Could Germany have been Unified without Bismark?

i've been learning a bit about the unification of germany in 1871, and I'm kind of wondering, would it have haapened without Bismark? By all acounts he was the one who made it happen, so couls it have happened, by say 1871, with out his exsitance? say, he died at birth and their was no one to "take his place".

What I'm really asking is, how important was Bismark to Greman Unification
anmd how could Germany have been unified without him, by at least 1871?

or, is being unified by 1871 even possible?
 

Philip

Donor
You are making Baby Susano cry.

I find it surprising that unification took so long IOTL. 1848 is a standard AH choice for earlier unification of Germany.
 
Yeah, it could pretty easily have happened in 1848. There would be no Empire though because the whole idea was to unify under a parliament or congress. The thing that Bismarck did was establish alliances and such in the right places. BUt when Wilhelm II fired him he broke down the alliances so in the long run it didn't really matter.
 

Susano

Banned
You are making Baby Susano cry.

I find it surprising that unification took so long IOTL. 1848 is a standard AH choice for earlier unification of Germany.

http://home.no.net/eovti/BabyJesusCry.jpg
:D

1848 or 1850 (Erfurt Union) would indeed work. Without that and without Bismarck, though, German unifcation surely wouldve taken some decades longer. But not that much - consider that in the eyes of the German monarchs in 1848 German nationalism was the big, democratic evil, and yet lessthan 25 years later they (in parts enthusiastically) supported it!
 
Germany could have unified without Bismarck. Or it would not have. There is no real honest answer to this counterfactual. In fact, about the only honest thing that can be said about it is that Germany might never have unified. In historiography, for very long time, historians have believed that Germany would have unified eventually, with or without Bismarck; some thought that way because they bought the PanGerman propaganda; other historians hated the idea of Bismarck (the uber-personification of the Great Man theory) and argued that Zollverein made unification inevitable. These days, historians are more skeptical. Through the new discipline of social history, historians have found that particularism was in fact very strong in Germany and that ordinary people, as opposed to the small mittelstand that favored political liberalization and unification, did not want to become united. Nationalists, in fact, were a minority, vocal yes, but nevertheless a small minority. 1848, nobody except the radicals wanted united Germany; when the kings brought troops in, the Frankfurt liberals melted away like snow and the ordinary people did not rise up to protect these liberals who were fighting for Germany's liberty and freedom. A real short answer would be: Flip a coin; tail, Germany unifies; heads, Germany does not. :)
 

Susano

Banned
The nationalism was there, and as said in the 60/70s increasingly also among the monarchs. Unification WOULD have come one way or another, but as said, the time difference would of couse be several decades.
 
The nationalism was there, and as said in the 60/70s increasingly also among the monarchs. Unification WOULD have come one way or another, but as said, the time difference would of couse be several decades.

Sure, but the centrifugal force was there too and was just as strong. The North-South divide was all too real; no southern state save Baden wanted to be part of north in 70. It took a defensive patriotic war to bring the south in and even then, Bismarck had to hurry the unification because the particularist forces were regaining strength and national feelings were waning. Several of large, tradition-hallowed German states (Bavaria, Saxony, Hanover, Wurtemburg, etc) might never have unified but for Bismarck. Like I said, complete German unification was never inevitable.
 

Susano

Banned
Nothings inevitable. It was very probable, though. I mean, why did Württemberg and Bavaria join the wa against France? They had the defense pacts with the NGC, yes, but they honoured them specifically because of popular pressure. Which would be a force Germany-wide even without Bismarck. Basically, the German states would have to remain backwards, dictatoric states for unfication to never happen...

Hell, Bismarck hadnt even planned to unite Germany, yet it still happened ;)
 
Nothings inevitable. It was very probable, though. I mean, why did Württemberg and Bavaria join the wa against France? They had the defense pacts with the NGC, yes, but they honoured them specifically because of popular pressure. Which would be a force Germany-wide even without Bismarck. Basically, the German states would have to remain backwards, dictatoric states for unfication to never happen...

Hell, Bismarck hadnt even planned to unite Germany, yet it still happened ;)

I dunno - I can see a North Germany / south Germany split as rather plausible...
 

Susano

Banned
I dunno - I can see a North Germany / south Germany split as rather plausible...

