German economy & industry without the World Wars?

bad@logic Germany lost 36% of its territory in both wars and the eastern half was for 44 years occupied by the Red Army and of course went into socialism. No other country lost that much. Irony on: And yes, the eastern countries will surpass Germany pretty soon by cranking out hundreds of scientists and engineers out of their famous universities, there suddenly will be a large numbers of entreprenuers putting up new factories and so on and so on. The growth of Russia prior to WWI was largely spurred first by German and then French Investment, propping up their ally.

Germany in 1870 was exactly in the situation in which you describe it would be later on. Between AH, Russia, two large Empires on one side and England and France, two colonial blocks on the other. Yet it outgrew France, the UK and Russia. And care to answer my question around which towns on the Vistula you would have the new econimic center of Europe?
You're still not getting it. Germany lost a lot of territory, although in population terms it wasn't as severe, but the most important thing was that Germany never suffered the intense destabilization of other nations nor the catastrophic political effects that happened to Eastern Europe. Yes, Germany's population losses and territory losses were severe, but they succeeded in utterly undermining the population growth which was happening in Eastern Europe, destroying the large integrated economic spaces of France, Britain, Russia, and indirectly that of its ally of Austria-Hungary. Germany didn't have to grow in absolute terms, and indeed it suffered greatly - its population hardly grew at all between 1913 and 1945 - but the long term damage inflicted upon its rivals was far more severe.

The scientists are another red herring. Why does it matter if Russia is the center of world science? India has surpassed the United Kingdom and France in economic size (combined if one uses PPP terms) - do you think that they're the center of science compared to Western Europe? Science has its relationship to economic growth but economic growth is a far more complex picture than the number of scientists. Strictly speaking, Russia doesn't need to be the center of science, because it is fundamentally just catching up to the Western economies. Again, the late-comer problem: Russia doesn't need to invent new things, just use that which is already developed, which is far easier.

In reality, its economic growth before 1913 was significantly higher than that of Germany, and the fact that it was financed by foreign investment is irrelevant - the United States after all had a very large amount of foreign investment and was a major debtor nation up until WW1, are you going to claim economic weakness on the part of the US? Poor and developing nations are debtor nations. That's the way economics works. They also tend to grow faster than developed nations, because that's the way development works.

Thirdly, in 1870 Germany had plenty of demographic growth ahead of it and there was a lot of room for economic development. Both are largely diminished compared to what happens after 1913, although not entirely vanished. Germany was the nation which was engaging in catch up between 1870 to 1913, and now the one being outgrown. Again, very much the way development works.

Finally, why do I care what cities would be the economic center of the Vistula? I'm no expert on the region, and that's largely irrelevant. The point is that the economic center of Europe shifts East without WW1 and WW2.

Science was German

The merchant marine was German - growing, and largest in the world
Not sure if I would call a merchant marine 1/4 the size of the British one the "largest in the world"...
 
Democracy does not mean having the right to secede, just the right to vote representatives who dont even have to be from your own group, it's fairly easy to keep them around, just have a 5 % electoral threshold for parties to enter parliament and some basic behavior rules while in it, that forces the dozen or so agrarian parties in Austria to join together or not enter parliament at all and stops ridiculous actions like playing instruments while someone's talking.

Both are empires, established and kept together by force.

The actual German element in the A-H is very small, the Hungarians help but do not change the reality that they are a minority. Everyone will want out of A-H.

As far as Russia, every time democracy starts, almost half want out.


The German population would grow but not as much as others, GB/France have vast colonial empires to draw people from and the population growth in Russia is simply huge and not stopping anytime soon. Germany and Austria-Hungary might hit 120 million each, GB/France though would go towards 150 million in the metropole and the "integrated" colonies like Algeria and whatever else they chose, and Russia could do an absolutely enormous 500 million with ease.

It is a good point, if colonies are allowed to bring in population then others like the UK and France the population would grow big. I would say that Germany will be a feeder area for many in Eastern Europe so I expect its population to grow big too.
 

NoMommsen

Donor
....

Not sure if I would call a merchant marine 1/4 the size of the British one the "largest in the world"...
But the second largest, even larger than the US ... not the least reason Germany was also second - behind the UK - ij terms of foreign trade worldwide.
And in that 'successfull' enough, that - as many many posters have remarked here on the board for years 'n years - Brtiain felt it had ' to do' something against (Great War).

