DBWI: United Germany instead of Zollverein?

Deleted member 97083

So an interesting fact some of you might not know, is that the Zollverein wasn't initially intended to be the pan-European economic union that it is today. In fact, it was originally created by the Kingdom of Prussia as an attempt to encourage German political unification.

Of course, when Prussia lost a few wars, and larger and larger empires such as the Austrian Empire and the Netherlands joined the customs union, all lobbying for their own industrial, mineral, and agricultural interests, then the Zollverein became a looser and looser, and less and less German entity. This was a gradual process of course, probably accelerated by some of the economic crises in the mid-late 19th century and the French ascendance.

But what if the original purpose of the Zollverein--to encourage a full economic union of German states and only members of the former German Confederation--had been successful?

Prussia was once famous for having a strong military, although its foreign policy on all fronts but the economic one, was quite weak in the 19th century, probably due to the lack of good ministers and diplomats. There was no "Prussian Metternich", no "Prussian Talleyrand" so to speak, certainly not in the late Victorian era.

How could Prussia have created its own "German Empire"?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
So an interesting fact some of you might not know, is that the Zollverein wasn't initially intended to be the pan-European economic union that it is today. In fact, it was originally created by the Kingdom of Prussia as an attempt to encourage German political unification.

Of course, when Prussia lost a few wars, and larger and larger empires such as the Austrian Empire and the Netherlands joined the customs union, all lobbying for their own industrial, mineral, and agricultural interests, then the Zollverein became a looser and looser, and less and less German entity. This was a gradual process of course, probably accelerated by some of the economic crises in the mid-late 19th century and the French ascendance.

But what if the original purpose of the Zollverein--to encourage a full economic union of German states and only members of the former German Confederation--had been successful?

Prussia was once famous for having a strong military, although its foreign policy on all fronts but the economic one, was quite weak in the 19th century, probably due to the lack of good ministers and diplomats. There was no "Prussian Metternich", no "Prussian Talleyrand" so to speak, certainly not in the late Victorian era.

How could Prussia have created its own "German Empire"?

If the history of the HRE taught us anything, the smaller Germanic states were very protective of their "German Freedoms" and autonomy, while the Arch-Conservatives in Prussia-Brandenburg could hardly have appealed to any liberal Pan-German sentiment. I suppose they could have tried to subdue them by force, but if the War of Scandinavian Unification and their involvement in the Danubian Principalities Crisis on the (losing) side of the Czar proved anything, it was that Prussia never really recovered their military prowess after their defeat by Napoleon. Hell, their expeditionary force almost got completely wiped out by the Pre-2nd Nizam-i Djedid Ottoman army at the Battle of Barlad. I know its hard to imagine today, what with the Caliphate's military reputation in the 20th century, but at the time they were still going through some major reforms and weren't looked upon very highly by their European counterparts.

Even assuming the Zollverein had been successful, I imagine Austria would have joined eventually (They were, after all, part of the Confederation) and become the dominant force. At the time, their population was far larger, and Bohemia and Austria-Proper's industry certainly benefited hugely from their inclusion IOTL.
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 97083

If the history of the HRE taught us anything, the smaller Germanic states were very protective of their "German Freedoms" and autonomy, while the Arch-Conservatives in Prussia-Brandenburg could hardly have appealed to any liberal Pan-German sentiment. I suppose they could have tried to subdue them by force, but if the War of Scandinavian Unification and their involvement in the Danubian Principalities Crisis on the (losing) side of the Czar proved anything, it was that Prussia never really recovered their military prowess after their defeat by Napoleon.
That's certainly a good point.

Along with these conflicts, there's also no doubt that the French Intervention and the ensuing "Prussian-Rhineland Split" of the Hohenzollern house was a large part in Prussia's military decline.

Ironically, as we all know, trade links between the "Western" Hohenzollern realm in the Rhineland and the "Eastern" Hohenzollern realm in Prussia actually flourished, and the economic growth of the Ruhr and Brandenburg seems to have accelerated during that time period. The loss of land encouraged some semblance of land reform in the eastern Prussian realm, weakening the most arch-conservative Junkers; yet too late of course to recover from prior geopolitical losses.

Hell, their expeditionary force almost got completely wiped out by the Pre-2nd Nizam-i Djedid Ottoman army at the Battle of Barlad. I know its hard to imagine today, what with the Caliphate's military reputation in the 20th century, but at the time they were still going through some major reforms and weren't looked upon very highly by their European counterparts.
The Caliphate? What is this, July 1949? You might as well call Japan "The Empire of Japan" or Russia "the Tsardom".

But yeah, I get what you mean. I know about the Ottoman industrialization in the late and early 20th centuries under Grand Vizier Hayreddin Pasha. And the Prussian defeat in the Wallachian War was certainly damaging to Prussia-Brandenburg's prestige not to mention their national budget.

