WI/AHC: No German Welfare State

From what I understand, Bismarck enacted social reforms to neutralize the power of Socialists in German government.
What if he hadn't implemented reforms, and Germany had become more capitalist and repressive? Would it be in a similar position to Russia by 1914? Would a Spartacist (or some equivalent) revolt happen sooner, and be more successful?
Furthermore, what could cause Bismarck to avoid reforms? Weaker socialists in Germany to begin with?
 

Anderman

Donor
Krupp and other industrialist already founded health insurance system for their workers and cooperative insurance systems were also in planing.

No welfare state could lead to a emancipation of the workers when they figure out that they don´t need the state.
 

Beer

Banned
Hi!

Bismarck not being Bismarck would bring your desired result. While there were hard political goals Bismarck wanted to achive with his social legislation, it was also some general compassion on his part.
Not only Bismarck, but the vast majority of the leading german economists of that time were very critical of the "Manchester-Capitalism" and it´s variants in the anglo-saxon sphere. The major german economists were capitalists as well, but as von Schmoller said: a nation worth her salt needs a social and ethical contract between workforce, industry and state, benefitting all.
And the works of people like von Schmoller, List, Hildebrand, Brentano, Eucken continue to have effect on the german economic model. (As I wrote in one of my TLs I consider it a serious mistake that in London and NY the german economists get hushed-up simply because they were/are critical of the "true way". The success of the german blueprint made over time is obvious)
 
Germany wouldn't be Russia.
Russia abolished serfdom much later then other european nations and never overcame its predominatly agricultural and autocratic chararter.

On the other hand Germany, even without Bismarcks welfare state would be an industrialized nation with an working parliament.

The welfare reforms were rather a head of their times. France had something like only around 1900 and the UK even later (I am not sure, but I think they reached German level only after WWII).

I think the most important change would be a more radical and slightly stronger social democratic party, which would be interesting once Weimar days begin.
 
Germany wouldn't be Russia.
Russia abolished serfdom much later then other european nations and never overcame its predominatly agricultural and autocratic chararter.

On the other hand Germany, even without Bismarcks welfare state would be an industrialized nation with an working parliament.

The welfare reforms were rather a head of their times. France had something like only around 1900 and the UK even later (I am not sure, but I think they reached German level only after WWII).

I think the most important change would be a more radical and slightly stronger social democratic party, which would be interesting once Weimar days begin.

The bolded is a highly questionable statement, the parliament never held enough power to really be called a working body beyond something giving the figleaf of representative government to an autocratic regime. Really what I see this creating is a potential flash-point for a German revolution if things are handled poorly by Bismarks successor (and they most likely will be unless you get rid of Wilhelm).
 

Beer

Banned
The bolded is a highly questionable statement, the parliament never held enough power to really be called a working body beyond something giving the figleaf of representative government to an autocratic regime. Really what I see this creating is a potential flash-point for a German revolution if things are handled poorly by Bismarks successor (and they most likely will be unless you get rid of Wilhelm).
"Bravo"! Which old, crackled propaganda piece of bumph did you get that from? The constitution of the Second empire had it´s flaws, but it was NEVER an autocratic regime! Do you even know the definition of "autocratic" and "regime"?
 
propaganda or not, Germany wasn't a largely agricultural state with very long standing social problems, and didn't have a weak-willed monarchy with a questionable choice in wives. So Communism and a revolution in Germany would look greatly different from what happened in Russia.
 
"Bravo"! Which old, crackled propaganda piece of bumph did you get that from? The constitution of the Second empire had it´s flaws, but it was NEVER an autocratic regime! Do you even know the definition of "autocratic" and "regime"?

Yes, and I know that the German parliaments powers where strictly budgetary and could be overruled easily. The Kaiser had enough political power that if he wanted to he could bypass any form of elected government without much difficulty. I daresay that Germany would have far fewer problems if Wilhelm wasn't the man with ultimate decision making powers. Of course it should be said that the Chancellor could also be the main man running things, Bismark is proof enough of that (but then again Bismark was nothing if not an autocrat).

