King Bismarcks american policy

As i stated above, he had no outstanding ancestrial member, no Duke von Bismarck, or Prince von Bismark before him. All his family were, in a position where they werent peasents (Lower Class) but were at the same time, not aristocratic (upper class) but simply some where in between (middle class).

By a technicality, all Junkers were considered nobility and thus "upper class," albeit at a lower rank than the "upper-upper class," including monarchs and emperors. But titled people are usually not considered middle class, which is a group of people with marginal economic and political influence. The Junkers were the core of Prussia's power (they controlled the Prussian army), so they don't fit in that category...

But that's just semantics. I agree that Bismarck inheriting anything is implausible, unless skippy the ASB kills every other potential heir to the throne. Even in that case, they are more likely to accept a foreign and more prestigious noble to sit on the crown than someone from the (comparatively) irrelevant Bismarck family.
 
Noble junker family is not the same as royal family.
...
The line of Succession to the Prussian throne, is very strict.
...
As long as their are male hairs no matter how far back you have to trace, they will come before Otto von Bismark
But here the question concerns the "German Empire" (whatever that may be in this timeline), and not the Prussian throne. Say that Otto acts way differently in 1848 and becomes a leader of a revolutionary nationalistic united Germany, where he after some time does a Napoleon III and is crowned emperor.

And the OP only wants Bismarck's policy regarding the US. Perhaps we need to know more about what actually led to his reign first.
 
But here the question concerns the "German Empire" (whatever that may be in this timeline), and not the Prussian throne. Say that Otto acts way differently in 1848 and becomes a leader of a revolutionary nationalistic united Germany, where he after some time does a Napoleon III and is crowned emperor.

And the OP only wants Bismarck's policy regarding the US. Perhaps we need to know more about what actually led to his reign first.

The premise seems plausible, but Bismarck would require a huge personality change to do so, his rule wouldn't be considered very legitimate, and both Prussia and Austria would be dangerously displeased.
 
But here the question concerns the "German Empire" (whatever that may be in this timeline), and not the Prussian throne. Say that Otto acts way differently in 1848 and becomes a leader of a revolutionary nationalistic united Germany, where he after some time does a Napoleon III and is crowned emperor.

And the OP only wants Bismarck's policy regarding the US. Perhaps we need to know more about what actually led to his reign first.

Ok so ...
In March 1848, crowds of people gathered in Berlin to present their demands in an "address to the king" the main ideology of this movement is that the monarch is only a figure head, with the Chancellor being the head of State and Government.
King Frederick William IV, taken by surprise, yielded verbally to all the demonstrators' demands, including parliamentary elections, a constitution, and freedom of the press. He promised that "Prussia was to be merged forthwith into Germany."
Otto von Bismarck, even at the young age of 32, is swept up by the protesters who see him as their figure head, he declares that if he is elected as Chancellor of Germany, he will bring this nation into the golden age that it deserves.
In 1850, he won a seat in parliament, but was not able to gain a majority to become chancellor. However he did become Ambassador to France, and within his first year, as ambassador, he witnessed the coup d'état in 1851, which saw, President Louis-Napoleon Bonaparte, take the throne as Emperor Napoleon III.
He would see, the first years of the Empire, in which Napoleon's government imposed censorship and harsh repressive measures against his opponents, some say this lead to, his radical idea.

In 1860, with King Frederick William IV of Prussia, deteariating health, von Bismarck, began making his moves in parliament and on the king's death a year later, pronouced himself, Chancellor of the German Empire, hampering King Wilhelm I's idea of creating a Presidency of Northern German Confederancy.
In this year, Kaiser Otto V, offered his support on the side of United Mexican States along side the United States of America, forming an alliance that would stand strong, especially after America offered to support Germany in Europe, if Germany helped the Union, fight the Confederacy.
The American Civil War started in 1861 and ended in 1863, after Imperial German soldiers were able to support the unionists in the north, while the Imperial navy, blockaded all major docks and shipping ports.

Two years, after being named Chancellor of the German Empire, the authority of the Prussian royal family was completely gone, the royal members were only King and Princes by title, Otto von Bismarck was the true ruler and on June 30th 1865, was offered the title of Kaiser of the German People and accepted it willingly.