And after these two big wars : Germany was still in its halfed form a BIG producer of coal ... and became very quickly an too ?) important player in - at least - the european heavy industries (therefore the beginning of the founding of the EU with the MONTAN-Union).
Oh, and not to forget : before the reunification Germany actually WAS the number 1 export Nation - in terms of worth of exported goods - despite the 'advantage' that GB or France had with their colonial remnant-empires.
...
Removing them picks up Germany's absolute size, but it also means that everybody else does even better, and those nations are much better poised to capitalize on the advantages than Germany.
...

It can make gains by bringing more farmers into its industry and commercial sectors, but so can all of Europe - and Eastern Europe, the Balkans, Southern Europe, have far more peasants to throw into that than Germany does.
....
... and all or at least the bigger part of them would do this for german investment capital, in german-lead 'joint-ventures' or outright by german companies owned facilities.
... as it had already begun in 1914 and was part of the already developing "Mittel-Europa', an economic bloc lead by Germany in a much more thorouigh way as the EU today.

...
Germany would be a developed country among other developed countries, in a much more populous and less economically uneven Europe.
...
It wouild be - at least for the first half of the century - be the developer of all these countries around.

...
The real benefactor of any no world war scenario is not Germany, but rather the Balkans and Eastern Europe.
...
... lead from the european-multination companies' seats in Berlin and Vienna.
 
But the second largest, even larger than the US ... not the least reason Germany was also second - behind the UK - ij terms of foreign trade worldwide.
And in that 'successfull' enough, that - as many many posters have remarked here on the board for years 'n years - Brtiain felt it had ' to do' something against (Great War).
The claim is wrong, there is no getting around that, and whether the British considered the Germans as their rivals or not is not a good judge of the size of the German economy for the next century. There are other posters like Boonz who have remarked on opposite interpretations of German economic and political power - that it was the Franco-Russians who posed a greater long-term threat to Britain than Germany, causing the British to cozy up to the winners. But regardless it doesn't matter: United States tensions with Russia might be high right now, but who poses a greater threat of economically surpassing the United States, China or Russia? Nation's don't dictate their foreign policy on GDP figures.

And after these two big wars : Germany was still in its halfed form a BIG producer of coal ... and became very quickly an too ?) important player in - at least - the european heavy industries (therefore the beginning of the founding of the EU with the MONTAN-Union).
There will probably be no such as CECA in a world without the world wars, which forced European economic integration. In particular CECA was formed in response to the trade adjustments which had occurred between Germany and France during the Second World War, which would not exist without it. European economies would be structured wildly different than they are in our timeline, and very much against the continental trading bloc which has so helped Germany.

Oh, and not to forget : before the reunification Germany actually WAS the number 1 export Nation - in terms of worth of exported goods - despite the 'advantage' that GB or France had with their colonial remnant-empires.
Those empires were much smaller and less influential than they would be in a world without the First World War, and Germany had much more access to them than it would in a no world war universe.

... and all or at least the bigger part of them would do this for german investment capital, in german-lead 'joint-ventures' or outright by german companies owned facilities.

The first is a falsity again, those countries will have economies which grow much larger than Germany. It is impossible for Germany to dominate Russia economically, not even if it controlled all the foreign capital in the Russian Empire (which it didn't, given the presence of French, British, and Belgian capital), given the sheer size of the Russian economy and its growth. But even if somehow it did have a commanding position in the peaks of the Russian economy, what of it? France and Britain had a commanding position in American finance before the First World War, that changes nothing for the fact that the United States had long since economically surpassed both of them.

... as it had already begun in 1914 and was part of the already developing "Mittel-Europa', an economic bloc lead by Germany in a much more thorouigh way as the EU today.
There would be no pan-European economic bloc without the First and Second World Wars. Such is fantasy. The European Union was a reaction to the systemic economic changes brought about by the First and Second World War. Without it the European economies would be much more maritime, colonial, and imperial. Even if it was formed, the same logic applies as elsewhere: Germany is a bigger fish in a much bigger pond, so any pan-European economic bloc inherently makes Germany into a less influential member. Not that they wouldn't stand to benefit from that, as the example of the Netherlands shows, but the Netherlands despite their vast trade balance surplus have never been accused of running the European Union. That takes economic bulk, which Germany won't have in relative terms.

It wouild be - at least for the first half of the century - be the developer of all these countries around.
A)Irrelevant as to total economic size which is under discussion, and B)There was plenty of French and British capital flowing around Europe. A financial nation lie France which lost its vast investment portfolios across Europe is more hurt by war and revolution than a trading nation like Germany is.

