Without Austria, Germany is only barely Germany.
Without Bavaria and Swabia, it's not Germany at all.
The North German Confederation was just Prussia with barnacles. In all likelihood, it'd be referred to as "Prussia" in colloquial terms.
Rump Second Reich: WI Germany was only Northern Germany?
- Thread starter maverick
- Start date
Without Bavaria and Swabia, it's not Germany at all.
The North German Confederation was just Prussia with barnacles. In all likelihood, it'd be referred to as "Prussia" in colloquial terms.
Eurofed
Banned
As a variant of my "different 1866" TL, sometime ago I posted a scenario where Germany remains divided into Northern and Southern states, with a twist.
Italy makes a very good performance in the 1866 war, so it asks for all its claims at the peace table, and Prussia is prompted to ask for Saxony and Bohemia-Moravia. Napoleon III intervenes on the side of Austria, the resulting conflict ends in a status quo stalemate in the Western front, but the Prussian-Italian alliance reaps what it wanted from the helpless Habsburg Empire, which faces ultimate collapse. Desperate Francis II again appeals to Russian help to save its throne, promising Galicia and total Austrian support for Russian expansion in the Balkans. Russian military intervention quells nationalist rebellions in the Habsburg empire, although it is effectively a Russian client-puppet now. French and Russian influence fosters the birth of a South German federation between Austria, Bavaria, Baden, and Wurttenberg, to match the North German Federation built by Prussia.
Italy makes a very good performance in the 1866 war, so it asks for all its claims at the peace table, and Prussia is prompted to ask for Saxony and Bohemia-Moravia. Napoleon III intervenes on the side of Austria, the resulting conflict ends in a status quo stalemate in the Western front, but the Prussian-Italian alliance reaps what it wanted from the helpless Habsburg Empire, which faces ultimate collapse. Desperate Francis II again appeals to Russian help to save its throne, promising Galicia and total Austrian support for Russian expansion in the Balkans. Russian military intervention quells nationalist rebellions in the Habsburg empire, although it is effectively a Russian client-puppet now. French and Russian influence fosters the birth of a South German federation between Austria, Bavaria, Baden, and Wurttenberg, to match the North German Federation built by Prussia.
One possible way off it might be if an inexperienced Napoleon IV gets himself committed to the Russian side before Prussia has declared herself. In that case, Bismarck could make a third in the Franco-Russian alliance. Since Austria can't take them all on together, that leaves Britain isolated.
If the Franco-Prussian showdown can be postponed to c1884, things could get interesting. Firstly, by then the Germans are getting more interested in colonies, and might settle for confiscating the French overseas empire in lieu of Alsace-Lorraine. Secondly, the Comte de Chambord died in 1883, so if the postwar French Chamber is dominated by Monarchists as OTL, they will have only one candidate, not two. So France becomes a monarchy again, and may remain one into the 20C.
There is anotheroption:
In 1866, Prussia does less well, the war goes on and on and finally, later that year, Napoleon enters the fray as an arbitrator.
A) In the settlement Prussia gains Holstein and Schleswig (perhaps minus the northern Schleswig part staying eith Denmark) and most of the Kingdom of Hanover. The NGC consists of Prussia, the smaller northern German and Thuringian statelets plus Saxony.
B) Austria loses Veneto.
C) Bavaria, Württemberg, Baden, Hesse-K, Hesse-D and Nassau, plus the City of Frankfurt enter the Confederation of the Rhine, protected by the Empire of France ...
I guess the most important question is whether the southern German liberals are more democratic or more nationalist. It's not so easy to decide.
In 1866, Prussia does less well, the war goes on and on and finally, later that year, Napoleon enters the fray as an arbitrator.
A) In the settlement Prussia gains Holstein and Schleswig (perhaps minus the northern Schleswig part staying eith Denmark) and most of the Kingdom of Hanover. The NGC consists of Prussia, the smaller northern German and Thuringian statelets plus Saxony.
B) Austria loses Veneto.
C) Bavaria, Württemberg, Baden, Hesse-K, Hesse-D and Nassau, plus the City of Frankfurt enter the Confederation of the Rhine, protected by the Empire of France ...
I guess the most important question is whether the southern German liberals are more democratic or more nationalist. It's not so easy to decide.
That is right.
But after Olmütz in 185ß and especially the Prussian constitutional conflict of the early 1860s, many southern German democrats were not too keen on joining Prussia.
I didn't assume a renewal of the Rheinbund of 1806 - this one really has no strong overlord, even if France guarantees the members' independece from Austria and Prussia, it cannot impose the political system.
I assumed that under these conditions, quite a few people would not be sure if national unity with Prussia or independence in a more liberal and more bougeois state was preferable.
But to be honest, I had completely overlooked the economic aspect. SG would not be viable on its own. If there is no Zollverein, a customs union with France would be necessary for economic growth. That sounds difficult, even if a monetary union (the Latin one) would be easy.
Trouble is, the 1866 war isn't an easy one to stalemate. The Prussians are on the wrong side of a mountain barrier, which they had to negotiate narrow passes to get through. So if defeated they are in a trap, rather like the French at Sedan. By the time of Koniggratz they also mostly hadn't eaten for a couple of days, and would have been retreating over land they had stripped on the way in.
Seems to me that if you don't get a complete victory for Prussia then you get a complete victory for Austria. Stalemate isn't really on offer.
Not too hard to guess. Nationalism was "flavour of the month" in those days. Its evils didn't really show until the 20C. At that time, it trumped virtually all other beliefs. As Orwell put it in England Your England, "Christianity and International Socialism are as weak as straws in comparison to it", and he could have included democracy as well.
All good points. So I guess that in order to keep Prussia and the south apart, a foreign-backed separation would be the completely wrong way.
