No Bismarck, No Germany?

[pompejus]

Just off the top of my head, if Austria were to lose too much of its empire, would it ever consider uniting Germany under an Austrian banner to compensate?

No, but it would try to increase its influence in the easiest way possible, which would probably mean increase its influence among the German nations*. That is basicly what Prussia did, using nationalistic feelings to increase its own power. Austria probably would try to do the same (although I think that without Italy and Hungary they are weaker than Prussia and so probably less succesful).



*or states or countries or whatever, I always get those confused

 

[Andrelvis]

Austria would probably try to expand it's influence in Germany, possibly trying to unify it, as long as the power of the Austrian emperor wasn't diminished (like it would be had it accepted the German crown in 1848). As said though, an Austria without Hungary, Galicia and Croatia would be weaker than Prussia.

 

[Andrelvis]

As said, Germany as it was eventually exceeded both France and the UK in population and industrial production. This would be so even if the German states did not unite, most likely. Simply said, Germany, even disunited, will eventually become so strong that only all of Europe together could prevent it from uniting. Which could happen of course, given a sufficiently incompetent diplomacy, as said, but also as said I would say the other alternative is more likely.

I doubt that, actually. There is no inevitable drive for uniting, and eventually, the German states would probably try to create their own nationalism, that is, propagate "Bavarian", "Hannoverian" and such identities; which is what we see in Austria today.

Germany would probably remain like the Latin American countries - similar-cultured, but divided.

 

[Susano]

I doubt that, actually. There is no inevitable drive for uniting, and eventually, the German states would probably try to create their own nationalism, that is, propagate "Bavarian", "Hannoverian" and such identities; which is what we see in Austria today.

Nationalism already existed, though, different than in the Latin American countries. And thats all the drive required, really. Of course, there also was a lot of economical incentive, which is the reason for the Zollverein, and just as the EU the Zollverein wouldnt just stop at a customs union. But the important thing is that nationalism plus democracy would take care of that problem.

Austria is a special case, came about under special circumstances. Basically, tehy cowardly weasled their way out of the whole "identification with the Nazi past" thing. Pre-WW2, it was very thoroughly German-nationalist.

 

[Stalker]

While I approve of your general opinion, there was no such a thing as a pan-Germanic sentiment. Well, okay, to be fair there was, among the radical vestiges of the romantic-racist spectrum, but it wasnt exactly widespread. What you meant probably is pan-German, which is something different

Your correction is accepted, sir. Could not simply help adding that darn suffix and thus including into the Deutsche Laender to be also Scandinavians and even the English who are also Germanic Nations but not specifically Germans.
Was Prussia a natural centre of gravity after the fall of HREGN and had Hapsburgs' Oesterreich a chance to unite again German lands that already spoke much different variants of German that could be even admitted as separate languages, that had cultural traditions varying widely etc.?
Very interesting analogue might be found in the rise of nationalism in East Slavic Nations that were once united in the single political and cultural area called Rus. Now we distinguish three nations arising from Rus: Russia, Ukraine and Byelorus, and two latter of this "Holy Trinity" trying to show their manifest differences from Russia. The rise of nationalism in mid 19th century influenced Ukrainian Renaissanse and boosted search of separate identity but that was probably preconditioned by the history of Ukraine as itself because since early 17th century Ukraine had developed some features of the nascent nations whose world was challenged by the Catholic West. But that was not such a big problem for German states that were divided rather dynastically and when nationalism divided the Russian world it, however, helped the German world to unite. An interesting phenomenon.

 

[Susano]

Well, there are regional differences: Low German definitly is different to Upper and Middle German, the two dialect groups High German (that is, Standard German) is derived from. However, I dont think this ever really reflected in identity. I mean, even in the Russian Empire the Czar called himself "Czar of all Russians, the Great, Little and White Russians", so as you said there were already corresponding (sub-)identities present. But just wasnt so in Germany. Additionally, Low German was thought of as a peasants language, so just like with Occitan in France it simply had no intellectual defenders and pioneers, which would be needed to form an own identity, or even only forming an own literary language... So, Prussia, too, spoke Standard German (of course, Berlin also is a Middle German island in a sea of Low German Brandenburg).