As part of my endless cold-war with Susano...

I think it would only take the "convincing" of the lesser states that prussian leadership would only lead to destuction. But I wonder how disunited it would actually end up?

Would the Norddeutscher Bund be eliminated with a return to german confederation of 1820?

Or would north german be left intact with only the south germans being put under the guidance of France.

How far would france be willing and able to rework the german situation?

IN my opinion, this would not be enough for a french invasion of Germany. Just enough to continue the war long enough for internal and external pressure to be brought to bear on Bismarck and the ruling classes ( external because the powers of Europe do not wish to see the revolutionary hydra awakened once again and they have an impression of deja vu, external because german fatalities raise to 200,000+ ( and 150,000+ french ones ) ) so a statu quo ante peace can be negociated. Not all battles will go the french way and German armies are still on french soil. Frenchstill have to assemble and train their armies and have some inefficiencies in their organisation and officers ( Bourbaki, e.g. ). However, I figure the peace will only provide germany with symbolic proof of victory ( say full souverainty on the Rhine at the franco-german border, a few symbolic castle ruins changing side on the North of Alsace ( eg fleckenstein, Wasigenstein... ), but no village, MAYBE a symbolic indemnity - say 50 millions gold francs - ).

The point is that this will
a) lower the prestige of the prussian ruling class and army wrt OTL
b) Allow Germany less money to devllop and pay for social peace

Both together mean more agitation and resistance against Kaiser's rule. This means conservative backlash, so less freedom and tolerence. So tightened security control and so less economic development. Which again, leads to more discontent.

By itself, that wouldn't be enough to break the Reich, but it makes it more brittle than OTL
 
Last edited:
Oh?

Are you aware that OTL, this war caused more german fatalities than french ones? And that Bismarck was considering letting the french have a more lenient proposal when Thiers surrendered because he considered the interior foe more dangerous than the exterior one? Not to mention that France still had some considerable armies in the field when she surrendered, more than at the beginning of the war, in fact ( and these would soon be used in civil war ).

Now, if instead of internal fighting, the french unite in a government of national union, proclaim 'La patrie en Danger'and raise an army of 3,000,000 men by levee en masse proclaimed from the pulpit of every Church, with Naval troops to provide cadre and artillery. DO you still think German crushing victory is assured? ( nota : Prussia + allied troops were roughly 1,000,000 men ).

Possibly not, but this army will be highly innefficient to start with and the Germans can dig in in the north and wait it out. It will take the Fench years to assemble an army capable of offensive operations against the high-morale blooded Germans in defensive positions on any serious scale. You seem to acknowledge this by positing an end to the war caused by other pressures than a French military revival which does any more than hang on to what's left, but you refuse to acknowedge the similar factors which will be acting on France: a delicate coalition, an exhausted populace, and a superficially balatant defeat (regardless of the complex interplay of military and political factors, there are still sausage-munchers sitting on large parts of French soil). If political pressures on Bismarck will be nasty, those on the government of national unity will be terrible. I thinkthe French will fold first, and soyou end up with the same results for a not-enormously graeter cost in blood and treasure on both sides.

These only seem absud to you because you refuse to consider the possibilities which diverge from OTL. German national conscience was still fragile in the 1870s-80s and could be damaged by some action of the Kaiser and ruling class, just as it didn't take in some of the area considered 'german'by the nationalists.

Do you have proof of this supposed fragility? There had, after all, been a significant attempt at unity in 1848, well befoe the 70s and 80s, and since that time, Germany had beome more politically and economically united and, in this scenario, achieved political unity in a common and victorious war. Were there any serious seperatist movements in 70s or 80s Germany? I don't know of them.

Speaking of 1848, we have here clear proof that there was a popular feeling of Germanness developing since the 40s independent of the machinations of the Kaiser, the junkers, and their infamous chancellor. Again, I point to WW1. Not so long after the 1880s, an utterly disasterous screwup instigated by the old order, and yet Germany stays firly together. Don't even mention the utter joke that was the Bavarian Socialist State.

Which areas claimed by German nationalists were unGerman? Posen and the Polanosphere areas, obviously, and other areas inhabited by non-Germans inside German political units like North Schleswig. Luxembourg didn't have much of a German consciousness I don't think, and of course there's Austria, which is a special and controversial case and which I believe had a German consciousness, but my argument works fine either way.

1866 South Germany has:

-No non-German language, culture, or history.

-Post 1871, no political or dynastic seperation from Germany proper.

-A history of German consciousness.