... lead from the european-multination companies' seats in Berlin and Vienna.
Maybe in the Balkans, certainly not in Russia where the Russian capital market had a diversity of foreign investment with French, British, Belgian, and German capital. And also broadly irrelevant, as those economies would be the larger than my Germany.
 
One factor that was brought up at the start of the thread and has been forgotten since is the absence of creative destruction. One of the reasons for Western Europe's astonishing growth between 1945 and 1970 was because they had an educated populace with capital but many of the factories had been destroyed so they were rebuilt in the most modern way possible. In contrast in Britain and the US the level of destruction had been much lower meaning existing old fashioned factories kept going. Which is one of the reasons why Britain and the US were hit harder by deindustrialisation in the 1970s. With no world wars Germany with its enormous stock of industrial facilities built in the late 1800's boom may well be unable to compete with more modern Russian or Japanese factories come a 1970s style global recession.
Otherwise I agree with @Bad@logic Germany was hit less hard economically by the wars, to the west the collapse of the Colonial Empires hit harder and to the east the destruction from the wars was worse. Germany was in the Goldilocks zone along with Scandinavia and Switzerland.
And with regards to the Colonial Empires while open colonialism was doomed in the long run economic dominance was entirely sustainable except possibly by the British in India. With no wars opening space for the US Africa would remain an economic appendage of Britain and France though under local rule.
 
Both are empires, established and kept together by force.

The actual German element in the A-H is very small, the Hungarians help but do not change the reality that they are a minority. Everyone will want out of A-H.

As far as Russia, every time democracy starts, almost half want out.
Czechs for example can ultimately only vote themselves out of it the same way Germans could vote themlselves out of Czechoslovakia - by overwhelming outside force as the democratic system itself does not allow voting yourself out otherwise there'd be 100s of more countries around today to prove it.

Eastern Europeans will most likely emigrate to the USA, the last thing Germany wants is more Poles, so they'll most likely put hurdles to any migration from imperial Russia and A-H isnt exactly known as the land of opportunity though i'd expect that ongoing industrialization will continue to funnel small quantities of surrounding peoples into the large industrial cities, Vienna back then had a lot more people then now and would grow even more and become more like London or Paris in its importance.
 
Last edited:
One of the reasons for Western Europe's astonishing growth between 1945 and 1970 was because they had an educated populace with capital but many of the factories had been destroyed so they were rebuilt in the most modern way possible. In contrast in Britain and the US the level of destruction had been much lower meaning existing old fashioned factories kept going. .

Destruction of most of the German factories is exaggerated. Once the equipment was pulled out of the rubble, some replacement parts added it was often fine.
 
Czechs for example can ultimately only vote themselves out of it the same way Germans could vote themlselves out of Czechoslovakia - by overwhelming outside force as the democratic system itself does not allow voting yourself out otherwise there'd be 100s of more countries around today to prove it..

But in A-H case, the majority will vote to go.

Eastern Europeans will most likely emigrate to the USA, the last thing Germany wants is more Poles,

Poland will not exist here, much of Poland will be under German control, plus in Germany itself, there were regions that had Polish majorities eg Upper Silesia. As Germany will need more workers, and Poles are much easier to absorb than other nationalities plus they are close.
 

Deleted member 1487

Destruction of most of the German factories is exaggerated. Once the equipment was pulled out of the rubble, some replacement parts added it was often fine.
And carted away for reparations:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_plans_for_German_industry_after_World_War_II
The first plan was subsequently followed by a number of new ones, the last signed in 1949. By 1950, after the virtual completion of the by-then much watered-down "level of industry" plans, equipment had been removed from 706 manufacturing plants in the west and steel production capacity had been reduced by 6,700,000 tons.[9]

In accordance with the agreements with the USSR shipment of dismantled German industrial installations from the west began on March 31, 1946. By August 1947 11,100 tons of equipment had been shipped east as reparations to the Soviet Union.

