keeping Germany divided

France had other issues and concerns than REVENGE ON GERMANY NO MATTER WHAT - thus my argument with this idea that "every day France dreamed of getting Alsace-Lorraine back".

You are ignoring the fact that for the French military (and even average Frenchmen), getting back Alsace and Lorraine was vital. The precursor to any possible real peace with Germany would involve French gaining Alsace and Lorraine back from Germany, preferably after a war in which the French beat the Germans. France would never reconcile itself to the loss of Alsace and Lorraine. That they did not attempt to recover it was because they were not devoid of commonsense. France between 1870 and 1914 could not seize Alsace and Lorraine on its own. But they kept looking for a chance to get it back, and real peace with Germany could only come after that.

You asked, and I quote, "Can you give me one example of a militarist state . . . ?"

You've been given examples. And you keep trying to say that they don't count.

Fine. What's your definition of "militarist state" so that we don't have to keep listing examples and seeing you say "Well that doesn't actually count."?

And I don't see what the Saverne affair has to do with whether or not Prussia would be capable of losing a war without going into psycho mode.

You already have been given it, right in the post you quoted. A government where the army gets a disproportionate amount of resources given the total resources of the state. A government where the military gets a de facto veto over the actions of other wings of the government. Russia is not such a case.
 
There was more to German nationalism than Prussia's method of trying to extend control, though. Not sure just seeing Prussia lose would keep it divided.

But without the backing of Prussia, or another equally large state, it would not get as far as it did IOTL.
 
You are ignoring the fact that for the French military (and even average Frenchmen), getting back Alsace and Lorraine was vital. The precursor to any possible real peace with Germany would involve French gaining Alsace and Lorraine back from Germany, preferably after a war in which the French beat the Germans. France would never reconcile itself to the loss of Alsace and Lorraine. That they did not attempt to recover it was because they were not devoid of commonsense. France between 1870 and 1914 could not seize Alsace and Lorraine on its own. But they kept looking for a chance to get it back, and real peace with Germany could only come after that.

No, I am pointing out the fact that France had other interests, other issues, and other concerns. Did they want Alsace-Lorriane back? Of course! But there's a huge difference between "Will take advantage of opportunity" and "will pursue war at any costs".

You already have been given it, right in the post you quoted. A government where the army gets a disproportionate amount of resources given the total resources of the state. A government where the military gets a de facto veto over the actions of other wings of the government. Russia is not such a case.
Russia is very much the first, and given the palace coups, arguably the second.

Frankly, the first describes most early modern states, so I think it alone is not proof of very much.
 
There was more to German nationalism than Prussia's method of trying to extend control, though. Not sure just seeing Prussia lose would keep it divided.

Elfwine

Not saying that in itself would do it but think that its pretty much a necessity. A Prussia, post 1806 anyway, that wins primacy in Germany is very likely to play the nationalism card to gain further control. Austria is less likely to do so because of its non-German territory. Furthermore a Prussian defeat that sees the bulk of its losses go to other powers, setting up regional rivals to oppose any attempt at unification by the dominant power would also aid this.

The other factor, as I believe others have mentioned, is that ideally you have no great threat to prompt a desire for unification. This is more difficult to arrange probably but post-Napoleon Russia is heading for a Crimean type fall and won't be a major threat until the end of the century. The great danger might be a Franco-Russian alliance but this is somewhat less likely without a centralised, highly militarised Germany while also, in this sort of situation its likely that such a bloc would be opposed by Britain.

I'm not saying you can definitely avoid a unified German state but I don't think its impossible.

Steve
 
Elfwine

Not saying that in itself would do it but think that its pretty much a necessity. A Prussia, post 1806 anyway, that wins primacy in Germany is very likely to play the nationalism card to gain further control. Austria is less likely to do so because of its non-German territory. Furthermore a Prussian defeat that sees the bulk of its losses go to other powers, setting up regional rivals to oppose any attempt at unification by the dominant power would also aid this.

I think defeating Prussia would certainly prevent that route, but it doesn't do anything to prevent something like the 1848 liberals finding a king who wouldn't object to taking a crown from the gutter.

The other factor, as I believe others have mentioned, is that ideally you have no great threat to prompt a desire for unification. This is more difficult to arrange probably but post-Napoleon Russia is heading for a Crimean type fall and won't be a major threat until the end of the century. The great danger might be a Franco-Russian alliance but this is somewhat less likely without a centralised, highly militarised Germany while also, in this sort of situation its likely that such a bloc would be opposed by Britain.

I'm not saying you can definitely avoid a unified German state but I don't think its impossible.

Steve

I wouldn't say impossible, but I don't think Prussian defeat is more than one of the things that would lead to a disunited Germany continuing. If nationalism means anything anywhere, it's certainly going to mean something in Germany.
 
I think defeating Prussia would certainly prevent that route, but it doesn't do anything to prevent something like the 1848 liberals finding a king who wouldn't object to taking a crown from the gutter.

The defeat of Prussia might occur after that, or other factors could prevent it, as OTL. It would need to be a king from at least a 2nd rank nation, and even that is likely to be contested by rivals.

I wouldn't say impossible, but I don't think Prussian defeat is more than one of the things that would lead to a disunited Germany continuing. If nationalism means anything anywhere, it's certainly going to mean something in Germany.

Its very likely, presuming that the form nationalism takes is linguistic rather than cultural. True that is the most likely but not necessary the one that will win out.

Steve
 
Top