-In short, no reason to lose the Germanness it already has.

One can't simply point out that some German-ruled or German-speaking territories never became part of the Grman national life and say that this prooves the same thing could happen in Bavaria or Swabia. One must analyse the reasons that these areas failed to gain a German feeling. No such reasons apply to the south.

There is the possibility to have Germany become a failed state just as Tchecoslovakia and Yougoslavia are considered OTL, or to have it held only by militqry force and secret Police. It's a matter of circumstances and reactions. It will, obviously, not occur overnight from a 1871 PoD, but, over the course of one or two generations, it can happen.

Again, you take the fact that some nations unify and then collapse as proof it could happen to anyone without considering unique circumstances. Germany has no ethno-linguistic divide and therefore no resentment of a dominant ethno-linguistic group. Furthermore, you posit German identity becoming weaker after a PoD in 1871, which is silly. Once Germany has been politically united, there is even more reason for the alread German-feelin non-Prussian areas to become permenantly German in character, since the facts on the ground will encourage it.
 
Possibly not, but this army will be highly innefficient to start with and the Germans can dig in in the north and wait it out. It will take the Fench years to assemble an army capable of offensive operations against the high-morale blooded Germans in defensive positions on any serious scale. .

Sure. Just like it did in 1792.

That's why all battle in the 1800s were fought on french territory.

Wait.. That was not the case.


As to the french governmant and the pressure it is submitted to, since you don't know the PoD I intend to use, you are in no poition to judge it. And I intend to keep it for myself for now. Just rest assured that the french are going full blast in the fight and will not quit. Fighting against the invaders is called upon in the pulpits and in worker's Meetings, in Bourgeois mansions and poor farms

Were there any serious seperatist movements in 70s or 80s Germany? I don't know of them..

Let's begin with Alsace, shall we?


Once Germany has been politically united, there is even more reason for the alread German-feelin non-Prussian areas to become permenantly German in character, since the facts on the ground will encourage it.

So Histiry is written in stone and formation of Germany was ordained by God and cannot be changed?

That is basically your argument.

Oh and the unification under the Prussian Junkers was greated with joy by all the population, without any opposition.

And Germany was Germany was Germany. The German Kultur was unique and defined what is Germany.

We don't seem to come from the same TL; in mine the was that thing called Kulturkampf and there were tensions inside the second Reich, and some of the area claimed as German didn't end up as part of Germany, even if they were part of the Reich, not to mention those that never were ( at last of the second one )
 
Last edited:
Firstly, I olitely request that you answer my posts in full, as I do yours, and stoppicking and choosing those bits you have a response to.

Sure. Just like it did in 1792.

That's why all battle in the 1800s were fought on french territory.

Wait.. That was not the case.

You can't just refight the Revolutionary Wars. As I've said before, circumstances change, and one outcome one time does not mean it could happen the same anywhere. For just a few differences off the top of my head:

-In 1793, national warfare and mass conscription were new and unprecedented. The French gained a tremendous numerical and moral advantage over the allies. In 1871, Germany has a mass-conscript national army. The French advantages are much smaller.

-In 1793, the allies had a declared policy of destroying the French republic and an official pillage policy. France was genuinely in danger. In 1871, the Germans wanted to take Alsace and go. I find it hard to believe that the average citizen, suffering occupation and chaos, is going to care about Alsace enough to go and get his brains shot out over it.

-In 1793, the French actually had some subtle technical advantages, mostly their famous artillery system, derived from the mostly intact royal army. You seem to expect the French to pull an army out of thin air, te Imperial being in a much worse state, and for the mighty French Navy to outclass Krupp.

-In 1793, the tactics which the conscipts were capable of, skirmishing and mass column charges, proved uniquely suited to overpowering traditional 18th century armies. As seen in 1866, rifles had made such tactics in one case uniersal and in the other case useless.

-In 1793, the allies were terrible at co-operating and allowed the French to concentrate and destroy them one by one at the strategic level. In 1871, Germany is united ad commited.

As to the french governmant and the pressure it is submitted to, since you don't know the PoD I intend to use, you are in no poition to judge it. And I intend to keep it for myself for now. Just rest assured that the french are going full blast in the fight and will not quit. Fighting against the invaders is called upon in the pulpits and in worker's Meetings, in Bourgeois mansions and poor farms

I am in no position to judge your PoD, howeve I can judge French politics in the late war as chaotic, bitter, and factional and therefore judge France unlikely to unite in pursuit of a war which is being badly lost in a rather idealistic way. I am in a position to judge your secrecy as strange and unhelpful. If you refuse to reveal your PoD, might you at least reveal why?