Although they had been theoretical enemies in Mexico, France and Germany were able to work closely with each other, after both leads showed respect and held one another in high opinions.

napoleon-iii-bismarck.jpg

1869 - Kaiser Otto V of the Germans and Emperor Napoleon III of the French.
 
Say that Otto acts way differently in 1848 and becomes a leader of a revolutionary nationalistic united Germany

So, in other words, he's essentially the complete and utter opposite of OTL Bismarck?

That's essentially similar to saying "WI: In the Russian Civil War, Lenin/Ulyanov is an important leader in the White armies aiming to crush the Bolsheviks?" Perhaps—perhaps—a Lenin who led a very different life might indeed somehow end up in this position, but it would have to be a Lenin so tremendously different from OTL Lenin that it's effectively a personality transplant, so we can't figure out things about him by using what we know about OTL Lenin. For all intents and purposes, it's an ATL character who has been given the name of an OTL character.
 
So, in other words, he's essentially the complete and utter opposite of OTL Bismarck?

That's essentially similar to saying "WI: In the Russian Civil War, Lenin/Ulyanov is an important leader in the White armies aiming to crush the Bolsheviks?" Perhaps—perhaps—a Lenin who led a very different life might indeed somehow end up in this position, but it would have to be a Lenin so tremendously different from OTL Lenin that it's effectively a personality transplant, so we can't figure out things about him by using what we know about OTL Lenin. For all intents and purposes, it's an ATL character who has been given the name of an OTL character.
A person might experience something that causes one major difference, but stays the same in every other aspect. Say that Bismarck had some conflict with the Prussian regime, and thus had to work against it, and perhaps go in exile while his lands are confiscated.
 
A person might experience something that causes one major difference, but stays the same in every other aspect. Say that Bismarck had some conflict with the Prussian regime, and thus had to work against it, and perhaps go in exile while his lands are confiscated.

Bismarck was not a democrat. Bismarck was not a populist. Bismarck was not even a pan-German nationalist (although his memoirs, written by a deeply bitter old man who had lost his power at the order of someone far less intelligent than himself, would like you to believe that he planned out all the major events in a whole decade of European history neatly in advance in order to bring about German unification under the Hohenzollern banner, we have no reason to believe that). Bismarck was a fervent anti-democrat. Bismarck was a traditionalist reactionary. Bismarck was a man who served the interests of the traditional Prussian Protestant aristocracy and ancien régime first and foremost, even after Germany came into existence (see Kulturkampf, his laws on socialism), let alone before.

Changing all of that is not "one major difference". It is completely rewriting the political personality of Otto von Bismarck to the extent that it is no longer anything even remotely like the OTL political personality of Otto von Bismarck, he is an ATL character whom you have chosen to name "Otto von Bismarck". It is entirely akin to proposing that Lenin is a tsarist.

Your proposal is more like "What if ASBs make OTL's Bismarck the monarch of Germany?" And even to that, I would answer "He would do his best to restore the ancien régime as best he could, then abdicate in favour of the King of Prussia." Bismarck was a reactionary legitimist, albeit a very intelligent one; he was no Bonaparte, that wasn't his nature.
 
his memoirs, written by a deeply bitter old man who had lost his power at the order of someone far less intelligent than himself,
He could in this timeline instead have been a deeply bitter and offended young man, full of vigeur to exact his revenge.

Changing all of that is not "one major difference". It is completely rewriting the political personality of Otto von Bismarck to the extent that it is no longer anything even remotely like the OTL political personality of Otto von Bismarck, he is an ATL character whom you have chosen to name "Otto von Bismarck". It is entirely akin to proposing that Lenin is a tsarist.

Your proposal is more like "What if ASBs make OTL's Bismarck the monarch of Germany?" And even to that, I would answer "He would do his best to restore the ancien régime as best he could, then abdicate in favour of the King of Prussia." Bismarck was a reactionary legitimist, albeit a very intelligent one; he was no Bonaparte, that wasn't his nature.
Well, in an undefined ATL (like this one), anything could have happened before, so it is possible that the kingdom of Prussia did not even exist here. I have no idea why the OP wants just Bismarck to have royal attributes, and I do not fight about it, but speaking in general terms, with a PoD just after someone's birth, could not that person be way different although with the same personality? And would tsarism really be that much different from leninism? :)
 
Top