Most stable 3 Germanies

Switserland had its own seperate national identity far before Germany existed. Far before German nationalism existed and even before the German identity existed. The Swiss identity, seperate from the HRE existed even before they became independent after the treat of Westphalia. The treaty of Westphalia only accepted asituation that already existed. The Swiss were no longer interested in being part of the HRE or a greater German nation. They were already Swiss. Why did people spoke about German Swiss, well simply to distinguish them from the French and Italian speaking Swiss. Not to identify them as German. One thing to realise is that the word for German at its core does not mean German. In English it points towards the Germanic heritage that the Swiss and Germans share with the Scandinavians and the English. In German (and Dutch) it points towards the people. Deutch, Dutch, Diets even Teutonic spimply means people, mainly as opposed to the Latin of the church. Calling a German speaking Swiss would simply mean a Swiss that spoke a Germanic language. Not a Swiss with a German identity.

This discussion simply points to the fact that people on this forum (and everywhere) have a very simplistic worldview.They see someone speaking German and they assume that he must be German. Especialy in history. The thing is: the world is more complexthan that. As I said, noone would claim Americans are English, simply because they speak English. Oreven claim that the Irish are English simply because they speak English. The German national identity developed in the late 18th early 19th century. The Swiss (and Dutch) national identity were already firmly developed in those days. The Dutch and Swiss (and Flemish) did not consider themselves German, simply because they considered themselves Dutch and Swiss. This as opposed to the Austrians (and in a lesser case the Luxemburgians). They had no seperate national identity,so they could consider themselves German when German nationalism arose. Before that time there was realy no such thing as a German identity, nor did people care about it. That is why Prussia conquered so much of Poland and Austria conquered Hungary. That is why Francophone areas like Lorraine and Wallonia were part of the HRE, or Czechia. Nobody was interested in creating a German state. Land on its own (and the people living on it) were key. Not some strange non existing identity.



BTW Napoleonrules, your ideas about ethnicities are incredibly outdated. There is no German ethnicity, at least not in such a way that is distinct from a French or Danishor whatever ethnicity.
Hahahaha, no. And Swiss identity really didn't solidify until after the Sonderbund War.
 
Discussion about ethnicity aside, back to the OP
So post 1800 what's the best way to end up with 3 states in central Europe that can be described as Germanies but are independent of each other and not liable to unify.

What is each composition?
What dialect standard do they use?
Etc etc

EDIT: if post1800 is too hard, best pre1800?
 

Skallagrim

Banned
Switserland had its own seperate national identity far before Germany existed. Far before German nationalism existed and even before the German identity existed. The Swiss identity, seperate from the HRE existed even before they became independent after the treat of Westphalia. The treaty of Westphalia only accepted asituation that already existed. The Swiss were no longer interested in being part of the HRE or a greater German nation. They were already Swiss. Why did people spoke about German Swiss, well simply to distinguish them from the French and Italian speaking Swiss. Not to identify them as German. One thing to realise is that the word for German at its core does not mean German. In English it points towards the Germanic heritage that the Swiss and Germans share with the Scandinavians and the English. In German (and Dutch) it points towards the people. Deutch, Dutch, Diets even Teutonic spimply means people, mainly as opposed to the Latin of the church. Calling a German speaking Swiss would simply mean a Swiss that spoke a Germanic language. Not a Swiss with a German identity.

This discussion simply points to the fact that people on this forum (and everywhere) have a very simplistic worldview.They see someone speaking German and they assume that he must be German. Especialy in history. The thing is: the world is more complexthan that. As I said, noone would claim Americans are English, simply because they speak English. Oreven claim that the Irish are English simply because they speak English. The German national identity developed in the late 18th early 19th century. The Swiss (and Dutch) national identity were already firmly developed in those days. The Dutch and Swiss (and Flemish) did not consider themselves German, simply because they considered themselves Dutch and Swiss. This as opposed to the Austrians (and in a lesser case the Luxemburgians). They had no seperate national identity,so they could consider themselves German when German nationalism arose. Before that time there was realy no such thing as a German identity, nor did people care about it. That is why Prussia conquered so much of Poland and Austria conquered Hungary. That is why Francophone areas like Lorraine and Wallonia were part of the HRE, or Czechia. Nobody was interested in creating a German state. Land on its own (and the people living on it) were key. Not some strange non existing identity.

I'm aware of all these things. What I disagree with is your assumption that a Swiss national identity existed that far back. Much like in the rest of the German lands (best way to describe it, I guess) we are talking here of a political identity. Loosely confederated cantons, culturally differeing from one another.

My point is that 1800 or thereabouts is the best time, perhaps, to end that political identity. Switzerland was invaded by France, had its political structure altered dramatically, had its borders altered... My scenario tentatively posits that Napoleon annexes the French parts to France, the Italian regions go to the Kingdom of Italy, while the German areas go to the West German Confederation-- which is a hypothetical alternative to the Confederation of the Rhine, basically.