Let's begin with Alsace, shall we?

I note that you have chosen not to quote my comments about national minorities such as Posen Poles. I repeat them: where in German Germany was there a serious seperatist movement?

So Histiry is written in stone and formation of Germany was ordained by God and cannot be changed?

That is basically your argument.

Uh, what? You are deriving this presumaby from my view that German unification could not be reversed by the popuar will after it had happened in 1871. This very specific statement does not make me some kind of determinist, only someone who doesn't let his belief in the mutibility of history see him espousing a scenario which is militarily and politically absurd purely for the sake of change, and this seems to me to be what you are doing. I am being harsh here, and perhaps if you were to reveal your PoD and it were a good one I should regret it, but you haven't.

Oh and the unification under the Prussian Junkers was greated with joy by all the population, without any opposition.

Scratch the bit about Prussian Junkers and I'd say "For all intents and purposes yes". Now obviously one can't kick words out of a song, but it is clear that the goal of German political Catholicism was always to protect that religion and its institutions in Germany and to maintain laws compatible with it. It was never a seperatist goal, this being espoused within German Germany only by small and radical groups who never gained power by a legitimate means. From this we can ascertain that unification was sufficiently popular throughout Germany for working within a Junker framework to change it to be by far a better and more popular course than trying to reverse unification. In summary, although not everybody loved a Junker Germany, far from it, united Germany, Prussian or no, never met with any serious political oppositio inside Germany-proper.

And Germany was Germany was Germany. The German Kultur was unique and defined what is Germany.

Uh, yes? This is true of Germany, France, or any other nation. Well, the second sentence is, and I have no idea what you mean by the first one.

We don't seem to come from the same TL; in mine the was that thing called Kulturkampf and there were tensions inside the second Reich, and some of the area claimed as German didn't end up as part of Germany, even if they were part of the Reich, not to mention those that never were ( at last of the second one )

I'm sorry, I struggle to understand much of this paragraph. I have already pointed out that Kulturkampf never created serious seperatism. Socio-religious tension can be found anywhere. Until you give me a valid PoD for Kulturkampf to reverse unification, the "burden of proof" is on you as far as that's concerned.

"Didn't end us part of Germany, even if they were part of the Reich" makes no sense. If you mean "were not Germanised", then it makes sense but is a useless argument which I already adressed: one cannt take French or Polish seperatism and use it to create German seperatism out of thin air.

As for German areas outside the Second Reich...

-I don't think Switzerland was ever actually claimed.

-Luxembourg was kept out of Germany by political circumstance and distanced from Germany by time, dialect, success as a state, French influence, and German occupation.

-Austria attempted to join Germany throughout the 20s from the end of A-H onwards and was distanced from Germany by politics and time. If Nazi-ism isn't a bizarre, unlikely, and terrible set of circumstances, I don't know what is.
 
Firstly, I olitely request that you answer my posts in full, as I do yours, and stoppicking and choosing those bits you have a response to..

Sorry, I don't Have the time to. Real life interferences.
You can't just refight the Revolutionary Wars. As I've said before, circumstances change, and one outcome one time does not mean it could happen the same anywhere. For just a few differences off the top of my head:

-In 1793, national warfare and mass conscription were new and unprecedented. The French gained a tremendous numerical and moral advantage over the allies. In 1871, Germany has a mass-conscript national army. The French advantages are much smaller..

IOTL, the various german states fielded a total of 1,000,000 men. If France goes to general mobilisation, I expect she could go to 5,000,000 , I'm limitating the first draft to 3,000,000 due to physical limitations ( and even these tke months to arm and train ). The German states do not have the same mobilisation as French do not invade.

-In 1793, the allies had a declared policy of destroying the French republic and an official pillage policy. France was genuinely in danger. In 1871, the Germans wanted to take Alsace and go. I find it hard to believe that the average citizen, suffering occupation and chaos, is going to care about Alsace enough to go and get his brains shot out over it...

That's one part of the PoD. Or at least the french are convinced so, due to a failure in communication.

-In 1793, the French actually had some subtle technical advantages, mostly their famous artillery system, derived from the mostly intact royal army. You seem to expect the French to pull an army out of thin air, te Imperial being in a much worse state, and for the mighty French Navy to outclass Krupp. ...
In 1871, the french had the machine gun. They didn't employ them correctly, at first. When they had learned how to, the war ended.