Even assuming the Zollverein had been successful, I imagine Austria would have joined eventually (They were, after all, part of the Confederation) and become the dominant force. At the time, their population was far larger, and Bohemia and Austria-Proper's industry certainly benefited hugely from their inclusion IOTL.
Absolutely. But that still might not doom the original Prussian plans for the Zollverein. If Prussia had its own Talleyrand or Metternich...
 
That's certainly a good point.

Along with these conflicts, there's also no doubt that the French Intervention and the ensuing "Prussian-Rhineland Split" of the Hohenzollern house was a large part in Prussia's military decline.

Ironically, as we all know, trade links between the "Western" Hohenzollern realm in the Rhineland and the "Eastern" Hohenzollern realm in Prussia actually flourished, and the economic growth of the Ruhr and Brandenburg seems to have accelerated during that time period. The loss of land encouraged some semblance of land reform in the eastern Prussian realm, weakening the most arch-conservative Junkers; yet too late of course to recover from prior geopolitical losses.

---

The Caliphate? What is this, July 1949? You might as well call Japan "The Empire of Japan" or Russia "the Tsardom".

But yeah, I get what you mean. I know about the Ottoman industrialization in the late and early 20th centuries under Grand Vizier Hayreddin Pasha. And the Prussian defeat in the Wallachian War was certainly damaging to Prussia-Brandenburg's prestige not to mention their national budget.

---


Absolutely. But that still might not doom the original Prussian plans for the Zollverein. If Prussia had its own Talleyrand or Metternich...

Well, that goes without saying: the French Intervention really was the final nail in Brandenburg-Prussia's coffin that lead to its final removal from the club of European powers. I didn't list it as an example though because I consider the pitiful resistance the Army of the Rhine's military offered to be little more than a symbolic gesture of the Kingdom's independence. London's Daily Express diden't nickname the 'conflict'/diplomatic crisis "The One-Week War" for nothing.

As for the relationship between the two Germanic branches of the Hohenzollern Dynasty, the Western realm certainly got the better half of the deal. All that coal and iron, and position right on the border of one of the growing powers of Europe provided far more of an economic boost than East Prussia's rye fields could every give it... much less compete with the nearby Hapsburg industry in Bohemia for the Russian market (Heh. The more things change, the more they stay the same eh? Russia still can't produce an economically competitive company to save its life). Hell, if it weren't for the Ruhr's population boom and the great urbanization and subsequent decline in France's agricultural output creating a huge demand for their agricultural products, I Prussia would have largely ended up just as poor if not poorer than Russia. The Zollverein really killed the industry of its creator by preventing them from putting up protective duties to allow their infant industries to grow without being crushed by Rhinish, Hapsburg, and Saxon competition. Or maybe you consider the Rhinish branch to be the primary one in which case it was a smashing success in allowing them to break off from their medieval moorings.

Still, I did pass through East Prussia during a trip once. Beautiful place; lots of small farms and quaint little villages, beautiful lakes, simple and kind if a very conservative and pious population (Don't get be started on some of the talk of the "Papists", Orthodox "Beardos", and "Mohammedians" I heard in their pubs). Not a very wealthy or prestigious place, but its got to be a great place to retire. After Prague, I really needed that fresh air.

---

Eh, I like to think of it the same way people call Britain "The United Kingdom". I mean, the Caliph isn't quite as purely ornamental as the British Queen, but I can still see how you think its weird. However, you can't deny that during much of the 20th century (Which I was refering to), he certainly played a huge role in the government. Besides, "Turkey" is really a Western European term.

But I don't think anybody would argue that it was that battle that really caused the Ottomans to take Prussia's place in the seat of the Great Powers; especially after the drumming Russia received during the crisis too (St. Petersburg burning and the Crown Prince's death at Grozney REALLY screwed them over). After that, it was just a matter of time before somebody else tried interfering in their internal affairs.. which you clearly know alot about, since you brought up the French Intervention so prominently.

---

You might as well ask for Fredrick the Great to come back from the grave. Northern Germany has never really been known for producing good statesmen (Uncorruptable statemen, sure... but never particularly competent or efficient). Even then, Talleyrand and Metternich at least had larger states to work with: Prussia was far too dinky to ever stand up to France post-Napoleon I. If they managed to retain the Rhineland than maybe, MAYBE they could get enough economic power to tighten up the custom's union, but they'd have to keep so much competition out that its size would be a fraction of what it was today, and I can't see how they'd be able to wrangle the German states to submitting to central rule from Brandenburg. If Prussia leaned on the too hard, they could also turn to France or Austria for protection.

Prussia was essentially just continental Europe's version of a post-Mongol Khanate; an army with a state attached to it. Smash that army, and there's really nothing left underneath.
 
Last edited:
The benefits of a tighter, if not outright unification of the German-speaking states while pan-nationalism was the hot thing are pretty obvious: A unified German econony and army would've been a force to be reckoned with. That's regardless of whether Austria is included in-part, in its entirety, or at all.

