Plausibility Check: Großdeutschland in 1866

The worst part of that (underlined) is that the state's weaknesses worried the heck out of Bismarck, for instance. And when the Iron Chancellor is worried about his own creation, given his far from modest ego, you know there are problems that could easily be even worse than OTL.

Indeed.

This says much about A-H as a basically working empire, however obviously overstrained.

I think that's the problem. Austria-Hungary's weaknesses are obvious and noisy - meaning that it looks weaker than it really was.

Meanwhile, Prussia-Germany is immensely powerful, and the fact its own weaknesses are problematic is masked because the powerful can hide them behind the armies.

Why this is still true - as in, people still miss the weaknesses because of the armies - is not a good thing when it comes to understanding history.

Which is again ironic given that civilian rule in Germany completely collapsed in 1916 and was going through all of 1915. What a pity, given that the "superior" German Empire couldn't even preserve its own political system in the shock of the general war it guaranteed.
 

Sumeragi

Banned
<shrug> Elfwine and SF on ignore list.
*Shrug*

Well, your loss then.


That may be a quite interesting topic, but what real harm the man (assuming he gets to be emperor ITTL) could and would do when constrained by such a system, till the 1857 stroke ? I'm skeptical.
I said big assumption because I'm not sure how the conservative Friedrich Wilhelm would make or break the Frankfurt Constitution after becoming emperor. Things can go either way, and as such we can't just assume things would be better.
 

Eurofed

Banned
Well, your loss then.

I think the ignore list is an excellent compromise between the chilling effects of moderation and the exhausting free-for-all of eternal flamewars.

I said big assumption because I'm not sure how the conservative Friedrich Wilhelm would make or break the Frankfurt Constitution after becoming emperor. Things can go either way, and as such we can't just assume things would be better.

But would he be in a position to break it once he lets himself be merged in that system ? Would he get the will and ability to do so ? Would he keep the power base, after such a victory of liberalism ?
 
Originally Posted by Eurofed
That is the reason why an Italian victory (which is rather easy as a PoD, it just requires a couple changes in the Italian high command, the
quality of the army as a whole was good) is the most feasible way to do it. It provides extra success that is additional to and independent
from the Prussian one.

In retrospect i think this is realistic, and i'm sorry i seemed to dismiss it. However i would say this. The figure who is changed at the top, will
need to be a real strong, firebrand - an Ironside - . He will have to have the moral authority through strength of personality, - a war hero ? -
and official authority from the prime minister/ minister of war/ king , to carry out sweeping changes. He needs to be able to sack swathes
of officers and replace them with better material, he needs to be able to enforce a tough and comprehensive retraining of the new officer
corps. He might be assisted by a Prussian or French military mission. This may need to be bought about by a disaster fed limited
revolution.

Originally Posted by Snake Featherston
Here we go again-Austria-Hungary was not a house of cards that would collapse after a single military or political defeat. Were this so then the 1914 defeats at the hands of Tsarism would lead to your Grossdeutschland. Were this so particularly the 1916 defeats would have destroyed the Empire. Austria-Hungary does not exist to make Germany bigger.

I dont know how you persist with missing the blindingly obvious contradiction in your own argument. You keep talking about Austria-Hungary being tough and resilient. And i'm talking about a situation where Austria might collapse. See the difference, Austria wasn't resilient enough to hold down the Hungarians. In 1848 she needed Russian assistance, what might have happened had she not had that assistance. Consider the number of her nationals, Czechs and others who went over to the enemy in WW1. In1866 after the Prussian victory at koniggratz there was widespread though muted discontent across the Austrian Empire. So Austria caved in to the Hungarians. The fact that your talking about Austria Hungary is proof enough that Austria could have collapsed in the late 1860's. I think the Italian victory scenario is plausible, it might have caused Italian areas to revolt, what then.

Originally Posted by Snake Featherston
Thing is it did concede that and the same pattern would recur in this scenario but moreso. Contrary to the fervent wish of militaristic Wehrmacht fanboys the Habsburg dynasty was pretty flexible at preserving power

I hope this is not some insult aimed at me, if it is, it's purile, immature and pathetic. That someone is a Whermact fanboy simply because they explore the possibility of Austria collapsing in the 1860's is a snidey and spiteful response, it makes we wonder what you are doing here.

