened to summon Prussian troops to Baden-Baden and surround King John's residence unless he were on his way back to Frankfurt by tomorrow morning.

But even if you insist on dismissing all this as exaggeration (you have evidence for that?) I still don't see how it affects my essential point, that Bismarck had no cause for concern about the King going to Frankfurt unless he thought that agreement between Wilhelm and Franz Josef, allowing the latter's Reform plan to go into effect, was a real possibility. A visit to Frankfurt which proved fruitless would not harm Bismarck's position; if anything it would make Wilhelm all the more dependent on him.


[1] Bismarck, Ch X.

 

[Beer]

Hi Mikestone!

Do not get it the wrong way, but a decades long experience with british "history writing" teached me two things:
a) 90+% of it is made to let Britain look as good as possible. If you cannot windowdress an event, plush up the flaws of others and turn attention that way.
b) To make a better reading, make it more exciting, i.e. exaggerate events in various ways, hint at possible, but usually not existing tensions...
Among the few British historians you can read and who keep this tendency mostly in check are Ferguson and Kershaw.

I read history books from various countries and have been to state archives and it is sometimes surprising, that the general "canon" on an event is roughly along the same general lines everywhere, while the British reading is "different".
Anyway, if you want to hear about an event with Bismarck in a highly agitated discussion, look at the internal prussian talks about what to do with Austria after Königgrätz. At that time "sind die Fetzen richtig geflogen"!

On your general assumption about Frankfurt we go conform. My objection was to the rather exaggerated telling of the prussian preparations, your convoluting of OTL and ATL events once and the dismissing of von Rechberg´s influence in an ATL scenario where he gets the guarantees he wanted.

 

[robcraufurd]

You sure of that?

Edgar Feuchtwanger concurs:

After hours of debate lasting until midnight, both king and prime minister were emotionally exhausted. The king burst into tears and Bismarck smashed a washbasin on leaving the royal closet. (Bismarck, 2002 p97)

However, taking his doctorate at Cambridge is probably enough to make him a "British" historian.

 

[Beer]

Edgar Feuchtwanger concurs:

After hours of debate lasting until midnight, both king and prime minister were emotionally exhausted. The king burst into tears and Bismarck smashed a washbasin on leaving the royal closet. (Bismarck, 2002 p97)

However, taking his doctorate at Cambridge is probably enough to make him a "British" historian.

Hi!

Lothar Gall´s biography "Bismarck - Der weiße Revolutionär" (The white Revolutionary) and the two books on Bismarck by Ernst Engelberg ("Bismarck: Urpreuße und Reichsgründer" and "Bismarck: Das Reich in der Mitte Europas") are still - by far - the best books on him. This special anecdote is in their books as well, but also that it is not really proofed if that truly happened.
A far better proofed example of Bismarck´s excentric way to negotiations, pulling all levers is after the victory over Austria, when at one time he threatened to jump from the window!

Dear robcraufurd, do you often read history books or reasearch historical data? If so, you should know this tendency in british history writing quite well if you compare sources from different countries. This is not dissing as such, but stating a fact. Not all british historians work that way, but a majority.
Take the bombing of Dresden. Until just a few years ago, most british historians wormed around to push the guilt for that war crime on anybody else, only not Britain. In contrast to practically the rest of the community.

 

[Simreeve]

Take the bombing of Dresden. Until just a few years ago, most british historians wormed around to push the guilt for that war crime on anybody else, only not Britain.

Because bombing the rail-junctions through which an enemy is reinforcing one of its front lines isn't a war-crime. I realise that some people feel a need to claim that the Allies were just as bad as the Axis, but there's no reason why Britain should have to accept that view.

 

[Beer]

Because bombing the rail-junctions through which an enemy is reinforcing one of its front lines isn't a war-crime. I realise that some people feel a need to claim that the Allies were just as bad as the Axis, but there's no reason why Britain should have to accept that view.

Hi!
Thanks, your post underscores my statement about the official british line on history!
Fire-bombing an obviously open city with incendiary bombs is NOT just destroying rail junctions! By the way, there were enough junctions OUTSIDE the city which could have been destroyed, fullfilling the order. Even the US-Boys admit that.

