If Germany had unified in 1848, what would its foreign policy have looked like?

Germany didn't start World War One any more than Russia did by saying they'd support Serbia in a war. Hell, if we're going to unreasonably assign blame for a cascade of foreign policy fuck ups all around Europe, the blame lies squarely on the Russians and A-H. A-H for pushing for such unreasonable demands and Russia for mobilizing, forcing a German and A-H response in kind.

As to the thread topic, is this government interested in Pan-Germanism (sans Austria), and how many ethnic Germans are outside its borders? That could cause quite a bit of tension with its neighbors.
I´ll not reply to the first part, since that would derail the thread.

Pan-Germanism was, again, dependent on who would come out of 1848 how and why. It was present in the revolutionary movement ("Von der Maas bis an die Memel, von der Etsch bis an den Belt" was von Fallersleben`s wording in the poem which would become the national anthem). The relatively smooth decision pro Kleindeutsche Lösung showed that it wasn`t insurmountably strong, though. Also, German nationalists often fought alongside universalists / internationlists, at least the questions of relations to France, to the Hungarian and Polish 1848 movements etc. were hotly debated controversial issues.

And, looking closely at Fallersleben`s lines again, what is obvious is that there was no idea whatsoever to gather ALL of the German diaspora in one state, since it clearly does not include Transilvania or the Volga... The emerging idea of the German nation and its boundaries owed a lot to the pragmatics of the princely Deutscher Bund, plus disputed cases (Schleswig-Holstein) in favour of inclusion.
 
No way in hell are the Swiss joining up. They spent centuries keeping themselves out of the hands of monarchists. Can't give up their little canton system. Not as if a unified Germany would necessarily want them, as it was a poor area. That, and its territory and neutrality was accepted by all major powers due to international treaty.
 
the Radicals win. The can only do that with French help. They won't give up on German Austria and perhaps be entangled in a longer war against rump Habsburgs operating from croatia. France, Germany and their Italian allies will all have strong internal enemies and be weak thus, with little further foreign ambitions. They'll stand together.


Until Italian nationalists start claiming S Tyrol and French ones Savoy and Luxemburg.

And if this Germany incorporates the "German" provinces of Austria (ie including the Czech and Slovene lands) it will overshadow France. Will even the most radical French government reconcile itself to playing second fiddle to even the most liberal Germany?
 
Until Italian nationalists start claiming S Tyrol and French ones Savoy and Luxemburg.

And if this Germany incorporates the "German" provinces of Austria (ie including the Czech and Slovene lands) it will overshadow France. Will even the most radical French government reconcile itself to playing second fiddle to even the most liberal Germany?
Long-term, you're certainly right. Nationalists will ultimately jump at each other's throats.
 
The emigration would still happen. It was due primarily to economic factors, esp poor harvests all over Europe during the 1840s. A revolution has no effect on that. Note that there was also massive emigration from Switzerland, Scandinavia and Britain (not just Ireland). Only a few emigrated for political reasons.

The emigration immediately afterwards would, yes, but in the longer run? If you have a liberal Germany that manages quicker development than OTL, especially in human development, the medium and long-term consequences could be interesting.

As for France, it would have to adjust to having a neighbour at least equal in manpower to itself, and possibly (if an Austrian collapse resulted in a Grossdeutschland) overshadowing it. I wouldn't bet on it just accepting that with good grace.

Quite. Having a common enemy wuld help.
 
In regards to France, France and Germany could have a mutual interest in the breakup of Belgium; indeed, would France and Germany be willing to start an aggressive war against Belgium?
??????
What would Germany get from annexing a bunch of French or Dutch speaking pops and angering pretty much everyone?
 
??????
What would Germany get from annexing a bunch of French or Dutch speaking pops and angering pretty much everyone?
Absolutely agree. Germany had no interest whatsoever in belgium o the Netherlands. Neither in switzerland. Not even the most die-hard nationalists in 1848.
 
The emigration immediately afterwards would, yes, but in the longer run? If you have a liberal Germany that manages quicker development than OTL, especially in human development, the medium and long-term consequences could be interesting.

Didn't emigration slacken off anyway after its 1850s peak?
Also, the later emigrants - like the 1840s ones - were not primarily motivated by politics. Note that German settlers in North Dakota got their future State Capital named after Bismarck. The vast majority would still have emigrated irrespective of political developments.