The consequences are massive however. This unified economy and, potentially, army, would've created a massively unstable situation in Europe where this German megastate is practically unstoppable. This makes OTL Germanic economic power pale in comparison. Also, a unified Germany with one state dominant over the others may also destroy the regional cultures of the Germanies. Who knows of OTL Austrian, Bavarian, Rheinish, etc., cultures would survive at all. It's obvious to me that a united Germany dominated by pangerman nationalists would seek to destroy them and homogenise it. God knows what happens to the non-Germans, which is even more terrifying if you include Austria. That's millions of people that could have their cultures destroyed or suppressed. I doubt it would follow Austria's OTL reformist path because of its inevitable pan-nationalist and centralist ideology; after all, Austria always had a more decentralised system and culture that allowed it to happen after von Bach's failed centralism and dismissal.

Of course, this can be avoided if this unified Germany isn't created by pan-germanists, but who could've? I seriously can't think of a candidate that could achieve such a massive feat without the support of the pan-nationalists. Otherwise, it's a pretty depressing timeline unless you're German.
 
The benefits of a tighter, if not outright unification of the German-speaking states while pan-nationalism was the hot thing are pretty obvious: A unified German econony and army would've been a force to be reckoned with. That's regardless of whether Austria is included in-part, in its entirety, or at all.

The consequences are massive however. This unified economy and, potentially, army, would've created a massively unstable situation in Europe where this German megastate is practically unstoppable. This makes OTL Germanic economic power pale in comparison. Also, a unified Germany with one state dominant over the others may also destroy the regional cultures of the Germanies. Who knows of OTL Austrian, Bavarian, Rheinish, etc., cultures would survive at all. It's obvious to me that a united Germany dominated by pangerman nationalists would seek to destroy them and homogenise it. God knows what happens to the non-Germans, which is even more terrifying if you include Austria. That's millions of people that could have their cultures destroyed or suppressed. I doubt it would follow Austria's OTL reformist path because of its inevitable pan-nationalist and centralist ideology; after all, Austria always had a more decentralised system and culture that allowed it to happen after von Bach's failed centralism and dismissal.

Of course, this can be avoided if this unified Germany isn't created by pan-germanists, but who could've? I seriously can't think of a candidate that could achieve such a massive feat without the support of the pan-nationalists. Otherwise, it's a pretty depressing timeline unless you're German.

Bah, Austria being in a position where it has to submit to Prussian hegemony without losing its wider Empire is borderline ASB. If the Hapsburgs ended up so weak that they, along with other resentful minor German states, couldn't overpower Prussia, then they'd be FAR too weak to keep the Magyars, Transylvanians, Ruthanians, and Croats under control (The Poles and Bohemians, MAYBE: Bohemia is surrounded, and the Prussians DID have experience in ruling over a large Polish minority. And the Venetians certainly: i expect the Prussians would want that port on the Mediterranean. Even if they somehow were brought in, that many minority cultures would swamp as authoritarian and top-heavy a state as medieval Prussia. You can't have a country made up entirely of Irelands and expect it to last.
 

Deleted member 97083

It's obvious to me that a united Germany dominated by pangerman nationalists would seek to destroy them and homogenise it. God knows what happens to the non-Germans, which is even more terrifying if you include Austria. That's millions of people that could have their cultures destroyed or suppressed. I doubt it would follow Austria's OTL reformist path because of its inevitable pan-nationalist and centralist ideology; after all, Austria always had a more decentralised system and culture that allowed it to happen after von Bach's failed centralism and dismissal.

Of course, this can be avoided if this unified Germany isn't created by pan-germanists, but who could've? I seriously can't think of a candidate that could achieve such a massive feat without the support of the pan-nationalists. Otherwise, it's a pretty depressing timeline unless you're German.
So you basically see Germany becoming similar to the Russian Empire except in Central Europe, at least in terms of enforcing its culture and perhaps religion on its conquered foes? Interesting, but I'm not sure if it's plausible. Germany never was a colonial power or one with a militarized frontier, so why would they have such a mentality? Why bother when they can simply form puppet states? The German language IOTL of course, spread largely peacefully by trade between Zollverein member nations and through countries linked with the Austrian Empire, becoming the world's most spoken second language outside of the Commonwealth realms.
 
So you basically see Germany becoming similar to the Russian Empire except in Central Europe, at least in terms of enforcing its culture and perhaps religion on its conquered foes? Interesting, but I'm not sure if it's plausible. Germany never was a colonial power or one with a militarized frontier, so why would they have such a mentality? Why bother when they can simply form puppet states? The German language IOTL of course, spread largely peacefully by trade between Zollverein member nations and through countries linked with the Austrian Empire, becoming the world's most spoken second language outside of the Commonwealth realms.
Maybe Prussian militarism remains strong, and they're able to parley that into army reforms and an effective military apparatus?
 
Top