But if 1866 hapens as in OTL and there is no F-P War in 1870, there will be still the close ties of the Zollverein. So probably there will be the close union of the NGC, a somewhat looser one of the Zollverein and bilateral military treaties and very probably a still looser alliance with Austria-Hungary.
But this leads into the common "Europe without the French-Prussian war" question.
But if 1866 hapens as in OTL and there is no F-P War in 1870, there will be still the close ties of the Zollverein. So probably there will be the close union of the NGC, a somewhat looser one of the Zollverein and bilateral military treaties and very probably a still looser alliance with Austria-Hungary.
But this leads into the common "Europe without the French-Prussian war" question.
Isn't Hesse and by Rhine half in and half out of this NGC? Given the close ties to Britain, this could make the Grand Duchy a pure neutral state in some fashion.
The question would be what rights would the sovereign states existing within the NGC retain over time? In OTL Saxony did reasonably well under the German Empire, but it was backed after 1870 by the presence of other kingdoms in Wurttemberg and Bavaria. As a lone kingdom under Prussian rule, it might not fare so well, and that could well be a reason to put the remaining independent states off the idea of ever acceding to the NGC
Best Regards
Grey Wolf
The question would be what rights would the sovereign states existing within the NGC retain over time? In OTL Saxony did reasonably well under the German Empire, but it was backed after 1870 by the presence of other kingdoms in Wurttemberg and Bavaria. As a lone kingdom under Prussian rule, it might not fare so well, and that could well be a reason to put the remaining independent states off the idea of ever acceding to the NGC
Best Regards
Grey Wolf
Thing is, in the long run it may be necessary to avoid not just the FPW, but war with just about anybody except Austria. That special case aside, virtually any war is liable to whip up German nationalism to a point where unification becomes all but unavoidable.
Susano
Banned
Well, I maintain my position that Bismarck didnt actually want a German unification, but an uber-Prussia which he got in the form of the NGC (the "cohabitation of a dog and its lice", as a NGC parliamentarian called it, concerning the Prussian dominance). However, Bismarck wont stay around forever - if Frederick III ascends and is not already terminally ill as IOTL, then he will probably immidiatly replace him, and if not, I guess William II would do that much earlier IOTL as there is much more potential for friction than IOTL. So either Frederick III or William II might actively pursue full German unification.
If Bonapartist France is still arround it might try to avoid that, so that would effect simply be a later Franco-German War...
It's perfectly possible to not particularly "want" something in the abstract, yet still view it as inevitable and want to be on the winning side.
Bismarck didn't particularly approve of nationalism, but he could see that it was where Europe was going, and that if he and his fellow junkers tried to buck it, it would just roll right over them. Liberalism could be defeated, but not nationalism.
The attitude you describe is a lot nearer to King Wilhelm I's. He positively disliked being Kaiser, and would have been much happier as plain King of Prussia, with some sort of military leadership over the other states. But Bismarck was smart enough to see that that wouldn't do. Nationalism was the rising (indeed risen) force and had to be harnessed. In his own words, there was going to be a [nationalist] revolution and he preferred to make it rather than suffer it.
Susano
Banned
I dont think he really disapproved of nationalism. After all, he actively employed it in his politics, too. However, he was a loyalist of the old school, that is to his King. As such he just didnt have much use for a Germany.
Im not so sure there was much of a difference between those two positions originally, besides PR. In the NGC the Prussian King had the very technical and detached title of "Presidency" - not even President, but a neutral abstraction of that. And that union of the NGC and the Southern States was at first supposed to run along the same lines. In fact, it wasnt even a merger - the Southern States joined the NGC under special rights and then it was simply renamed. But at first, the "Presidency" and all those awful terms were to be retained - until Bismarck had the PR idea to call it "German Empire" with a "German Emperor".
So really, it seems to me the difference was just naming and PR.
But the naming and PR were important. As an Alfred Duggan character put it "Names are things". This was a romantic era when the image often mattered more than the reality.
In particular it was an age when nationalism was running high. "Germany" may have been an abstract concept, but it was an abstract concept that mattered big time to a lot of influential people - many of them men of liberal leanings who had no reason to support Bismarck if he didn't serve the "national" cause. Bismarck understood this spirit (even without necessarily sharing it) and was shrewd enough to realise that it wouldn't be satisfied with tepid half measures like Presidencies, "Spinach without salt" as a French diplomat put it in another context. Presonally, he himself would have been satisfied with "presidency" and military leadership, but he knew that others wouldn't.
Prussia alone or Prussian Germany...
as there would remain 3 distinct Germanies...
Austrian Germany or Austria
and
"South" Germany or perhaps Bavarian Commonwealth Call it what you will..It will be a Bavarian dominated entity, playing off the interactions of France, Austria and Prussia.
Not that anything has changed since then...
I think there are many good points on both sides. I think Bismarck was indeed a Prussian nationalist, not necessarily a German nationalist and therefore not necessarily pro unification. However, he was also a staunch believer in Realpolitik, so when he got the chance to increase the power of Prussia rather easily, he did it - even if the Prussian dominance in the Reich decreased in comparison to the NGC and if he had to accept some more democracy.
I am not sure a south German confederation will be dominated by Bavaria to anything near the same the degree the northern one was bye Prussia. The NGC was a Prussian stat in alle but name. Would not the southern be named the South German Confederation? (Süddeutscher Bund</SPAN>).
And why would France gain influence? I would think Austria,(and not the Hungarian part) would be a natural partner, perhaps even joine?
And why would France gain influence? I would think Austria,(and not the Hungarian part) would be a natural partner, perhaps even joine?
Typo
Banned
I don't think Bismarck cared much at all about German nationalism except using it actually. He's a good king's minister, kinda like Richelieu.