-In 1793, the tactics which the conscipts were capable of, skirmishing and mass column charges, proved uniquely suited to overpowering traditional 18th century armies. As seen in 1866, rifles had made such tactics in one case uniersal and in the other case useless. ...

Nonetheless, the french republic volunteers won some victories OTL and were very near to in other cases.

And there are enough veterans to serve as cadre and officers, more than was the case in 1792.
-In 1793, the allies were terrible at co-operating and allowed the French to concentrate and destroy them one by one at the strategic level. In 1871, Germany is united ad commited....
1) France was also very disunited in 1792-93
2) South German'Sates didn't come into this war willingly OTL. They were forced to do so by treaty and public enthosiams. WHen enthousiams wanes due to casualties and no end of war in sight, these states are going to want out. It won't work, but it will induce some frailty in the systems in decades to come.

I am in no position to judge your PoD, howeve I can judge French politics in the late war as chaotic, bitter, and factional and therefore judge France unlikely to unite in pursuit of a war which is being badly lost in a rather idealistic way. I am in a position to judge your secrecy as strange and unhelpful. If you refuse to reveal your PoD, might you at least reveal why?

Because it takes too long to write all the effects and I don't have the time yet.

The original PoD is as follows : Hugo comes back to Paris a few days earlier tha OTL.

I doubt you can go the consequences I described from just that ( or how that leads to the Marseillaise getting her original name back ), and I don't have the time now to write down and explain the pages in between.

I note that you have chosen not to quote my comments about national minorities such as Posen Poles. I repeat them: where in German Germany was there a serious seperatist movement?

I didn't comment because I don't think it was worth.

You are looking at this backward and see that there was no serious movement in the area which is nowadays germany.

IOW, all the separatist movements which existed realised their goal of not beeing part of Germany.

Now, look at the areas which XIXth century german nationalists claimed as part of Germany...

Uh, what? You are deriving this presumaby from my view that German unification could not be reversed by the popuar will after it had happened in 1871. This very specific statement does not make me some kind of determinist,

Yes it does. You do not consider it possible that any kind of PoD could change the OTL sentiment and make that german National identity more fragile than it was OTL. Or that any kind of secret police would make german people more recentful of prussian domination than there were OTL.
I'm sorry, I struggle to understand much of this paragraph. I have already pointed out that Kulturkampf never created serious seperatism. Socio-religious tension can be found anywhere. Until you give me a valid PoD for Kulturkampf to reverse unification, the "burden of proof" is on you as far as that's concerned.

Yes, and they create tensions everywhere ( See, for exemple, the separation of The Netherlands and Belgium, or the problems in France). Save, seemingly in Germany. At least according to you.
"Didn't end us part of Germany, even if they were part of the Reich" makes no sense. If you mean "were not Germanised", then it makes sense but is a useless argument which I already adressed: one cannt take French or Polish seperatism and use it to create German seperatism out of thin air.

Again, you're looking at it from backward, by claiming that area that didn't end up as part of germany were never german.

That was not the opinion of the XIXth century german nationalist and not what they attempted.

The area on which they managed to stamp their idea of German culture end up in Germany; the ones in which they failed, or which rejected Prussian domination, didn't. that is OTL. A different tL could see a different germany, either bigger or smaller, depending on the events. I can go for either with a 1871 PoD ( for bigger, if Alsatians had been treated better, I may be German at this point ).
As for German areas outside the Second Reich...

-I don't think Switzerland was ever actually claimed.

-Luxembourg was kept out of Germany by political circumstance and distanced from Germany by time, dialect, success as a state, French influence, and German occupation.

-Austria attempted to join Germany throughout the 20s from the end of A-H onwards and was distanced from Germany by politics and time. If Nazi-ism isn't a bizarre, unlikely, and terrible set of circumstances, I don't know what is.


Switzerland was, along with Netherlands, Most of Belgium, Part of Northern France ( in addition to Alsace and Lorraine, obviously ), Austria, obviously, some small parts of Italy and parts of Central EUrope, up till Lituania and parts of Bielorussia.

As for Austria, there were some which were for unification ( pushed along by the Nazis, as you note ) but also quite a few which resisted.


Just to be clear, I don't think that a 1871 PoD can lead to an immediate dissolution of Germany. Just that it can set the stage for events which will lead to it half a century down the line, after two Eurpean wars ( which was not the case OTL, but the circomstances differ and the national identity isn't as strang in the TL I'm thinking about that IOTL )
 
Last edited:
Sorry, I don't Have the time to. Real life interferences.