Also AH was the only state that went to war to save itself from collapse, what a tradegy that Europe was drawn into the slaughter of WW1 for the sake of an empire that belonged in historys dustbin. All the other powers were drawn in not for survival but due to commitments. There was no danger that large swathes of the civil popualtion of France, Italy, Germany or Prussia were going to break away and form independent states. Austria-Hungary was held together by military force, if Germany had stood back AH would have been doomed. Not so for any other power. All the other powers had a reasonable chance of survival without any other power backing them. Your claims of AH resilience are devoid of reality. They were dependent on German backing and that allowed them to punch well above their weight. Without the German alliance AH would have had to surrender to Serb demands. They wouldn't have stood a cat in hells chance on their own. How you could argue otherwise is beyond me. A challenge, describe how in an Austro-Russian war ( without Germany behind AH ) Austria triumphs, and i will explain how Austria is beaten and then falls apart like a rickety old shack in storm. :p

Originally Posted by Eurofed
But in the 1860s Russia is not yet fostering Pan-Slavism as a proxy, much less so against the Habsburg. As it concerns Italy, its demands are on territories that do not belong to Hungary. The Ausgleich may fail because IOTL it was a close enough thing with OTL levels of defeat in 1866; a worse defeat would more severely discredit the Habsburg and push the Hungarians to make more radical demands.

The First Pan-Slav Congress, was held in Prague, 1848. Serbia had been in existance for decades. As soon as she gained independence
she began seeking expansion and unity of all the Southern Slavs not under Serbian rule. This placed Serbia at odds with Austria, RussiaRussia had for many decades had the entrance from the Black Sea to the Med as a goal, thus it's gaze was on the Balkans. Russia actively campaigned against The Ottomans for Serb independence and was active in Serb affairs during the late Napoleonic period. Decades of pro Serb activity by Russia led to the idea of Russia - champion of the Slavs, it didn't arise out of the blue, but was observable after decades of Russian involvement in the Balkans.
See Russia's Balkan Entanglements, 1806-1914 By Barbara Jelavich.

The collapse/dismemberment of Austria might take a year or a decade, or longer. It's pointless arguing about it without a concrete agreed scenario. Yes every historical event is part of many chains, with chains linked to chains. Each event is also a product of social forces often ignored by historians who dont wish to illustrate the influence of the masses. In 1867 conservative Austria conceded something unthinkable just a decade before, power sharing with the Hungarians. Why use Russian troops in 1848 and then concede independence less than 20 years later. They were frightened that the use of force against the Hungarians might start a fire that could become a conflageration. The forces of Revolution were always threatening to simmer, consider the growth of unions, Feminism, Socialist organisations, Darwinism...... Its an age of potential revolution across all spheres and the leaders of the powers and their advisors know it or face peril.

The GW1870 is agood scenario for the dismemberment of Austria. But we have to get past some obstacles.
Austria wont attack Prussia unless France is more active in the offensive, a small victory over the Prussians in the Rhineland might be enough. Austria knows she may well face Prussia and Russia, possibly Italy as well. So she needs the French to fire the starting gun.
As discussed in previous threads, Austria turns down Napoleon's offer of alliance because Italy wont join. Austria doesnt want to be fighting 3 powerful states. Italy cant countenance alliance with France while Rome is occupied by the French. We need a scenario where the Rome problem is not an issue for France and Italy.

Another scenario for Austrian collapse is the Austro-Prussian wr is delayed till 1867 and the Austrians use brutality to bring the Hungarians into line.
 
Last edited:
There's a difference between exploring the possibility that Austria ("Habsburgia" isn't a state, so I'm going to use it as shorthand for the Habsburg Empire by whatever proper name it had for purposes of this post) might collapse, and the distressing tendency some people* have to assume that Austria would wither and die with a slight push. That tendency tends to be strongest in the people who are big fans of Prussia's Mighty Military for some reason.

With or without German backing, Austria-Hungary was stronger than Serbia alone (versus Russia is another story, but taking on Russia hasn't been an easy fight in two centuries by that point). Its history - up to and including WWI - proves that it was a resilient, enduring state - under a lot of pressure and slowly buckling, but better off than its usually given credit for.

Austria without Russian help in '48 would have done something else. It was not a state completely without resources or able leadership.

Maybe it would have failed. Or maybe it would have succeeded.

It choosing to make a compromise with the Hungarians is not the same thing as being a fragile, pathetic state on the verge of collapse. And if the Italian areas revolt, so what? It has an army. It has reasonably able leadership on top (politically). It has faced revolts before and dealt with them.

If it wasn't resilient enough to deal with the Hungarians, there wouldn't be anything for the Russians to assist. If it was so fragile it would collapse in a stiff breeze in 1866, it wouldn't have lasted another half century.

And the idea that Austria-Hungary was held together by military force is...a bit much. The preferred solution was, to quote from The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers: "...to smother [particularist grievances] with committees, with new jobs, tax concessions, additional railway branch lines, and so on." The closest you get to military force as a solution is stationing Italian regiments in Hungary and vice-versa, for instance. But that's most definitely not the same thing as pure martial law.