As for economic ones, Germany industrialised big time in the later 19C - so big time that it's hard to see how any political change could have accelerated it.



Quite. Having a common enemy wuld help.

What common enemy though?

France is Britain's principal imperial rival, but Germany isn't in the colonial game yet, and even if/when she joins it, is at least as likely to come into conflict with France as with GB. And the only place France and Russia could collide is the Mideast, in which Germany took no interest till the 1890s, and then mostly at the personal whim of Wilhelm II, so may not happen TTL. Indeed, a common interest in keeping their Poles quiet may draw Germany and Russia together despite ideological differences. And Italy, even if united, would be too weak to count one way or the other.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
??????
What would Germany get from annexing a bunch of French or Dutch speaking pops and angering pretty much everyone?
Well, Germany might consider Dutch-speaking peoples to actually be Germans. After all, linguistic differences didn't prevent Russians from believing that they, Ukrainians, and Belarusians are actually one people. Thus, there could be a similar train of thought in Germany which believes that German people and Dutch people are one people.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Absolutely agree. Germany had no interest whatsoever in belgium o the Netherlands. Neither in switzerland. Not even the most die-hard nationalists in 1848.
You could have likewise said that the U.S. had no interest in New Mexico and Alta California in, say, 1805. However, things can change.
 
Well, Germany might consider Dutch-speaking peoples to actually be Germans. After all, linguistic differences didn't prevent Russians from believing that they, Ukrainians, and Belarusians are actually one people. Thus, there could be a similar train of thought in Germany which believes that German people and Dutch people are one people.

That doesn't mean the Dutch, who by this point have a rather strongly grounded identity of their own, are going to agree with them and become exactly... enthusiastic citizens of the It German nation. It worked somewhat better with the Ukrainians and Belarusians since neither had much of a history of self-identification or time-honored political-intellectual footing for building their own national identity... the same could not be said of the Dutch, who have a proud, recent history and list of accomplishments to call their own.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
That doesn't mean the Dutch, who by this point have a rather strongly grounded identity of their own, are going to agree with them and become exactly... enthusiastic citizens of the It German nation. It worked somewhat better with the Ukrainians and Belarusians since neither had much of a history of self-identification or time-honored political-intellectual footing for building their own national identity... the same could not be said of the Dutch, who have a proud, recent history and list of accomplishments to call their own.
Bavaria also had a long history of independence and yet became German without much problems.

Also, I certainly wouldn't exactly say that such moves on Russia's part actually worked well in our TL; indeed, in our TL, Russia failed to get most of Novorossiya to rebel against the Ukrainian government in 2014 and instead generated large-scale anger and resentment at itself throughout Ukraine.
 
Bavaria also had a long history of independence and yet became German without much problems.

Also, I certainly wouldn't exactly say that such moves on Russia's part actually worked well in our TL; indeed, in our TL, Russia failed to get most of Novorossiya to rebel against the Ukrainian government in 2014 and instead generated large-scale anger and resentment at itself throughout Ukraine.

1. All the German states had a long history of independence; they still saw themselves as part of the "Germanies" culturally however. The Dutch had centuries of a separate identity of ruling themselves, developing their own way, speaking a completely different language, and generally having done their thing completely apart from the "German" states. The same could not be said of Barvaria, but even they needed to be accomidated within a unique, somewhat decentralized structure for the German Empire and required some active cultural supression as part of Bismark's "Culture War", which was only possible because of Prussian hegemony within the system and a greater degree of authoritarianism. The far more distinct and self-actualized Neatherlands would have required even more brutal repression, which would have been harder to pull off politically in a Liberal Germany.

2. I said somewhat more successful, in the sense that Russia managed to stop a strong coherent sense of Ukranian or Belarusian identity outside of Russia from forming into a viable political force for at least some time, as well as better integrating/enculturing the two regions into Russia proper in terms of cultural influence and lingustics. While they were hardly fully successful at assimilating them, you can't deny both nations have a strong Russian influence.

As far as the Dutch are concerned, that horse left the barn LONG ago.
 