Material sent to the U.S.S.R. included equipment from the Kugelfischer ball-bearing plant at Schweinfurt, the Daimler-Benz underground aircraft-engine plant at Obrigheim, the Deschimag shipyards at Bremen, and the Gendorf powerplant.,[44][45]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgenthau_Plan#Plans_for_German_industry
As Germany was allowed neither airplane production nor any shipbuilding capacity to supply a merchant navy, all facilities of this type were destroyed over a period of several years. A typical example of this activity by the allies was the Blohm & Voss shipyard in Hamburg, where explosive demolition was still taking place as late as 1949. Everything that could not be dismantled was blown up or otherwise destroyed. A small-scale attempt to revive the company in 1948 ended with the owners and a number of employees being thrown in jail by the British. It was not until 1953 that the situation gradually started to improve for the Blohm & Voss, thanks in part to repeated pleas by German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer to the Allied High Commissioners.[64]
 
A lot of this depends on HOW you avoid world war but Germany without Nazism would be somewhat better off and more powerful most likely, not being a dominant power and not gutting its human capital and R&D institutions would keep its industry competitive as it is today (global hegemony tends to shield your industries from creative destruction and put them into decline -- see Dutch shipping and British coal-and-steel).
 
But in A-H case, the majority will vote to go.
That's not how it all works though, there's always limits to democracy that can not be ignored, even if the American South controls the government they can not make "the South rise again". In 1935 the German party in Czechoslovakia ended up getting the most votes (and only 1 seat less in parliament than the largest party), they didnt get to leave it and had to wait until the Germans invaded. There's no country around that can pull a Munich on Austria-Hungary without consequences (only a Germany-Russia alliance can do that), and chances are that A-H will have the atomic bomb by the late 30s.

There's also the issue of people from those new countries probably wishing to go, after all they too have that right, am i right? ;)
-Poles: The alternative to autonomy in A-H is the autocracy Russia. Full stop.
-Ukrainians: See above.
-Croats: Serbia and Italy have an axe to grind with Croatia and wants parts of it, or all of it.
-Slovenia: Italy.
-Hungary: Everyone around them.
-Czechs: Germans and Poles. I remember sone influential Czech at that time saying something like "being an important part of A-H is better than being a small part of Russia".
-Slovaks: Everyone... when your own proposed capital city has only a minority of your people you have some problems with "will of the people" arguments.
-Romanians in Transylvania: Large majority Hungarian and German population in certain regions.
-Everyone else it too small to have any kind of political power based on ethnic voting.

Poland will not exist here, much of Poland will be under German control, plus in Germany itself, there were regions that had Polish majorities eg Upper Silesia. As Germany will need more workers, and Poles are much easier to absorb than other nationalities plus they are close.
Sure there's millions in Germany but there's no need to invite any more than there already are into Germany, it's a lot more troublesome than random colonial peoples from Africa.
 
There's no country around that can pull a Munich on Austria-Hungary without consequences (only a Germany-Russia alliance can do that),

The democratic socialist party in Germany will be very powerful here and this will guarantee no such alliance.

and chances are that A-H will have the atomic bomb by the late 30s.

Without ww2, I doubt an atomic bomb till much later then the OTL.

There's also the issue of people from those new countries probably wishing to go, after all they too have that right, am i right? ;)
-Poles: The alternative to autonomy in A-H is the autocracy Russia. Full stop.
-Ukrainians: See above.

A German democratic socialist party is a better alternative. Although I doubt that Russia will be an autocracy here.

-Croats: Serbia and Italy have an axe to grind with Croatia and wants parts of it, or all of it.
-Slovenia: Italy.
-Hungary: Everyone around them.
-Czechs: Germans and Poles. I remember sone influential Czech at that time saying something like "being an important part of A-H is better than being a small part of Russia".
-Slovaks: Everyone... when your own proposed capital city has only a minority of your people you have some problems with "will of the people" arguments.
-Romanians in Transylvania: Large majority Hungarian and German population in certain regions.
-Everyone else it too small to have any kind of political power based on ethnic voting.

Few will be logical, it will be what we saw after the fall of communism, everyone will be grabbing as much as they can when A-H collapses

Sure there's millions in Germany but there's no need to invite any more than there already are into Germany, it's a lot more troublesome than random colonial peoples from Africa.
[/QUOTE]

Germany does not have large numbers of colonial people. Her factories will need large number of workers, Poles are close by, many speak German and already integrated into the German economy.
 
Germany does not have large numbers of colonial people. Her factories will need large number of workers, Poles are close by, many speak German and already integrated into the German economy.
The colonial population is about the same size as the non colonial one in 1914. Even after decolonialization people from former colonies tend to migrate to the former colonial master, Indians and Pakistanis to the UK, Algerians and Senegalese to France, Filipinos to the USA for example. I'd still expect many from imperial Russia to come, Germany would have a higher standard of living, Russia might be catching up but the average in Germany will still be a lot higher for the longest time. But specifically Poles i'd expect them to not let in, Azerbaijanis and Kazakhs are very unlikely to join secessionist movements in the east of Germany.
 
