Greater Germany composition on "What if Austria united Germany"

Like they did after OTL's Prussian victory? No reason it should work any better with a victorious Austria.

There is a (possible) third factor: If Prussia is so beaten that it has just a few troops remaining in the field, but Austria overplays its hand, then Napoleon III might decide it is time to bring liberty to the German kings and constitute a new Rheibund for mutual protection.
Of course, that would go strongly against German nationalist sentiment and would only work if the alternative to being under French hegemony is a quasi-mediatization by Austria - ie Viennese overlordship with less face-saving language for the other princes than Bismarck used in 1866 and 1870.
 

Perkeo

Banned
And there is a third possibility: The lesser states form a third fraction in the game and stay independent - or at least independent from Prussia and Austria.

Like they did after OTL's Prussian victory? No reason it should work any better with a victorious Austria.

I already gave one: Prussia had a clear German majority and was trying to assimilate its non-German minorites. The latter problem becomes actually smaller if more German states join the union.

Besides: Austria has - for the reasons I stated in my last post - an interest on keeping Germany a confederation rather than an full union.
What exactly would the difference be in practice? If the GC has an army, and the Emperor of Austria is directly or indirectly in command of it, that's a Union in the only way that really interests him, whatever name it may be called.

One of the differences would be be the GC not having a federal army - at least not before 1871 IOTL.

Trying to keep a system in power by force alone may work for a while, but history tells us that in the long term credibility matters more than brute force.
On what time scale?
Your examples below give the answer: Until the next major crisis, external or internal. But since crisis do happen from time to time, the TTL Austria is as doomed to failure as OTL's Czarist empire and Sowjet union were. They were lucky to reinstall their imperialsim in thransition between the two.

The Poles didn't like Russian rule, but they still had to put up with it until WW1. Nor did many Ukrainians, but they had to wait until the 1990s. Any reason why Hungary shouldn't have had to wait a similar length of time.?
Russia has more inherent stability due to its size and raw materials and a better defensible border, more Russians than Austria has (German-)Austrians, and most of all: Russia was always built on a self-consistent ideology. Supporting liberalism and nationalism in one part, suppressing both in the other - that's totally schizophrenic.

Ans BTW, the relatively long Russian rule still doesn't make me call their strategy a success. They clearly should have tried something else, e.g. Pan-Slavism.
 
One of the differences would be be the GC not having a federal army - at least not before 1871 IOTL.

Well, if the individual states are still "going it alone" militarily, they have no more chance of resisting Austria than they had OTL of resisting Prussia. In 1866 just one Prussian army out of four was able to mop them up. So with Prussia defeated and out of the game, Austria can certainly dominate them.

So the only alternative to accepting Austrian ascendancy would be to become protectorates of France - a sort of revived Confederation of the Rhine. But even if Nappy III was interested, 90% of Germans would see this as a cure worse than the disease. If they have to be dominated by somebody, well at least Franz Josef is a fellow German. If he was the lesser evil than the King of Prussia he is even more of a lesser evil than the Emperor of the French.


Your examples below give the answer: Until the next major crisis, external or internal. But since crisis do happen from time to time, the TTL Austria is as doomed to failure as OTL's Czarist empire and Sowjet union were. They were lucky to reinstall their imperialsim in thransition between the two.
Ok so they may possibly have some sort of crisis fifty or a hundred years hence - but then again they may not. anyway it isn't an immediate problem as Hungary is currently powerless to rebel in any serious way.


Russia has more inherent stability due to its size and raw materials and a better defensible border, more Russians than Austria has (German-)Austrians, .

And Hungary is also less homogenous than Poland or even Ukraine. If the Magyars rebel, the Croats are likely support the Emperor, etc. He wouldn't face anything like a united opposition.
 

Perkeo

Banned
And Hungary is also less homogenous than Poland or even Ukraine. If the Magyars rebel, the Croats are likely support the Emperor, etc. He wouldn't face anything like a united opposition.

Not if you create a German Empire with the Magyars AND Croats being a de-facto colony of it. Nothing is more unifying than a common enemy.

And that is why the Austrian Empire is not likely to unify Germany because the basic concept of a nation state and the basic concept of the Austrian Empire are mutually exclusive.

If the Germans are just as unable to have a nation state as any other ethnic group in Austria, this Germany-against-the-rest rebellion is less natural and the inequation
not Germen =/= against Habsburg
becomes true.
 
Not if you create a German Empire with the Magyars AND Croats being a de-facto colony of it. Nothing is more unifying than a common enemy.

For the Croats, the "common enemy" was the Magyars. Can you show me any instance where Croats and Magyars ever made common cause against Austria or indeed, in the period we are discussing, against anyone else?

FTM, in the period we are talking about - second half of the 19C - how many instances can you list of any power - even a mini one like Denmark or a decrepit one like Turkey - giving up territory for any reason except military defeat by an external power? When in late 19C Europe did any rebels achieve independence - or even the autonomy that Hungary got in 1867 - by their own efforts without this precondition?
 

Perkeo

Banned
For the Croats, the "common enemy" was the Magyars. Can you show me any instance where Croats and Magyars ever made common cause against Austria or indeed, in the period we are discussing, against anyone else?
At the end of the day, it hardly matters wether the Croats destabilize the bond between Hungary and the German Empire, both is a threat to Habsburg rule.

If the Croats are Pro-Vienna, it might be smart to include them into Germany or make tham another de-facto colony. But anyhow, there's no guarantee that more successful liberal revolutions will give them ideas.

FTM, in the period we are talking about - second half of the 19C - how many instances can you list of any power - even a mini one like Denmark or a decrepit one like Turkey - giving up territory for any reason except military defeat by an external power?
Who says that there's no external intervention? France did intervene against German unification IOTL, and Russia also is probably not amused by the birth of such a powerfull neighbor.

That's another reason why Autria won't - and didn't IOTL - do anything that might loose them Hungary. Austria is multiethnic, TTL's Germany is not. That's why Austria didn't unite Germany IOTL.

When in late 19C Europe did any rebels achieve independence - or even the autonomy that Hungary got in 1867 - by their own efforts without this precondition?
There were lots of attempts. What makes the Habsburgs foresee that none of them succeeds?
 
Who says that there's no external intervention? France did intervene against German unification IOTL, and Russia also is probably not amused by the birth of such a powerfull neighbor.


France (to judge from its eve-of-war agreements with her) was ok with Austria gaining Silesia, with Prussia losing its Rhenish provinces and with Saxony and other German states gaining territory. All of which would leave Austria pretty dominant in Germany. Hardly sounds as if she was worried at the prospect.

As for Russia she was in no shape to fight anyone. She was still paying for the Crimean War and the recent Polish revolt, and even a decade later would make heavy weather of it against a “power” as weak as Turkey. She’s hardly likely to rush into war with a victorious Austria, esp given the risk the Napoleon III may get it into his head to take up the cause of Poland, in which case the Tsar could find himself fighting France as well.


That's another reason why Autria won't - and didn't IOTL - do anything that might loose them Hungary.

And why would uniting Germany lose her Hungary? If she has access to the military manpower of Germany, her grip on Hungary will be stronger, not weaker.

Austria is multiethnic, TTL's Germany is not. That's why Austria didn't unite Germany IOTL.

You have a source for this statement? Did Franz Josef say it – or one of his ministers? If not then who, and to whom did he say it?


There were lots of attempts. What makes the Habsburgs foresee that none of them succeeds?
If they think that a Hungarian (or other) revolt has a chance of success, that will make them all the more eager to unite Germany and bring its military manpower under their control.
 
Top