As said, possible is everything. But public pressure would be there, so the only way to prevent unification would basically be for both sides to never become anything resembling democracies...
 

Valdemar II

Banned
I would say that German unifiation is more likely without Bismark, but I think it would be more EU style unication which included Austria, than Prussia +sattelites. Prussia needed some kind of access between the two half* and it could only get that true conquest (primary of Hanover) or co-operation, and without Bismark I doubt Hanover would have been annexed, which would leave co-operation, the South German states would join to get access to bigger markets, while Austria would join to limit Prussian dominans over the lesser state. In the long run it likely evolve into a full federation, but that would likely first have happened in the 20th century.

*Other German states had the same problems
 
As said, possible is everything. But public pressure would be there, so the only way to prevent unification would basically be for both sides to never become anything resembling democracies...

Why? Austria's independent and democratic. (Don't mention the Anchluss - that precious little to do with anyone's opinion but Hitler's.) Why would it be so hard for the Catholics and the Protestants to see themselves as different? North and South Germany are a lot more different than, eg, a lot of Latin American countries which have perfectly good nationalisms of their own.
 
Nothings inevitable. It was very probable, though. I mean, why did Württemberg and Bavaria join the wa against France? They had the defense pacts with the NGC, yes, but they honoured them specifically because of popular pressure. Which would be a force Germany-wide even without Bismarck. Basically, the German states would have to remain backwards, dictatoric states for unfication to never happen...

Hell, Bismarck hadnt even planned to unite Germany, yet it still happened ;)

Because it was against the French in defense of their homeland? (the southerners knew that victorious French would annex large swath of southern Germany.) That was popular pressure, yes, but not the kind that would have likely led to unification save for Bismarck's efforts. After all, Germans also fought against Napoleon I too, yet they were no more inclined to unite then. International situation could have very well led to continued division of Germany; if Napoleon III and Franz Joseph were only a bit smarter, Bismarck could have gone down in history very differently-- as an archreactionary who led Prussia into a disastrous war and died by the axe. As Wilhelm I once told Bismarck, they would cut off his head first, then Bismarck's next. Bismarck was both lucky and great; international situation could have been easily less favorable. Only because Napoleon was such a fool that Bismarck succeeded so brilliantly; as they say, even the greatest needs the most mediocre to shine the brightest. Napoleon had Alexander at Austerlitz; so Bismarck had Louis at Sedan.
 
I would say that German unifiation is more likely without Bismark, but I think it would be more EU style unication which included Austria, than Prussia +sattelites. Prussia needed some kind of access between the two half* and it could only get that true conquest (primary of Hanover) or co-operation, and without Bismark I doubt Hanover would have been annexed, which would leave co-operation, the South German states would join to get access to bigger markets, while Austria would join to limit Prussian dominans over the lesser state. In the long run it likely evolve into a full federation, but that would likely first have happened in the 20th century.

*Other German states had the same problems

If unification had not happened by 1880's, Austria would have been in position to swallow up south Germany. Delbruck repeatedly outflanked the Austrians because Austria could not afford free trade; by the 80's, Austrian economy could offer itself as an alternative to Berlin, thus Prussia's greatest weapon, zollverein, would have been effectively neutralized.
 

Susano

Banned
Why? Austria's independent and democratic. (Don't mention the Anchluss - that precious little to do with anyone's opinion but Hitler's.) Why would it be so hard for the Catholics and the Protestants to see themselves as different? North and South Germany are a lot more different than, eg, a lot of Latin American countries which have perfectly good nationalisms of their own.

I do mention the Anschluss. The Anschluss itself, as it wa sdone, was no democratic atc, but there were referenda in the Austrian states in the 20s (with nopower, of course), that constantly showed above 90% support for reunification with Germany. Oh, and article 1 of the constitution of the Republic of German Austria: "German Austria is part of the German Republic...". Of course, the allies forced the republic to rename itself and adapt a new constitution. It was only the trheat of Allied intervention that kept Austria from uniting with Germany before WW2, and afterwards, it was Austria trying to distance themselves from the Nazi crimes:rolleyes:

Of course, yes, thats a second factor: Outside interference. But personally, I dont believe in a centuries long eternal vigilance.
 
Top