 

[Mikestone8]

Hi Mikestone!

On your general assumption about Frankfurt we go conform.

Thanks.

Going on from there, assuming the Reform Act does go through, the reformed DB will very rapidly face a test as the Schleswig-Holstein dispute flares up.

Any thoughts on how it develops? Without Bismarck around to pour sodium on troubled waters, can war be avoided? My own guess is that there's a chance if the German powers don't jump in with that 48-hour ultimatum. Had Monrad been given the extra time that he asked for, he would have discovered that if he landed himself in war he would be fighting totally alone - that while the signatory powers might be willing to uphold the Treaty of 1852, nobody would lift a finger for a Denmark which abandoned that Treaty by depriving Schleswig of its traditional autonomy. In such a situation he just might have backed down. OTOH he and his colleagues seem to have had a bee in their bonnet about this "Eider Line" business, so it's far from assured. Ideas anyone?

 

[Beer]

Hi!

Even without a Bismarck around, the war of 1864 is nearly unavoidable. The German states never forgot the danish try in the wake of 1848. I do not know what the danish givernment of that time smoked, but it had to be good.
Denmark was a really aggressive nation in the mid 19th century, far more militaristic than Prussia(!) and too drunk on some wins. It is telling that despite rising tensions between Austria and Prussia both worked together against Denmark.
What I read about the war of 1864 during research for my TLs, it is only avoidable with a totally different danish government.

 

[Mikestone8]

Hi!

Even without a Bismarck around, the war of 1864 is nearly unavoidable. The German states never forgot the danish try in the wake of 1848. I do not know what the danish givernment of that time smoked, but it had to be good.

To be fair, they were ill-served by their friends. Some British politicians, especially, expressed a degree of sympathy which led them to expect assistance which never had a chance in Hades of materialising. That's why I wonder if a joint note from all five great powers, insisting on "The Treaty of London, the whole Treaty of London, and nothing but the Treaty of London", might just possibly have brought them back to the real world. However, I am forced to agree that it's a long shot at best.

Denmark was a really aggressive nation in the mid 19th century, far more militaristic than Prussia(!) and too drunk on some wins. It is telling that despite rising tensions between Austria and Prussia both worked together against Denmark.

What I read about the war of 1864 during research for my TLs, it is only avoidable with a totally different danish government.

I'm afraid so.

 

[Simreeve]

an obviously open city

But Dresden wasn't an "open city" in the sense of the accepted 'rules of war' (i.e. a city whose current owners had publicly announced that wouldn't be defended if & when enemy troops reached it), though, was it? That being the case, why should it have been any more exempt from bombing than -- for example -- Rotterdam or Coventry?
Rail-junctions, railway operating facilities, military stores depots: Legitimate targets and, given the limits on bombing accuracy in those days, a lot easier to hit collectively than those junctions outside the city itself individually would have been.

 

[Beer]

Hi Simreeve!

Still trying to wiggle out, hmm? Even if you eel through on bare technicalities on the Open City status, which would not stand in a court, the proven use of incendiary bombs make your attempt to justify your behaviour in vain.
Against railway junctions you need explosive bombs. And to say that you killed tens of thousands civilians because it was easier than some other operation, just shows your Janus-headedness. To put it mildly, in Nuremberg you would have lost your life with that excuse you try to come up with. It is just that as a victor your nation got away with her war crimes.

Even Churchill spoke of "wanton destruction" and "bombing for Terror´s sake" in internal decuments and began to get scruples. And concidering how the bomber command was treated after the war, it shows that London began to see what they truly had done.

 

[Simreeve]

Hi Simreeve!

Still trying to wiggle out, hmm?

Disagreeing with you is not trying to "wiggle out", it is disagreeing with you... but I think that maybe we should agree to disagree rather than continuing with this threadjack?

 

[Mikestone8]

Disagreeing with you is not trying to "wiggle out", it is disagreeing with you... but I think that maybe we should agree to disagree rather than continuing with this threadjack?

Or at least move it to "after 1900" where it surely belongs.