In 1851 Bismark had a duel with Vincke. In OTL neither was wounded. However what if Bismark had been killed? What would be the repercussions on the development of Germany?
No Bismark
- Thread starter Lindseyman
- Start date
It depends who else takes the job. Bismarck's political programme was far from unique. A lot of Prussian politicians were German nationalists, and antagonism to Austria ran deep. Conservatism goes without saying, and most intelligent conservatives realised that doing something for the workers was necessary. The problem is it's very hard to predict what an individual will do at certain key moments. Another chancellor would probably lack Bismarck's deep reservoir of political (and economic) capital, so he would be less able to determine outcomes in Prussia. Consequently, he might take a different attitude to risk in foreign policy. Beyond that, butterflies (fittingly, Bismarck's retirement home near Hamburg is home to a butterfly park today....)
Anything from a somewhat different Reich to a surviving, but ineffectual German league or an Austrian-dominated South Germany after a Prussian defeat in either of the wars is possible.
Anything from a somewhat different Reich to a surviving, but ineffectual German league or an Austrian-dominated South Germany after a Prussian defeat in either of the wars is possible.
In the short run, I actually think it's fairly clear who would be running Germany if Bismarck's not around. Without Bismarck, Wilhelm I abdicates in 1862 over the constitutional struggle, and Friedrich III (Friedrich Wilhelm V?) takes the throne decades earlier than OTL.
The issue isn't that there weren't other people with Bismarck's views, but that there was no one else with his boldness in tackling the problem of Parliament's claim to share power with the King.
So, the new king appoints a moderately liberal ministry and works out a compromise to end the stand off with parliament. Prussia begins a course as a genuine constitutional monarchy. Its foreign policy will likely be even more anti-Austrian than heretofore. In OTL, Wilhelm I wanted to attend Franz Joseph's Congress of Princes in Frankfurt in late 1863, but Bismarck persuaded him not to. Probably Friedrich III won't want to attend in the first place. I'd think a Bismarck-less Prussia is also going to be less sympathetic to Russia during the Polish Uprising that year. Friedrich will look west, towards Britain and France, for allies, rather than towards the conservative eastern powers.
Then, a year later, King Frederick VII of Denmark dies. There's a disputed succession in the Duchies of Schleswig and Holstein, which he ruled, between his Danish successor, Christian of Glücksburg, whose wife is the heir-general to the old King, and Frederick of Augustenburg, the heir-male. Augustenburg's claim is that while Denmark itself can pass through a female line, Schleswig and Holstein cannot, and ought to pass instead to him.
Matters are complicated three days after Frederick VII's death, when the Danish Parliament approves a constitution which unites Schleswig to Denmark. Although the great powers had all recognized Christian's right to succeed to the duchies as well as to Denmark itself, this was clearly in violation of international law, because the First Schleswig Crisis had been resolved by supposedly guaranteeing the special rights of Schleswig.
Augustenburg, meanwhile, garners a lot of sympathy and support from the German states, who want to give the duchies over to him to create a new medium-sized German state in Schleswig-Holstein.
The Austrians aren't at all sympathetic to this, but, as leaders of the German Confederation, can't allow Denmark to simply annex Schleswig without protest. In OTL, Bismarck pretends to agree with them and guides both countries into a war with Denmark over the Duchies. By allying with Austria, he is able to ignore Augustenburg's claims and finally break with Austria, defeat them, and annex the duchies himself (along with much of the rest of northern Germany).
Things are going to be significantly different in the ATL. The new King of Prussia is personal friends with Frederick of Augustenburg, and almost certainly joins the hubbub in the German Confederation in Augustenburg's favor, rather than pursuing Bismarck's outwardly conservative, pro-Austrian path.
That leaves the Austrians isolated - their moderate policy has no clear supporters. The British, French, and Russians aren't really interested in direct intervention, but their sympathies are with Denmark, and none of them is particularly friendly towards Austria. So what do the Austrians do? They would seemingly have the option of either joining with the other German powers to oust Christian and put in Augustenburg, or of sitting sulkily on the sidelines while the Prussians do it. Neither of these options would be at all attractive to either Franz Joseph or Count Rechberg, his foreign minister.