Okay, but I reserve the right to refer back to the stuff you haven't responded to.


IOTL, the various german states fielded a total of 1,000,000 men. If France goes to general mobilisation, I expect she could go to 5,000,000 , I'm limitating the first draft to 3,000,000 due to physical limitations ( and even these tke months to arm and train ). The German states do not have the same mobilisation as French do not invade.

"Never advance relying on numbers alone", anyone? While your conscripts are arming and training, your blooded Germans are marching up and down the country taking possesion of weapons and stores and territory and infrastructure. By the time these vast hordes of poorly trained, poorly equipped soldiers are in any field-worthy state whatsoever, many of their homes may be occupied and more importantly France has lost a great deal of its warmaking capacity. They may well be able to force some bloody victories, but the wisest choice will be, as it was, to ditch Alsace, knock the country back into shape, rebuild, and swear revenge. You're basically asking the French to take the course most damaging to their nation in order to disunite Germany. That's pretty backwards.

That's one part of the PoD. Or at least the french are convinced so, due to a failure in communication.

Actions speak louder than words. A message from the government saying that the Germans are burning, raping and slaughtering followed by some relatively subdued Germans passing through will only damage the French government's credibility. I recall the tales of Polish soldiers in the 1812 campaign greeting Russian peasents with "God bless you!" and the Russians becoming friendly on realising that they weren't actually devil worshippers as they had been told.

In 1871, the french had the machine gun. They didn't employ them correctly, at first. When they had learned how to, the war ended.

The French had a small supply of primitive "machine guns". A fat lot of good that will do them, since as I noted the Germans can actually go on the strategic and tactical defensive as soon as the French put their new armies in the field. It certainly wont make up for the overwhelming German supremacy in the decisive wepon of the war: cannon, cannon, cannon.

Nonetheless, the french republic volunteers won some victories OTL and were very near to in other cases.[/source]

Certainly, but evey battle is a unique situation. Judging American performance in 1812 by New Orleans alone, and there goes Canada. I suspect an NO type situation in your battles (do name them): poor planning by the Germans, hubris, a fine French commander, a crack force, an excellent defensive positon, all those sorts of factors which can win a battle but not a war.

And there are enough veterans to serve as cadre and officers, more than was the case in 1792.

I am dubious about this figure. In 1792, the royal army had not just been badly defeated in battle and had a great many of its men captured. Have you a source for your figures? And are they adjusted for proportion? In absolute terms, more officers in 1871 seems plausible. In 1871 there are also a great deal more Frenchmen, and, come to that, Germans.

1) France was also very disunited in 1792-93

Certainly, but not to the extent that the allies could defeat them on one front and make a seperate peace, of that some regiments would suddenly withdraw to partition Poland. The allies most certainly had it worse.

2) South German'Sates didn't come into this war willingly OTL. They were forced to do so by treaty and public enthosiams. WHen enthousiams wanes due to casualties and no end of war in sight, these states are going to want out. It won't work, but it will induce some frailty in the systems in decades to come.

Write that public enthusiasm remark down! Red handed! Red handed!

Ahem. Although really, you have a funny definition of willing, if poular support and an obligation under a fair and equal treaty signed in light of threats to national sovereignty from the common enemy is "unwilling".

I believe Germany has already been united. Even if enthusiasm in the south does wane (and I seem to recall that it was Baden, not Bismarck, who was most enthusiastic about German Alsace) faster than in the north, there is no way for them to ditch.

Because it takes too long to write all the effects and I don't have the time yet.

The original PoD is as follows : Hugo comes back to Paris a few days earlier tha OTL.

Hmmm. I think I shall have to wait till you've got your butterflies clear to comment, but it seems interesting.

I doubt you can go the consequences I described from just that ( or how that leads to the Marseillaise getting her original name back ), and I don't have the time now to write down and explain the pages in between.

I understand. Sorry for being a bit nasty earlier.

I didn't comment because I don't think it was worth.

You are looking at this backward and see that there was no serious movement in the area which is nowadays germany.

IOW, all the separatist movements which existed realised their goal of not beeing part of Germany.

Uh, no. There was never a seperatist movement in Lower Silesia, East Brandenburg, Vorpommern, or northern East Prussia. The ones in southern East Prussia and Upper Silesia never suceeded democratically. Do you know what the Oder-Neisse line was?

Now, look at the areas which XIXth century german nationalists claimed as part of Germany...