Oh and Autocratic is a term used to describe a situation where one man has ultimate decision making capabilities under the system.

propaganda or not, Germany wasn't a largely agricultural state with very long standing social problems, and didn't have a weak-willed monarchy with a questionable choice in wives. So Communism and a revolution in Germany would look greatly different from what happened in Russia.

I would say the Junkers constitute a long standing social problem.
 

Beer

Banned
Hi Eliphas8!

If I read your "location" correctly, you are in the New World. Let it be said to you from some Old Worlders, that you skew the things you read to fit a worldview and it seems that you neither know the Germans nor the Russians, considering your statements. e.g. in Germany the first police women with full legal enforcement powers were sworn in 1903. Two decades before the US! Germany has a functioning universal healthcare since 130 years, something the US does not get working to this day.
The Second Empire was many things, but not a regime!

As an aside, autocratic implies that you cannot get rid of the guy in charge. Something that was possible in Germany, it just was not done because back then all Great Powers and their leaders were raving arrogant asses from a modern view.
 
Last edited:
I would say the Junkers constitute a long standing social problem.
There was that, but there was also Protestant/Catholic tension, disdain on the part of Rheinlanders and others from the more industrialized areas of the Junker and army dominated German state. The issues that Germany faced weren't as severe as those of Tsarist Russia, but it was hardly a state free from internal tensions.
 
Hi Eliphas8!

If I read your "location" correctly, you are in the New World. Let it be said to you from some Old Worlders, that you skew the things you read to fit a worldview and it seems that you neither know the Germans nor the Russians, considering your statements. e.g. in Germany the first police women with full legal enforcement powers were sworn in 1903. Two decades before the US! (1) Germany has a functioning healthcare since 130 years, something the US does not get working to this day.(1)
The Second Empire was many things, but not an regime! (2)

As an aside, autocratic implies that you cannot get rid of the guy in charge. Something that was possible in Germany, it just was not done because back then all Great Powers and their leaders were raving arrogant asses from a modern view. (3)

1. I know. That is absolutely irrelevant to whether or not Germany was autocratic or not and pretending I'm some idiot eaglelander who thinks America was best at everything is just insulting.
2. I fail to see how it couldn't be a regime. It's not like it's some kind of failed state without a government.
3. And how are Wilhelm and Bismark easy to take out of power? Bismark had maneuvered himself into a position where he had effectively complete control of government and I doubt abolition of the monarchy was easy.
 
Germany was not a democracy but a constituitonal monarchy with complex power sharing.
But in 1914 it had 40 years of parliamentary lawmaking (Russia had 10 and the czar decreed a change of voting rights in the middle of it) and extensive free press and a mostl politically awake population.

The German constitution created a rather complex balance of power: The Emperor appointed the goverment, commanded the military and could disolve parliament (which meant imediate new elections) but could not make any non-military decisons on his own. The Reichstag and Reichsrat (the states) had both to approve laws while the Reichstag had exclusive budgetin rights.

The entire thing was designed to give the man in the middle (the chancelor) maximum freedom (as long as he was able to handle all players correctly).

But even Bismarcks goverment esentially had to give in two times when it fought too big social groups (social democratic workers and roman catholics) even though it was supported by both emperor and parliament.

It would have been interesting how it would have developed in a mayor conflict between parliament and emperor but that never occured as the pro-goverment bloc (national liberals & conservatives
) was in permanent control of parliament (although needing a little Zentrum help in the end)

Wilhelm never managed to push his personal agenda through as he intended, which conmtinued to frustrated him.
The main reason appart from constitutional power sharing was that he was not clever and hard working enough to control either the chancelor or (later on) army commander. He appointed them and sometimes fired them in fits of anger but was quickly sidelined when it came to day to day decisson making.
 
Furthermore, what could cause Bismarck to avoid reforms? Weaker socialists in Germany to begin with?