I think that, most likely, Austria sulks on the sidelines while Prussia and the other German powers fight Denmark. The German powers are victorious, and Augustenburg is installed as ruler of Schleswig and Holstein. Prussia has massively increased its credibility with German nationalists, and Austria looks weak and impotent, just like it did four years before when it sat on the sidelines through the unification of Italy.
At the same time, there's no decisive break with Prussia, and no cause for a German civil war. The German Confederation will continue to exist, and the princes will maneuver between the two German powers as best they can.
Hard to say what happens next...
The issue isn't that there weren't other people with Bismarck's views, but that there was no one else with his boldness in tackling the problem of Parliament's claim to share power with the King.
So, the new king appoints a moderately liberal ministry and works out a compromise to end the stand off with parliament. Prussia begins a course as a genuine constitutional monarchy. Its foreign policy will likely be even more anti-Austrian than heretofore. In OTL, Wilhelm I wanted to attend Franz Joseph's Congress of Princes in Frankfurt in late 1863, but Bismarck persuaded him not to. Probably Friedrich III won't want to attend in the first place. I'd think a Bismarck-less Prussia is also going to be less sympathetic to Russia during the Polish Uprising that year. Friedrich will look west, towards Britain and France, for allies, rather than towards the conservative eastern powers.
Then, a year later, King Frederick VII of Denmark dies. There's a disputed succession in the Duchies of Schleswig and Holstein, which he ruled, between his Danish successor, Christian of Glücksburg, whose wife is the heir-general to the old King, and Frederick of Augustenburg, the heir-male. Augustenburg's claim is that while Denmark itself can pass through a female line, Schleswig and Holstein cannot, and ought to pass instead to him.
Matters are complicated three days after Frederick VII's death, when the Danish Parliament approves a constitution which unites Schleswig to Denmark. Although the great powers had all recognized Christian's right to succeed to the duchies as well as to Denmark itself, this was clearly in violation of international law, because the First Schleswig Crisis had been resolved by supposedly guaranteeing the special rights of Schleswig.
Augustenburg, meanwhile, garners a lot of sympathy and support from the German states, who want to give the duchies over to him to create a new medium-sized German state in Schleswig-Holstein.
The Austrians aren't at all sympathetic to this, but, as leaders of the German Confederation, can't allow Denmark to simply annex Schleswig without protest. In OTL, Bismarck pretends to agree with them and guides both countries into a war with Denmark over the Duchies. By allying with Austria, he is able to ignore Augustenburg's claims and finally break with Austria, defeat them, and annex the duchies himself (along with much of the rest of northern Germany).
Things are going to be significantly different in the ATL. The new King of Prussia is personal friends with Frederick of Augustenburg, and almost certainly joins the hubbub in the German Confederation in Augustenburg's favor, rather than pursuing Bismarck's outwardly conservative, pro-Austrian path.
That leaves the Austrians isolated - their moderate policy has no clear supporters. The British, French, and Russians aren't really interested in direct intervention, but their sympathies are with Denmark, and none of them is particularly friendly towards Austria. So what do the Austrians do? They would seemingly have the option of either joining with the other German powers to oust Christian and put in Augustenburg, or of sitting sulkily on the sidelines while the Prussians do it. Neither of these options would be at all attractive to either Franz Joseph or Count Rechberg, his foreign minister.
I think that, most likely, Austria sulks on the sidelines while Prussia and the other German powers fight Denmark. The German powers are victorious, and Augustenburg is installed as ruler of Schleswig and Holstein. Prussia has massively increased its credibility with German nationalists, and Austria looks weak and impotent, just like it did four years before when it sat on the sidelines through the unification of Italy.
At the same time, there's no decisive break with Prussia, and no cause for a German civil war. The German Confederation will continue to exist, and the princes will maneuver between the two German powers as best they can.
Hard to say what happens next...
In my humble opinion, and that is exclusively my opinion which I do not want to force on anyone, Bismarck was a unique personality. I do not think that if he had been killed there would have been anyone with such intellect and abilities as his in Germany.
Such people are born once in a century at least. A true genius. He took great risks and he won.
My guess that without Bismarck Germany would have been much weaker politically.
One more thing comes to my mind though, kind of unpleasant.
There is an opinion that if there had not been Bismarck's success there would not have been Hitler.
I mean Hitler saw himself as a second Bismarck and the Germans were convinced that they were lucky to have one more genius. A great man with vision who sees what no one else sees and who alone could lead his nation to victories. Which proved wrong.