* And yes, you most definitely seem to be one of them. Whether you're a Wehrmacht fan or not I don't know.
 
Last edited:
Unification in 1848, followed by an immediate war against Austria, with the separating of Hungary into the Greater German Empire, and the Hungarian Empire/Federation that controls the original areas of the Hapsburg Empire.
 
There's a difference between exploring the possibility that Austria ("Habsburgia" isn't a state, so I'm going to use it as shorthand for the Habsburg Empire by whatever proper name it had for purposes of this post) might collapse, and the distressing tendency some people* have to assume that Austria would wither and die with a slight push. That tendency tends to be strongest in the people who are big fans of Prussia's Mighty Military for some reason.

With or without German backing, Austria-Hungary was stronger than Serbia alone (versus Russia is another story, but taking on Russia hasn't been an easy fight in two centuries by that point). Its history - up to and including WWI - proves that it was a resilient, enduring state - under a lot of pressure and slowly buckling, but better off than its usually given credit for.

Austria without Russian help in '48 would have done something else. It was not a state completely without resources or able leadership.

Maybe it would have failed. Or maybe it would have succeeded.

It choosing to make a compromise with the Hungarians is not the same thing as being a fragile, pathetic state on the verge of collapse. And if the Italian areas revolt, so what? It has an army. It has reasonably able leadership on top (politically). It has faced revolts before and dealt with them.

If it wasn't resilient enough to deal with the Hungarians, there wouldn't be anything for the Russians to assist. If it was so fragile it would collapse in a stiff breeze in 1866, it wouldn't have lasted another half century.

And the idea that Austria-Hungary was held together by military force is...a bit much. The preferred solution was, to quote from The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers: "...to smother [particularist grievances] with committees, with new jobs, tax concessions, additional railway branch lines, and so on." The closest you get to military force as a solution is stationing Italian regiments in Hungary and vice-versa, for instance. But that's most definitely not the same thing as pure martial law.

* And yes, you most definitely seem to be one of them. Whether you're a Wehrmacht fan or not I don't know.



Let me say i'm no fan of Prussia, i think it was a tradegy for Europe - incl Germany - that Germany was unified under the dominance of a backward conservative military state. I have made several proposals to look at how Germany might have been unified without Bismarcks wars, via the route of federal reform led by Bavaria and other minor states, no ones interested.
Secondly dont attach morale guilt to ideas, if someone explores a particular historical avenue that doesn't make them pro this or pro that.

Let me tell you i'm for Democracy, you seem to be the one mitigating for dictatorship, people across AH were chomping at the bit for National liberation, authoritarian people like you care nothing for freedom, you avert criticism of this ram shakle dictatorship with assertions about peoples character. I wish AH had fallen apart, i wish liberalism had swept Germany, and Prussia had been assigned to histories dustbin, along with Austria.
You on the other hand are concerned with some petty squabble with Prussia, your concern is not the liberation of peoples from oppression, but revenge against Prussia because they damaged Austria. Then you go off into some abstract deluded dream world, suggesting lets forget the fact that AH would have stood no chance in a war against Russia, and celebrate the fact that she could have crushed Serbia.

Well what a magnificent achievement that would have been. :p :p :p

I wouldn't mind betting that if Germany and Russia had stayed out of it, the Serbians would have given a good account of themselves. As could the Italians, especially if paracitic Austria had not stood in their way of national liberation.

Dont avoid the facts, if not for the fear of military oppression the nationalities of AH would have dismantled the Empire, - 1848 - and you would fight against that, and condemn those would fight for it as "Whermahct Fanboys", your self delusion, and dishonesty of motives are apparent to me. :p

As a final comment Russia would have flattened bully boy Austria, if she had not been hiding behind Germany, shouting come on fight me then.
 
Last edited:
Indeed.



Which is again ironic given that civilian rule in Germany completely collapsed in 1916 and was going through all of 1915. What a pity, given that the "superior" German Empire couldn't even preserve its own political system in the shock of the general war it guaranteed.


p.s Snidey comments full of inuendo are tiresome


Once again forgetting, Austria would not have survived beyond September 1914 - witness Galicia - had it not been for Germany.
 
Last edited:
Ok AH can crush Sebia, and stalemate the Italians, what's it gonna do against a major power like Russia, hide in the Carpathian moutains, waiting for Germany to rescue it, hang on that sounds a bit like what actually happened. :p
 
As another thought i think it perfectly feasible that Germany and Russia could have signed a treaty after 1870 and subsequently dismembered Austria Hungary. Thus solving the Balkans problem peacefully.