If that happened, barring a defeat of Napoleon and an eforced return to old borders, it would not take long for the former Swiss areas to become fully part of the (West) German nation. Simply because before Napoleon, there was no fixed German national identity, nor a fixed Swiss national identity. These were political identities, and that's not the same (as you note, in fact).

That's the ATL scenario, and concerns that fact that Swiss national identiy wasn't a well-defined thing by then. Talking about the present day, I understand that identities have become more fixed. Yet - although this is anecdotal - in my own experience, many people in the German countries and regions that are not part of Germany will still consider themselves culturally German. Sure, an Austrian is an Austrian, but Austria is a German country. So is Liechtenstein. And while not countries but regions, so are German Switzerland and South Tyrol.

The fact that the inhabitants of Germany, German Switzerland, Austria, South Tyrol and Liechtenstein live in different countries is, to me, a mere matter of politics. In a political sense, they are not all 'Germans'. But in a cultural sense, they certainly are. They share more than just language, and in fact, when you look at cultural customs, people in south-western Germany have a lot more in common with their fellow descendants of the same Alemanni than they do with historically Low German-speaking folk in northern Germany. In the same way, Bavaria and Austria are more alike in countless ways than Bavaria and Berlin will ever be.

So I'm not saying that the German people in Switzerland are the same German people as we find in Schleswig-Holstein... but the German people in Bavaria are also not the same German people as we find in Schleswig-Holstein. I think the political borders are largely irrelevant to deciding what is culturally German, and that the idea of 'German identity' is internally a lot more diverse than you appear to allow for.

Even if the vast majority of the inhabitants of Austria, and Liechtenstein, and South Tyrol and German Switzerland have no interest in joining Germany politically[1], in my experience (which, if I may say so, is not exactly inconsiderable) a lot of those inhabitants nevertheless feel that they are members of a German people. Not the German people, perhaps, because of the aformentioned internal diversity, but certainly a German people.

This is not something I have often experienced in the Netherlands, or in Flanders, or in Luxemburg. Those are Germanic nations, but not German nations. Unlike the ones I discussed above.

---

[1] Well, except South Tyrol, perhaps. I've heard a lot of people there argue that they'd love for their region to join Germany. Not Austria. Germany. Preferably along with the rest of Tyrol.
 
1. Prussia, basically covering the areas marked 'Mecklenburgisch-Vorpommersch', 'Märkisch' and '(Ober-)Sächsisch' and every German area east of there on this map.
This is easily the easiest one.

2. Unified Austria and Bavaria, including the southern Sudetenland and South Tyrol. So basically what's marked 'Bairisch' on that same map.

I think that it'd be hard to have this, because if you want a balance of power, you really want an 'outside force' beyond just Poland involved. Hungary, Bohemia and Poland allied with your German powers can help any single one of each of those groupings becoming too powerful. (Other outside forces include France, Italy, Denmark).

3. A West German Confederation, stretching out from Schleswig to at least the northern border of Switzerland, but possibly even incorporating all of German Switzerland. It shouldn't include the Netherlands however (as on the map I linked), or at least not the Low Franconian (i.e. Dutch) speaking area. An 1800 POD still allows for regional Low saxon dialicts in the north-eastern Netherlands to be prevalent enough to join that area to Germany linguistically (German can gradually replace Low Saxon just as well as Dutch did in OTL), but I doubt the region's inhabitant's would he happy. (They'd be less likely than the rather more culturally German Swiss people to accept becoming German.)

That third country is the trickiest one to form in any case, because it's basically "everything that's not Prussia or Austria-Bavaria". Yet you want three states that can really be called a 'Germany', and this is the way to make that happen. The West German Confederation would include catholics and protestants, and various Low, Middle, and High German dialects. It would have to be confederal or (decentralised) federal in order to function well, but that can be arranged.

The three countries described here would be able to keep each other in check. None would be able to dominate. It's pretty much a stable situation. This kind of thing could have been implemented by Napoleon, which fits the c. 1800 POD for this...

This one is the most interesting IMO. Mainly because you want a non-Dutch Western Germany, which I think points to the Palatinate as an option. I think if you have OTL diverge just after the Austrian inheritance of the Netherlands, but have a very ambitious Palatine, essentially using his authority to seize lands in western Germany (With tacit approval of the Emperor), you've got the bones of state 3. The rise of Prussia from the Teutonic Order doesn't seem affected to me, Austria (as HRE) still comes prominence, just with a strong ally assisting defending the French frontier, and now you've got your number 3.

If when the Netherlands breaks away, it forms an alliance with the Palatinate to do so, you've torn a huge chunk of the Empire off, leaving Austria to eat up SE Germany, and the rest to fall under a NE power.
 
There was a stage where the Palatine and the Dukes of Bavaria was closely related. Perhaps there was a landswap after a war where the Palatine got a free hand in North West Germany in exchange for Bavaria to Austria.
 
Could you please give me one reason why I should not put you on my ignore list if this is the quality of your replies? Generaly I hold this forum to higher standards.
Because that's not the full amount of my reply, you cut off the substance. Is that the higher standard you speak of?
 
Top