I do not mean to accuse Bismarck of Hitler's atrocities. But he probably set a bad example for the next generations of the German nationalists.
See I don't see that, no one is irreplacable in history and to say that Bismark was once in a hundred years is an insult to all the hundreds of skilled and smart people who never got their chance to shine in the same place as him, while his specific germany won't be there I don't think it would lead to a necessarilly weaker germany, hell it could actually lead to a Germany thats a better place to live in overall. Maybe even a germany that is a real federation and not the Prussian domination it was in OTL.
No one is irreplaceable ? Bonaparte ? Charlemagne ? Suleiman the Great? Frederick the Great ? Peter the Great ? Hitler ? Just a few examples. Do you really say that if those people had been removed , someone else would have stepped up and things would have been pretty much as OTL?
unprincipled peter
Donor
there are a lot of unique individuals who are a rare story. True, there are also a lot of unique individuals who, due to circumstance, did not get the chance to come to the forefront. It's certainly possible that without Bismark, some other great statesman would have had his moment in the sun. I wouldn't count on it, though. History is rife with occasions where no one stepped up to the plate. Sometimes, you're lucky if you have multiple great spokesmen/generals/whatever coinciding. usually, you're fortunate if you have one. Most people are indeed replaceable. there are rare individuals who are not. Doesn't mean the world couldn't do without them. The world is almost always in a state of muddling through, and that would likely have been the case if B died early.
However, just because B was a great statesman, it doesn't mean the events he set in motion are always good. As someone pointed out, the argument could be made that without B, the eventual events led to WWI, and through that failure, to Hitler. That doesn't mean that B caused Hitler, or that B's actions were wrong. A lot of stuff went down in between which was not of B's doing. Still, no Bismark, you have to envision a different German unification, and thus a different Germany, and thus a different world environment. It's been claimed that Bismark didn't set out to unify Germany, but when opportunity knocked, he responded in a manner beneficial to Prussia. Someone else in charge would have likely responded differently, and we can't really say if that would have ultimately been better or worse.
However, just because B was a great statesman, it doesn't mean the events he set in motion are always good. As someone pointed out, the argument could be made that without B, the eventual events led to WWI, and through that failure, to Hitler. That doesn't mean that B caused Hitler, or that B's actions were wrong. A lot of stuff went down in between which was not of B's doing. Still, no Bismark, you have to envision a different German unification, and thus a different Germany, and thus a different world environment. It's been claimed that Bismark didn't set out to unify Germany, but when opportunity knocked, he responded in a manner beneficial to Prussia. Someone else in charge would have likely responded differently, and we can't really say if that would have ultimately been better or worse.
Wilhelmsburg? Or maybe nothing at all, Bismark encouraged emigration, Germans are going to leave anyway but if the ATL minister isn't friendly to the idea they might not bother naming a city after something in Germany.
Yes all of those people are replaceable, and no it won't go pretty much like OTL. For instance, if instead of an arch conservative the person who replaces Bismark is instead a moderate liberal German Nationalist Germany would probably still form roughly on schedule but the Germany that would be formed would look very different from the Kaiser Reich of OTL, and in my opinion it's not gonna be in the sense of Germany being weaker. Just different. What really bugged me more than anything else is the attitude that there is something unique about his skill and abilities, and while it's true he was a very skilled statesman I don't see what makes him so uniquely awesomely special that no one could have been his equal.
Besides the specific changes to the 1860s I noted above, I think the biggest question here is whether some sort of Kleindeutsch/Federal solution to the "German Question" was inevitable, or whether a Grossdeutsch/Confederal situation could have been stable in the long run. The situation I outlined above strengthens Prussia's hand vis-a-vis Austria, but doesn't actually "solve" the German question the way Bismarck did. Is it inevitable that some such *would* have happened at some later point? Or is it possible that a two power, confederal solution could have worked in the long term?
Except it wasn't Bismarck who prevented the abdication, but the Crown Prince himself, who flatly refused to countersign it. He is said (not sure how reliably) to have stated later that had he thought Bismarck would be made Prime Minister, he might have accepted, but with no Bismarck on the scene, he is even less likely to do so.
Absent Bizzy, Prussia's constitutional deadlock probably just drags on into 1863, and Wilhelm accepts the invitation to the Frankfurt Congress of Princes. There's still many a slip of course, but quite possibly we get an earlier German unification on the basis of Franz Josef's proposals, which, if he believes his throne in imminent danger, Wilhelm won't be in a strong position to reject.