There is a wee chance of war,

France, Britain, Turkey, Austria
V
Germany, Russia, Italy, Sebia, Romania.

Austria, invaded from all sides with much of her nationalities wanting independence might whine, but she is doomed here. Crushed.

On the whole i think Britain would accept it, in her period of splendid isolation. Fait Accompli.

Turkey, What could they hope to gain. Neutral.

France alone, what could she do. Protest in frustration.

Fancy part of Austria, i'll have the wing. :p

So big Germany is accomplished, the Balkans dont drag Europe into WW1.
France is isolated as Russia and Germany have no flash point.
And peace rheins as the forces of revolution gather.

All it would have would taken was the will and the clearsightedness to do it, something Bismarck lacked.
 
Last edited:
Let me say i'm no fan of Prussia, i think it was a tradegy for Europe - incl Germany - that Germany was unified under the dominance of a backward conservative military state. I have made several proposals to look at how Germany might have been unified without Bismarcks wars, via the route of federal reform led by Bavaria and other minor states, no ones interested.
Secondly dont attach morale guilt to ideas, if someone explores a particular historical avenue that doesn't make them pro this or pro that.

It doesn't make them that, but people who are pro Prussia often are the most actively dismissive of Austria. Its not a matter of guilt or innocence, just look at Eurofed's arguments on how Germany was awesome and AH existed to be cut into pieces to bolster states he prefers.

Let me tell you i'm for Democracy, you seem to be the one mitigating for dictatorship, people across AH were chomping at the bit for National liberation, authoritarian people like you care nothing for freedom, you avert criticism of this ram shakle dictatorship with assertions about peoples character.
Dictatorship? No. A working monarchy over a mess of territories in which half fell into worse problems than they ever had under the Habsburgs? Yes.

National liberation for the sake of national independence is about as appealing to me as any other form of anarchism.

I wish AH had fallen apart, i wish liberalism had swept Germany, and Prussia had been assigned to histories dustbin, along with Austria.
You on the other hand are concerned with some petty squabble with Prussia, your concern is not the liberation of peoples from oppression, but revenge against Prussia because they damaged Austria. Then you go off into some abstract deluded dream world, suggesting lets forget the fact that AH would have stood no chance in a war against Russia, and celebrate the fact that she could have crushed Serbia.
No, I'm concerned with the fact Austria-Hungary was better for Germany and the world than Prussia. I don't want revenge against Prussia. I'd rather have a reformed Prussia than OTL's, but barring that as an option, I'd rather not destroy it any more than anywhere else in the world. As for AH vs. Russia: My point is that Austria-Hungary is stronger than Serbia - it may not be as strong as it needs to be vs. Serbia & Allies, but that's a different discussion. No one is saying it was a great power at this point.

And being insulting as you're being isn't helping this conversation at all, FYI. You might want to remember your sig.

I wouldn't mind betting that if Germany and Russia had stayed out of it, the Serbians would have given a good account of themselves. As could the Italians, especially if paracitic Austria had not stood in their way of national liberation.

Dont avoid the facts, if not for the fear of military oppression the nationalities of AH would have dismantled the Empire, - 1848 - and you would fight against that, and condemn those would fight for it as "Whermahct Fanboys", your self delusion, and dishonesty of motives are apparent to me. :p
If not for the fact AH could deal with the nationalities other than through force, the state wouldn't have lasted another seventy years from '48. Serbia might give a good account for itself, but its the weaker power nonetheless. It would show.

As for what I would fight for against: I'm an Austrophile. And anti-nationalist and very pro-imperial (meaning the united empire). That doesn't make me dishonest, delusional, hostile to freedom, or anything else.

Unfortunately for the world, my preferred scenario (a reformed A-H and Ottoman Empire) never happened.

As another thought i think it perfectly feasible that Germany and Russia could have signed a treaty after 1870 and subsequently dismembered Austria Hungary. Thus solving the Balkans problem peacefully.
Other than the fact the Russians did not want to dismantle Austria-Hungary and did not want to see Germany expand.

"On the whole, the flank powers' likelihood of intervening in the affairs of west-central Europe would depend heavily upon what Germany itself did; there was certainly no need to become involved if it could be assumed that the second German Reich was now a satiated power.
...
And when, during the 'war-in-sight' crisis of 1875, indications arose that the German government might be contemplating a preventive war against France, the warnigns from both London and (especially) St. Petersburg convinced Bismarck that there would be strong opposition to any further alterations in the European balance."
 
Last edited:
Top