The merchant marine was German - growing, and largest in the world
Merchant Shipping in 1908
Empire 9,500 ships, 17m tons
Rest of the World 9,500 ships 16m tons

Over 12,000 ton ships GB (34), Rest of World (10)
Over 10,000 ton ships GB (49), Rest of World (46)
Over 5,000 ton ships GB (567), Rest of World (506)

Over 20 knots speed GB (7), Rest of World (7)
Over 18 knots speed GB (41), Rest of World (23)
Over 16 knots speed GB (106), Rest of World (106)
Over 12 knots speed GB (960), Rest of World (830)

British shipping was also carrying £400,000,000 of foreign trade. £300,000,000 worth of trade is at sea at any one time.

Import and Export Trade 1908
Empire £1,948,000,000 (UK £1,304,000,000 + Empire £644,000,000)
German Empire £729,000,000
USA £685,000,000
France £539,000,000
Russia £205,000,000
A-H £195,000,000
Italy £158,000,000
Japan £110,000,000

By 1911 German trade was up at £803,800,000 but the Empires trade was at £2,400,000,000.
 
Last edited:

BooNZ

Banned
There will probably be no such as CECA in a world without the world wars, which forced European economic integration. In particular CECA was formed in response to the trade adjustments which had occurred between Germany and France during the Second World War, which would not exist without it. European economies would be structured wildly different than they are in our timeline, and very much against the continental trading bloc which has so helped Germany.
...
There would be no pan-European economic bloc without the First and Second World Wars. Such is fantasy. The European Union was a reaction to the systemic economic changes brought about by the First and Second World War. Without it the European economies would be much more maritime, colonial, and imperial. Even if it was formed, the same logic applies as elsewhere: Germany is a bigger fish in a much bigger pond, so any pan-European economic bloc inherently makes Germany into a less influential member. Not that they wouldn't stand to benefit from that, as the example of the Netherlands shows, but the Netherlands despite their vast trade balance surplus have never been accused of running the European Union. That takes economic bulk, which Germany won't have in relative terms.
The Zollverein customs union predated the formation of Germany. Imagined trading blocks such as mitteleuropa predated the 20th century european conflicts. In the absence of war, there remain good reasons for the Germany and A-H to work more closely together, especially given the absence of colonial empires (or similar). In the absence of war, in the 1930s the Nazi regime had used trade to economically dominate the Balkans, before El-duce got delusions of grandeur. It remains plausible for a strong Germany to link up with the A-H empire and pull lessor states into their economic orbit, although this would be more likely if the Germans keep Britain onside.
 
The colonial population is about the same size as the non colonial one in 1914. Even after decolonialization people from former colonies tend to migrate to the former colonial master, Indians and Pakistanis to the UK, Algerians and Senegalese to France, Filipinos to the USA for example.

Only a small percentage of the colonial population would immigrant, plus they are not technologically advanced enough to provide the high-quality workers required.


I'd still expect many from imperial Russia to come, Germany would have a higher standard of living, Russia might be catching up but the average in Germany will still be a lot higher for the longest time. But specifically Poles i'd expect them to not let in, Azerbaijanis and Kazakhs are very unlikely to join secessionist movements in the east of Germany.

Azerbaijanis and Kazakhs are not particularly technological advanced either plus they have to learn German. Many in the parts of Poland close to German border would know German making them even more attractive as workers. The other point is that a democratic Germany might be in favor of a secessionist movement for Poles.
 

BooNZ

Banned
Only a small percentage of the colonial population would immigrant, plus they are not technologically advanced enough to provide the high-quality workers required.

Azerbaijanis and Kazakhs are not particularly technological advanced either plus they have to learn German. Many in the parts of Poland close to German border would know German making them even more attractive as workers. The other point is that a democratic Germany might be in favor of a secessionist movement for Poles.
A feature of agriculture in Germany was it employed a significant portion of the German population and it was relatively inefficient, measured by its output in relation to the number of people employed. The absence of OTL causualties, a better than OTL birth rate and the rationalisation of German agriculture, would together release significant German manpower.
 
Only a small percentage of the colonial population would immigrant, plus they are not technologically advanced enough to provide the high-quality workers required.
Azerbaijanis and Kazakhs are not particularly technological advanced either plus they have to learn German. Many in the parts of Poland close to German border would know German making them even more attractive as workers. The other point is that a democratic Germany might be in favor of a secessionist movement for Poles.
You dont need to know much to be a Gastarbeiter standing at an assembly line putting seats into cars 9-5.