Austria tried to mobilize federal troops against Russia during the crimean war - Bismarck through clever outmaneuvering the Austrians prevented this.
No Bismarck you might get an even worse defeat of Russia during teh Crimean war - and Austria a better standing with UK and France
one of the many butterflies of a NO BISMARCK world.
No Bismarck you might get an even worse defeat of Russia during teh Crimean war - and Austria a better standing with UK and France
one of the many butterflies of a NO BISMARCK world.
This is interesting - I'd not heard that. Wilhelm I - Bismarck is a very different world than the one I outlined. I'm not sure it makes sense to describe Franz Joseph's proposals as an "earlier German unification" so much as a tightening of the existing German Confederation (at least, that's my understanding). So long as Austria and Prussia are both in, "Germany" isn't going to act like a single entity in international relations, so it's a continuation of dualism.
Things are going to get particularly wonky a month after Frankfurt when Frederick VII dies - a genuinely conservative Prussian regime might *actually* back up Austria, which might result in no Schleswig-Holstein war at all, or one with generally limited goals that simply force the Danes to reverse the incorporation of Schleswig.
On the other hand, maybe six more months of constitutional crisis and the Crown Prince *does* agree to his father's abdication.
Well, to say that Newton was once in a hundred years is not an insult to all the hundreds of skilled and smart physicists.
As far as I remember Bismarck was not born to power, he did not marry into power. He was from moderately wealthy landowning family; but it was not money that bought him place in politics - he won his place in an honest Darwinian struggle as the fittest politician.
Bismarck saw the future of Germany as something like France of his time, united and unified country which is stronger than any "real federation" by definition. And unified country has more chances to survive.
As a matter of fact I did not say that no one could have been equal to Bismarck.
I said he was "once in a century".
It seems to me that Bismarck has been underrated for obvious reasons - he created Germany which is hold responsible by many for starting WW1 and WW2. The Nazis loved him, Hitler wanted to look like Bismarck (he even bought a shepherd-dog like Bismarck). So Bismarck is seen as a "bad guy".
But I think that is unfair to the old man; IMO Bismarck would never pull his country into the World War - he was for local conflicts where he could calculate risks. He was for European balance of powers, he was sure that a wise politician could outplay his opponents and make his country bigger and stronger step by step without igniting a major military conflict of the type "neck or nothing".
Bismarck was one of the rare men who expanded his country in Europe so greatly. In Europe dynasties and nations fought for centuries to acquire a few hundred square miles. Bismarck created a great Empire during his lifetime.
unprincipled peter
Donor
pretty much every history book out there describes B as an extraordinary statesman. It's silly to poo poo that, and relegate him to just another guy.
A further point on the Congress of Princes -
I'm not sure why anyone thinks Prussian participation would somehow have resulted in a Grossdeutsch unification of Germany. This is just buying into Bismarck's mythology of his own importance, where he tries to paint all his predecessors as pro-Austrian lickspittles. This is just wrong. Prussian policy pre-Bismarck wasn't necessarily reflexively anti-Austrian, but it also wasn't willing to simply back Austria unless Austria was willing to make concessions towards German leadership in Germany.
Prussia has basically no reason to agree to any kind of Austrian proposals that would increase Austrian power at Prussian expense. This is true whether or not the King goes to Frankfurt. If Schleinitz had still been foreign minister in 1863, all that happens is that the Austrian proposals (which Franz Joseph was only lukewarm about, anyway) are rejected more politely.
I'm not sure why anyone thinks Prussian participation would somehow have resulted in a Grossdeutsch unification of Germany. This is just buying into Bismarck's mythology of his own importance, where he tries to paint all his predecessors as pro-Austrian lickspittles. This is just wrong. Prussian policy pre-Bismarck wasn't necessarily reflexively anti-Austrian, but it also wasn't willing to simply back Austria unless Austria was willing to make concessions towards German leadership in Germany.
Prussia has basically no reason to agree to any kind of Austrian proposals that would increase Austrian power at Prussian expense. This is true whether or not the King goes to Frankfurt. If Schleinitz had still been foreign minister in 1863, all that happens is that the Austrian proposals (which Franz Joseph was only lukewarm about, anyway) are rejected more politely.