That's the easy part. Not doing anything (or anything signifcant) in this respect would be a lot more natural for Bismarck and his political camp.
So I would be ready to accept as "didn't think of this cunning trick" or "didn't dare to" as sufficient explanations for a change ;)


And sure, the German parliament of the Empire of 1870 was not really effective, it even constrained itself.
Nevertheless, there are considerable differences between German and Russian society. For instance, Germany had a far higher level of industrialization, and the urban backbone of society was strong since before the era of industrialization. Notice how Communism started as a workers' movement, but in Russia founded a "workers' and peasants' state"?

19th century's Russia should not be underrated judging from the miserable situations it found itself during the Great War and after - but still there is some gap.


So it would be interesting what would happen in Germany. I agree that Germany was not Russia, but I am at a loss to make predictions how conflicts would unfold.

No social insurance definitely implies that labor class will be worse off.
Labor being worse off definitely implies that the Social Democrats remain more radical party.
It's still hard to see Russia-level upheavals; but riots between political factions that render governing almost impossible are an option - in a similar way as in Austria until the Great War.
 
Last edited:
I would say the Junkers constitute a long standing social problem.

Yes, but not like the russian nobles. Prussian Junker manors where only a major factor in 20-30% of Germany. And these regions "never complained" they mostly voted ultra conservative & royalist even in 1919. (When in 1849 liberal-patriotic revolutionaries tried to extend their power to his area the first thing Bismarck, then a minor junker, did was arming the local peasants.)
 

Beer

Banned
1. I know. That is absolutely irrelevant to whether or not Germany was autocratic or not and pretending I'm some idiot eaglelander who thinks America was best at everything is just insulting.
2. I fail to see how it couldn't be a regime. It's not like it's some kind of failed state without a government.
3. And how are Wilhelm and Bismark easy to take out of power? Bismark had maneuvered himself into a position where he had effectively complete control of government and I doubt abolition of the monarchy was easy.
Hi again!
1. The way you worded some of your comments hinted into exact that direction. Sorry, but that was the way it came across. see 2
2. regime is a word with negative meanings here in Europe, not only in Germany. And autocratic has equally strong directions and in the case of the Second Empire is simply wrong. see 3
3. If you would have read the constitution of the Second Empire correctly, you would see that there were a lot of safeguards in there. That some were not or only too sporadicly used is not the problem of the constitution. And you did not need to abolish the monarchy to get rid of a monarch. You could force him to abdicate for the Crown Prince. Actually, if you want to get rid of one of your Presidents, it is no easier than it was back in the Second Empire. Damn, Uriel beat me to it! :)
And ake Bismarck, he was crafty enough to get enormous power, going above the position of the chancellor back then.
But in every nation some parts of the governemnt get more control during their reign, if they are are crafty. Be it here in Europe or across the Big Pond.
 
1. I know. That is absolutely irrelevant to whether or not Germany was autocratic or not and pretending I'm some idiot eaglelander who thinks America was best at everything is just insulting.
2. I fail to see how it couldn't be a regime. It's not like it's some kind of failed state without a government.
3. And how are Wilhelm and Bismark easy to take out of power? Bismark had maneuvered himself into a position where he had effectively complete control of government and I doubt abolition of the monarchy was easy.

I think that Beers harsh reaction was because you seem to suggest that Germany and Russia had an equal autocratic regime. Which would be plain wrong. Even if the Kaiser/Chancellor/Conserative Elites had an power grip on the empire, they often had to listen to the people. Tirpitz and his fleet politc is a nice story on how to sell an idea to the public :rolleyes:


Nevertheless, the topic was if no Bismarck social reforms lead to an more infighting Germany. I doubt that, perhaps a little more work strikes. Bismarcks reforms had not the effect he hoped for. The SPD was always on the rise. Without the welfare state perhaps even faster.


On thing is clear for me: No Bismarck welfare systems means definitely not that an Bolshevik/Spartacist uprising is more likely than OTL. Because Germany =/= Russia.
 
Top