Could Germany have been broken up after WWI/WWII?

Deleted member 1487

Germany was the proximate cause of WW2, there's no doubt about that, but it still doesn't necessarily follow that no more Germany => no more World Wars. Because really, when you take a broader view of things, Germany may have been a significant contributing factor to the wars we had IOTL, said wars were ultimately just the latest instances of Europe fighting amongst itself as it had for centuries. Europe as a continent didn't get any more violent after 1871 than it was beforehand, and the real reason the World Wars were as bloody as they were revolve around the available technology and the resilience of governments, not geopolitics. Removing one actor from the stage wouldn't change the overall environment, it would simply make the next crisis resemble the Thirty Years War rather than the Napoleonic Wars. That's not a real improvement there; at best, it would redistribute the suffering.

Also, in order to be viable nation-states, the new German statelets would need internal legitimacy, which is exactly what would go down the drain if they were seen as Entente creations held in place by the strength (direct or threatened) of the French army. It's a self-defeating solution.

This is right on point. Hitler clearly started WW2, but the fact that he even got into power and anywhere close to being able to start a war is the result of a badly dysfunctional international system that enabled him to build up a war machine from very little and go on to launch the most destructive war in history. I mean even after violating the Munich Agreement by marching into Prague the British handed over millions in gold to Hitler from Czech accounts, which was then used on more rearmament. There were other bad actors in the world at the time, so who knows what would have happened if you deleted a unified Germany from the world, especially as the cost of doing so would have been horrible economically and the occupation to pull that off would have been heavily draining.
 
In an earlier discussion, Salzburg was proposed as the capital of a united Austria-Bavaria. Of course, Salzburg is much smaller than Munich and Vienna, but there are many other examples of relatively small cities becoming capitals instead of larger ones.

Of course, Salzburg is the ideal compromise.

Most nations do pick relatively small cities as capitals for a reason, Paris, London, and Madrid I don't believe the were the largest cities at the time that they became national capitals (but admit I could very well be wrong); certainly St Petersburg was not bigger than Moscow when it was created by Peter the Great. Washington DC and most US state capitals are prime examples. Ottawa, Canada. Ankara, Turkey.


This is rather true for Extra-European nations which chose to create artificial planned capitals (DC, Canberra, Brasilia...) or, as it is with most US states. Actually only ca. 40 (out of ca. 200) nations do not have their largest city as capital. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hauptstadt#/media/File:Capital_not_largest_city.PNG


The thing about Europe is that due to the nature of "travelling rule" in the middle-ages, the adaptation of a capital had been slow and gradual and tended to be not a conscious decision, but that a city established itself to which the rulers gravitated anyways due to their importance and/or central location.
Germany is an odd example here, as it decided against Frankfurt and in favour of Berlin due to the Prussian dominance in the first unification and against Bonn and again in favour of Berlin in 1991.
Wheras when talking about US states, the capitals had to be decided before the economic and demographical development of the area had become clear.
 
And errrrr, nationalism was not invented in France, and it's much older than the French Revolution and Napoleon. The nation-state started officially according to any political science or history professor you can find- with the Treaty of Westphalia. Nationalism grew out of that. Now, my opinion is that the nation-state is older

I agree with you that the development of the nation-state is a far more complex phenomenon. I learnt that the Treaty of Westphalia meant a major step only as far as it established the (nation-)state as an actor in the now traditional sense of diplomacy.

For Germany, 1648 rather meant a step back, a weakening of the Old Empire. Far more important were Cultural developments which were seen as genuinely German: Luther's bible and its powerful language; the Weimar Classics and the later Romanticism; and the heroic Prussian propaganda during the 7-year-war.

And the development of an image of a perennial greedy antagonist: the France of the several Louis and of Napoleon, grabbing German lands war by war- culminating in the "wars of liberation" 1813-15.
 
History besides, I find it immense funny when people try to sell any breakup as a contribution to secruity & peace, but at the same time just ignore the rights of the people who live there.

...so who knows what would have happened if you deleted a unified Germany from the world, especially as the cost of doing so would have been horrible economically and the occupation to pull that off would have been heavily draining.

I like to voice a contrasting opinion here. The Germany of 1815-1866 was IMHO a very stabilizing factor in Europe. It had, in combination with Austria, become demographically and economically far too strong to be pushed around as the Germany of 1618-1812; but it lacked the unity it would need to dominate or to pose a threat.
And one more word on a potential WW1-break-up: I agree that I do not see it at all viable if accompagnied by all the Versailles-measures which enbittered the Germans: reparations, occupation zones, armament restructions, war-guilt-clause. It would need to remain a customs area; perhaps even expanded by some of the Austro-Hungarian successor states.

Alas, all that has basically zero Chance to happen.


 
 
This is right on point. Hitler clearly started WW2, but the fact that he even got into power and anywhere close to being able to start a war is the result of a badly dysfunctional international system that enabled him to build up a war machine from very little and go on to launch the most destructive war in history. I mean even after violating the Munich Agreement by marching into Prague the British handed over millions in gold to Hitler from Czech accounts, which was then used on more rearmament. There were other bad actors in the world at the time, so who knows what would have happened if you deleted a unified Germany from the world, especially as the cost of doing so would have been horrible economically and the occupation to pull that off would have been heavily draining.

That is a good point. Still, uniting Bavaria and Austria might change the game, as it would recreate the situation with two large German states. Also, I think this is a solution that might be acceptable to the Bavarians, as they have more in common with the Austrians than with other Germans. Of course there might be groups in the new Austro-Bavarian state that would want to unite with Germany, but so there were also in Austria before WW2.
 
That is a good point. Still, uniting Bavaria and Austria might change the game, as it would recreate the situation with two large German states. Also, I think this is a solution that might be acceptable to the Bavarians, as they have more in common with the Austrians than with other Germans. Of course there might be groups in the new Austro-Bavarian state that would want to unite with Germany, but so there were also in Austria before WW2.

But, to reiterate my earlier point, this would, at best, check the power of Germany. But neutering Germany doesn't prevent a World War, it only prevents OTL's World War 2. You might instead see a World War that's brought on by another aggressor, and exacerbated by German weakness rather than German strength. Or you might see a series of smaller wars that nevertheless add up. It might be a workable split for Germany, but it probably wouldn't make Europe any more peaceful.
 
But, to reiterate my earlier point, this would, at best, check the power of Germany. But neutering Germany doesn't prevent a World War, it only prevents OTL's World War 2. You might instead see a World War that's brought on by another aggressor, and exacerbated by German weakness rather than German strength. Or you might see a series of smaller wars that nevertheless add up. It might be a workable split for Germany, but it probably wouldn't make Europe any more peaceful.

But it might decrease the chances of a Nazi-style genocide.
 
Still, uniting Bavaria and Austria might change the game, as it would recreate the situation with two large German states.

Austria and Bavaria combined are larger than Austria alone. However, by 1920 them against "Rest-Germany" would still be ca. 13 Million vs. ca. 53 Million.
Not exactly a Balance.

You might instead see a World War that's brought on by another aggressor, and exacerbated by German weakness rather than German strength.

But who could realistically bring about the same mayhem as the Nazis? Not even Stalin against a Capitalist block throughout Europe.
 
Top