The North German Confed. and southern German states without the FPW

Without the FPW and its OTL consequences what may become of the North German Confederation and the southern German states. I've seen a few TLs that deal with the idea of an alternate German unification but what other outcomes may there be. Could the southern states eventually form an Southern German Confederation? And if so how would the two Germanys differ? Also what may become of the German colonies of OTL? Also how would this change affect the scientific and technological advances made by Germans in OTL?
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
...southern Germany becomes in some respects a giganto-Switzerland, a prosperous trading and manufacturing state, opting out of great power alliances and colonialism? If France behaves itself, it can have a nice, boring foreign policy, void of conflicts with France as well as Russia and Britain.
 
South Germany was economically dependent on Northern Germany, and Pan-Germanists were doing increasingly well in South German elections. Who would stop unification?
 
South Germany was economically dependent on Northern Germany, and Pan-Germanists were doing increasingly well in South German elections. Who would stop unification?

They started doing well when tension between Prussia and France began, spurred own by propaganda. Assuming that the tensions are defused, most of the Southern states would lose interest and turn back to their traditional partner and leader, Austria. There's a good chance that without a war with France to unite the German states against a common enemy, Prussia's new found influence will begin to decline and the rivalry between Austria and Prussia will continue. But to butterfly the Franco-Prussian war Bismarck MUST be eliminated, either by assassination or the ascension of King Frederich III.
 
. . . But to butterfly the Franco-Prussian war Bismarck MUST be eliminated, either by assassination or the ascension of King Frederich III.

Why? There are other ways to butterfly the FPW. The POD I have in mind involves a succesfil 2nd Mex. Empire. And how else could the FPW or an analogue to it be started by Bismark? Also why would Fred III coming into power around the time of OTL's FPW change things?
 
Why? There are other ways to butterfly the FPW. The POD I have in mind involves a succesfil 2nd Mex. Empire. And how else could the FPW or an analogue to it be started by Bismark? Also why would Fred III coming into power around the time of OTL's FPW change things?

Because Frederich III would dismiss Bismarck. And HOW would a successful Mexican empire change things? France still wouldn't want a Hohenzollern on the Spanish throne and Bismarck would still want to defeat the French. All the problems between Berlin and Paris would still exist and they would only be pushed back. Sure a war in the mid 1870s would allow the French more time to finish their changes to the army, making both sides relatively equal. However Bismarck MUST be removed. As long as he's running the show the Prussians won't stop until they control all of Germany. But remove him and Wilhelm I will regain more direct control, and for the most part he didn't agree with Bismarck's way of doing things.
 
Well how else may things be different? Like the land Germany held as colonies on OTL? Or Germany's , and Europe's, economy? Not to mention how would the NGC's government differ from that of a SGC if it forms.
 
Without the FPW and its OTL consequences what may become of the North German Confederation and the southern German states. I've seen a few TLs that deal with the idea of an alternate German unification but what other outcomes may there be. Could the southern states eventually form an Southern German Confederation? And if so how would the two Germanys differ? Also what may become of the German colonies of OTL? Also how would this change affect the scientific and technological advances made by Germans in OTL?

It appears to be something I'm saying a lot nowadays, but I'll say it anyway: "It depends on the specific circumstances".

IOTL, the great increase in power of northern Germany (Prussia's unforeseen victory over Austria and the formation of the North German Confederation) redoubled France's wish to annex the lands up to the left bank of the Rhine, for strategic reasons; otherwise France was dangerously vulnerable to the new NGC. If France still reacts in this way, it's difficult to imagine the southern German states not drawing closer to the NGC for their own defence; France was under Napoleon III and was called the Second French Empire, and Germans well remembered Napoleon I, the First French Empire and his actions in the Rhineland.

If France doesn't react to the formation of the NGC as astonishingly stupidly as it did IOTL (hmm, thinks Napoleon III, there's the threat of a united Germany hostile to France, making us vulnerable in a place where we were relatively safe before. How can we solve this problem? I know! Let's demand that we get to annex some of their land! What could possibly go wrong?) then the allegiance of southern Germany to northern Germany isn't so assured. That's the most spectacular example of circumstances causing change, but there are others: for instance, the Austro-Prussian War and its aftermath drew the dividing lines in Germany, so if (e.g.) the Kingdom of Saxony never joins the NGC then the NGC will be less of a confederation and more of a greater Prussia (even with Saxony in the NGC, Prussia was about 80% of the NGC, so without it…).

Because Frederich III would dismiss Bismarck.

Why do you think so? For all the later "grass is always greener"-style statements about the man who could have been in power instead of Wilhelm II, I don't know of him being especially anti-Bismarckian at the time; Friedrich III is known to have disliked the Austro-Prussian War and opposed the Bismarckian restrictions on the press but it didn't stop him from fighting in the Austro-Prussian War himself, and he was deeply involved in the Franco-Prussian War. For all his words about war, we must judge him by his actions, and those sound especially antiwar.

And HOW would a successful Mexican empire change things? France still wouldn't want a Hohenzollern on the Spanish throne and Bismarck would still want to defeat the French.

It would change things because France would be busy fighting in the Americas, with its attention there, and would have its self-confidence bolstered by a victory rather than shattered by a humiliating defeat, so it's entirely possible that Napoleon III wouldn't make the extreme faux pas that he did IOTL (the demand for western German lands because he was afraid for France's security).

All the problems between Berlin and Paris would still exist and they would only be pushed back. Sure a war in the mid 1870s would allow the French more time to finish their changes to the army, making both sides relatively equal.

Really? How are the French going to learn to change their system from mauvais numéro and substitutions to Prussian-style universal national service? How are the French going to develop a proper general staff? You can't just say that experience would have taught it to them; they fought several wars and even recognised that they had huge problems, especially in logistics (France sending an army of 100,000 or so men to Italy and then belatedly realising that supplies needed to be sent too comes to mind), but that didn't inspire them to create a proper general staff, even though they'd witnessed the example of the Prussian army. The quality of French officers will remain poor and overly dependent on the Emperor. Even worse, this scenario's Mexico will vindicate the Imperial French Army just as the Crimea did IOTL; it will act as a powerful argument that the French army is the best in the world, as most of the world indeed thought at the time.

The most important of the reasons that led to the crushing defeat of France IOTL are all still there.

However Bismarck MUST be removed. As long as he's running the show the Prussians won't stop until they control all of Germany.

Bismarck took opportunities to create crises when he found them if he wanted to create a crisis; he didn't manufacture such opportunities himself. We can't know for certain, but it's quite possible that without the Spanish affair he might not have had an opportunity to provoke France into war. Certainly he would have wanted to, that's beyond doubt, but he might not have been able to. And if Bismarck is in power for long enough without the huge vindication of OTL's Franco-Prussian War, he'll lose power sometime, probably earlier than he did IOTL.

But remove him and Wilhelm I will regain more direct control,

It depends on how he is removed. Remove Bismarck and you remove the smooth tool that kept the assembly suppressed, so the Landtag might well make things inconvenient. But possibly, yes.

and for the most part he didn't agree with Bismarck's way of doing things.

Sort of. In the late Austro-Prussian War, for instance, Wilhelm I didn't agree with Bismarck's relatively moderate actions; he wanted to march all the way to Vienna. Not long earlier, he was determined to avoid war at all. If Wilhelm I is in charge, Prussian/NGC/Imperial-German foreign policy will probably be erratic.
 
They were economically integrated with the North and as such, would be drawn closer the NGC over the course of many years....perhaps in a realunion that allows them to retain control over their internal affairs.
 
Top