This is absolutely absurd. Let me demostrate by anaolgy.

Some French far-rightists claimed for a long time that Algeria was part of France.

It isn't. In cultural and linguistic terms, it never was.

Ergo, not all areas claimed by French nationalists are actually France.

French nationalists [and all sane people] claim that Provence is part of France.

Therefore a long and bloody guerilla war could easily develop in Provence, having dire consequences for France and the world.

It happened in Algeria, after all!

Yes it does. You do not consider it possible that any kind of PoD could change the OTL sentiment and make that german National identity more fragile than it was OTL. Or that any kind of secret police would make german people more recentful of prussian domination than there were OTL.

I do not consider it possible to cross the Channel in Rhine barges whilst giving a great navy the slip. Forgve my playing, as it were, the Hitler card, but not believing it possible to bring about a specific, very unlikely thing within a very short, defined time limit does not a determinist make. To continue the comparison, you are taking my belief that Sealion could not have suceeded and claiming that I believe that no German military force could every have succesfully launched an invasion of Great Britain. Which is silly and determinist. And not what I'm saying at all.

Yes, and they create tensions everywhere ( See, for exemple, the separation of The Netherlands and Belgium, or the problems in France). Save, seemingly in Germany. At least according to you.

Excuse me, did I say that? I must ask you to refrain from putting words into my mouth. The problems in France never resulted in succesful seperatism between the years of [almost any two dates in French history] because owing to the anture of France's problems they could never have physically destroyed the nation. The same is true of Germany's problems in the Kulturkampf. They were real. They caused tensions. They couldn't have destroyed the state.

Again, you're looking at it from backward, by claiming that area that didn't end up as part of germany were never german.

I need not repond to this as it is a lie. See "I believe Austria did have a German consciousness" and "There was never seperatism in Lower Silesia". You are telling blatant, provable lies about what I have said. Please don't

That was not the opinion of the XIXth century german nationalist and not what they attempted.

Man, we sure here a lot of these nationalists. One would think they were in power! That aside, I don't actually understand this remark.

The area on which they managed to stamp their idea of German culture end up in Germany; the ones in which they failed, or which rejected Prussian domination, didn't. that is OTL.

That is a lie, unless being forcibly removed by Soviet armed forces now qualifies as rejecting Prussian domination. That is a lie which is starting to verge on a Deutschbasch. I repeat: Have you ever heard of the Oder-Neisse line?

A different tL could see a different germany, either bigger or smaller, depending on the events. I can go for either with a 1871 PoD ( for bigger, if Alsatians had been treated better, I may be German at this point ).

Do I deny this? Not in the slightest. All true and good sense. All I'm saying is that with a PoD in 1871, detaching Bavaria and the south from Germany by the popular will before 1900 is pretty much impossible.

Switzerland was, along with Netherlands, Most of Belgium, Part of Northern France ( in addition to Alsace and Lorraine, obviously ), Austria, obviously, some small parts of Italy and parts of Central EUrope, up till Lituania and parts of Bielorussia.

Belorus? You appear to be talking about the Nationalist Socialist German Workers Party. This is a wonky list, though. Estonia and Latvia are off it despite being much more claimed than Lithuania, while "Mailand" is apparently far more important than "Warschau".

As for Austria, there were some which were for unification ( pushed along by the Nazis, as you note ) but also quite a few which resisted.

Apology for playing the Hitler card hereby withdrawn. Until you explain how the Nazis were responsible for the German Republic of German Austria, Federal State of Germany, 1919, then you can consider us Hitler-card even. No wait, my Hitler card was bearly a Hitler card and actually made sense. You're just saying "The Nazis did it!" to try and cancel out something (the German solidarity of Austria in one of Germany's darkest hours) which contradicts your view of Germannes as something prone to shattering when dropped. Despite the fact that the Nazis had not yet been founded in Austria, or, I believe, Germany, So yeah.

Just to be clear, I don't think that a 1871 PoD can lead to an immediate dissolution of Germany. Just that it can set the stage for events which will lead to it half a century down the line, after two Eurpean wars ( which was not the case OTL, but the circomstances differ and the national identity isn't as strang in the TL I'm thinking about that IOTL )

And it ould appear that we have discovered the heart of the matter, the bone of contention, the apple of discord!

This is the before 1900 forum. The thread says "by 1900".

So it would seem that we are no longer really having a debate. However, I would appreciate if you responded to this post because some of the things you said, like that low Nazi remark, got my blood pumping and I want to finish this thing.
 
Last edited:
Top