Only in rare cases far after nationalism has been discredited is it possible to have an election on secession from the large state. There's few ways secessionists can succeed.
-Armed revolt: Not here in Germany they wont, far too small and far too close to Germany itself, USA worked out because it's 5000 kilomters away from Great Britain. Or when it would be just too much of a bother and bad PR or when your state has been weakened after a war to keep the place pacified or to reconquer it like Ireland.
-State collapse: You first need a reason for said collapse to happen, if Germany is running head to head with GB/USA then it's not exactly in a bad situation. Even if that were to happen they can just say no and prevent it like in Chechnya.
-Foreign pressure: Germany is too strong for that and would stay too strong in the long run.
-Thrown out: Singapore was expelled form Malaysia, that wouldnt work here as the Junkers have lots of holdings there.
-Part of a peace treaty: You'd first need a world war for that, before the 1940s it's possible because i see everyone getting the nuclear bomb afterwards with Germany probably the first one because it has all the scientists, a huge source of Uranium in Saxony and the need to punch above its weight again as Russia turns into an industrialized superpower ending the great powers game.
-Voting: Like the Scottish vote on independence, it happened a long time after nationalism has been discredited and after the region achieved large regional autonomy for itself, enough so that most did not feel like wanting independence and voted against it.
 
The colonial population is about the same size as the non colonial one in 1914. Even after decolonialization people from former colonies tend to migrate to the former colonial master, Indians and Pakistanis to the UK, Algerians and Senegalese to France, Filipinos to the USA for example. I'd still expect many from imperial Russia to come, Germany would have a higher standard of living, Russia might be catching up but the average in Germany will still be a lot higher for the longest time. But specifically Poles i'd expect them to not let in, Azerbaijanis and Kazakhs are very unlikely to join secessionist movements in the east of Germany.
I'd doubt that there would actually be much in the way of colonial population transfers actually, the movements of colonial peoples to the métropole was generally at first a response to insufficient labor either for the war and then for rebuilding, and then built up an energy of its own based on family reconciliation and being normalized. There isn't the initial economic demand to start that off, with a larger European population without the sudden shocks which fueled labor movements. Even more importantly it would be a much more racist world without the world wars, since theories of European racial superiority, the desirability of national homogeneity, blatant racism, etc. wouldn't be discredited. The First World War largely cast into doubt the idea of Europe as a superior civilization and the solidarity of the White race, the Second World War in the long run has effectively destroyed the legitimacy of scientific racism and blatant discrimination, even if it took some time for its full effects to percolate (which is why I always find white supremacists liking Hitler to be terribly ironic - nobody in history has done more for colonized peoples, killed more white people, and done more to discredit racism than the mustachioed German). I'm sure there would still be some movement of colonized people to the homelands but not nearly as much.

The Filipinos I think are a good example in fact: their immigration was allowed in 1916 and then cancelled in 1934, and it was only post-WW2 that immigration commenced again. In general nativist political currents are much stronger in developed Europe and North America without the First and Second World War.

The Zollverein customs union predated the formation of Germany. Imagined trading blocks such as mitteleuropa predated the 20th century european conflicts. In the absence of war, there remain good reasons for the Germany and A-H to work more closely together, especially given the absence of colonial empires (or similar). In the absence of war, in the 1930s the Nazi regime had used trade to economically dominate the Balkans, before El-duce got delusions of grandeur. It remains plausible for a strong Germany to link up with the A-H empire and pull lessor states into their economic orbit, although this would be more likely if the Germans keep Britain onside.
Perhaps, but a Germany-Austria-Hungary bloc is a very different thing than a European bloc, and the Zollverein is certainly not a true continental bloc. It isn't that trading blocs are unimaginable, rather that the European economy as a whole was dramatically restructured by the First and Second World War in a way which promoted unification. French trade for example, was heavily changed by the Second World War from a global and maritime orientation to one which was much more towards Germany. I have not read enough on Austro-Hungarian-German economic relationships before the First World War, so I cannot comment on the likelihood of those sketches becoming reality. Enough of an impact if they do to compete with the other large trading blocks? Perhaps, although even if so I still think that the relatively greater prosperity of the Balkans and Eastern Europe leaves Germany with a significantly reduced relative economic influence.
 
Top