Bavaria also had a long history of independence and yet became German without much problems.
Bavaria since its creation has been part of some sort of "German" entity (East Francia, HRE, Confederation of the Rhine and German Confederation), the Dutch had rejected this "Germaness" by asserting their independence in 1648.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
1. All the German states had a long history of independence; they still saw themselves as part of the "Germanies" culturally however. The Dutch had centuries of a separate identity of ruling themselves, developing their own way, speaking a completely different language, and generally having done their thing completely apart from the "German" states. The same could not be said of Barvaria, but even they needed to be accomidated within a unique, somewhat decentralized structure for the German Empire and required some active cultural supression as part of Bismark's "Culture War", which was only possible because of Prussian hegemony within the system and a greater degree of authoritarianism. The far more distinct and self-actualized Neatherlands would have required even more brutal repression, which would have been harder to pull off politically in a Liberal Germany.

To be fair, though, the Netherlands were historically part of the Holy Roman Empire.

2. I said somewhat more successful, in the sense that Russia managed to stop a strong coherent sense of Ukranian or Belarusian identity outside of Russia from forming into a viable political force for at least some time, as well as better integrating/enculturing the two regions into Russia proper in terms of cultural influence and lingustics. As far as the Dutch are concerned, that horse left the barn LONG ago.

OK; understood.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Bavaria since its creation has been part of some sort of "German" entity (East Francia, HRE, Confederation of the Rhine and German Confederation), the Dutch had rejected this "Germaness" by asserting their independence in 1648.
Is that when the Netherlands left the Holy Roman Empire?
 
To be fair, though, the Netherlands were historically part of the Holy Roman Empire.

Not in any meaningful sense since prior to the Dutch Revolt and the key formative periods of their national identity. Much of Italy was also historically part of the H.R.E: that dosen't mean they would easily identify as Germans.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
As for economic ones, Germany industrialised big time in the later 19C - so big time that it's hard to see how any political change could have accelerated it.

It could.

Weights and measurements would be standardized, a common German market and a national bank, the Reichsbank, would be created and the numerous regional currencies replaced with the Reichsmark (all of these were liberal ideas IOTL).

IOTL, most of these policies were enacted by the National Liberals during the 1870s. ITTL, well, from 1848.
 
1. All the German states had a long history of independence; they still saw themselves as part of the "Germanies" culturally however. The Dutch had centuries of a separate identity of ruling themselves, developing their own way, speaking a completely different language, and generally having done their thing completely apart from the "German" states. The same could not be said of Barvaria, but even they needed to be accomidated within a unique, somewhat decentralized structure for the German Empire and required some active cultural supression as part of Bismark's "Culture War", which was only possible because of Prussian hegemony within the system and a greater degree of authoritarianism. The far more distinct and self-actualized Neatherlands would have required even more brutal repression, which would have been harder to pull off politically in a Liberal Germany.

2. I said somewhat more successful, in the sense that Russia managed to stop a strong coherent sense of Ukranian or Belarusian identity outside of Russia from forming into a viable political force for at least some time, as well as better integrating/enculturing the two regions into Russia proper in terms of cultural influence and lingustics. While they were hardly fully successful at assimilating them, you can't deny both nations have a strong Russian influence.

As far as the Dutch are concerned, that horse left the barn LONG ago.

Why would what the Dutch think matter to the Germans? If the Dutch are viewed merely as wayward Germans by the German government, that's tough shit for the Netherlands. As the aforementioned Russians show, you don't need the local's support to occupy them.
 
It could.

Weights and measurements would be standardized, a common German market and a national bank, the Reichsbank, would be created and the numerous regional currencies replaced with the Reichsmark (all of these were liberal ideas IOTL).

IOTL, most of these policies were enacted by the National Liberals during the 1870s. ITTL, well, from 1848.
Agreed. IOTL, rapid industrialization focused almost exclusively on the Ruhr region, the Rhein-Main and Rhein-Neckar regions, with a bit of Silesia, Saxony and Berlin thrown in. Elsewhere, industrial development came much, much later. Quicker integration might produce faster market permeation and more shocks, shaking up old agricultural and artisan traditions. That, OTOH, might produce a mighty backlash, too. Going quicker with industrialisation would certainly have radicalised Germany much earlier, in both directions.

Why would what the Dutch think matter to the Germans? If the Dutch are viewed merely as wayward Germans by the German government, that's tough shit for the Netherlands. As the aforementioned Russians show, you don't need the local's support to occupy them.
No German government ever saw the Dutch in this way, though, before the Nazis. And no relevant opposition did, either, before the Nazis and similar Völkische splinter factions in the Weimar era. Even they clearly didn`t focus on the Netherlands much and occupied them primarily for strategic reasons.
 
Top