WI: Austria joins the German Empire in 1871 after AH dissolution in 1867

Yes, my idea is this:

- By 1870, stay like IOTL plus the new states, however the balance is kept by giving extra votes to Prussia (in relation with their provinces).
- After 1890, at the aftermath of the 2nd War: reorganization. Some minor states are merged while Prussian or Austrian provinces are upgraded to states.

I would like to add that these days I have been doing some research about Kaiser Wilhelm I, and many historians believe that he was by far less anti-Catholic than Bismarck. So, if Bismarck is removed after 1871 and there is no Kulturkampf, Kaiser Wilhelm I could cope with an Empire with a more balanced religious profile. Just appoint a different chancelor.

Umm, the problem is reorganization is a little anachronical (based in otl when german was defeated and all noblity lost power) so that is why raise some eyebrown but can be pulled if the nobles are 'repaired' and some adjustement are made to keep pro-prussian vote in the bundesrat, so need a lot of political capital and lobbying but is pausable.

Your plan again a little anachronical but can be pulled, specially with new provinces added(from france, swizerland and belgium) and some changes in the east(like Galicia become poland, adding the baltic duchy and other changes)

About other Chancellor? who? prince leopold?(the one who make the whole mess with the spanish sucession war), the Bavarian Prime Minister(as a compesation for bavaria reduced power), an austrian(as a compesation for the same')

Do the TL, will be a pretty good one and have already all the info to do it
 
Your idea is interesting but there are several flows.

Lets start with Bismarck: I would decribe him as a prussian before a german who likes conservatism far better than liberalism but ultimatly is willing to use any of them to reach his goals. He is not crazed by german nationalism at all.

the 1866 war: you say that this is the point of divergence were Prussia wins a much bigger victory. But i dont think he can do that without others jumping in on the Austrian side. I mean mostly Russia. Napoleon hated Austria and really wanted Venezia for Italy and he thought he would get some territorial compensation for remaining neutral so as long as Prussia doesnt try to annex Austria here i dont think he would jump in.

But why would Prussia win a bigger victory? I mean this victory was enough for them to get anything they wanted.

Austria falling apart after this bigger defeat:
Lets assume that this bigger defeat still happened and FJ resigned. His son (and wife too) were really loved in Hungary not like Franz Ferdinand later so i dont see any rebellion against him. And what you say about only hungarian magnates supporting the Ausgleich is bullshit. The whole political elite was supportive of a peace with the Habsburgs. Those parts who didnt support it wanted more freedom inside AH but never the dissolution of AH. It may be that the simple peasant in his hut thought other wise but there was no political or any kind of leader whom he could follow.

If you really want for hungary to break away it should be during and as a result of the austro-prussian war - before the Ausgleich. On the prussian side György Klapka - an exiled general from 1848 - organized a legion that was supposed to go to Hungary. I think the chance of succes for them really low and even if they had succeded in breaking into Hungary and incurring a new revolution i dont really think Bismarck would support them after he got what he wanted.

Anyway if things go as you say and Austria is defeated and is weaker much weaker after 1866 then OTL it would want and need even more an Ausgleich like treaty with Hungary - Hungary might even get better terms wich would make an even bigger supporter of it later.

But lets assume that all this happened and Austria has a new ruler and Hungary broke away (i dont think Austria would let Hungary go without a serious fight). Why would this new Austria fall to peaces?

And if anyone believes that Hungary would willingly trade its western border region for Dalmatia knows nothing of Hungary of that time. They were crazy about the lands of the Saint Stephen Crown and would never give up or trade away integral parts of it. Not to mention simple logic: the western border region was never a separate entity -its part of Hungary proper if you like and was populated by mostly germans and a small hungarian minority. Dalmatia would be part of Croatia and no hungarias lived there.

The 1870 war:
I think i have to point why the resoults were accepted by the GPs IOTL: Brittain saw France as a bigger treat for the status quo and peace around that time so they were inicially happy with Napoleons fall. And the new Germany wasnt the Germany of 1914: it had not much more population than France around 1870.


Solution:
Let the point of divergence be the Ausgleich: Austria loses bad in 1866 but not as badly as OTL so it remains strong enough not to make the treaty with the hungarians right away. Than let them ally France in 1870 which would destroy them: the german populace doesnt like this. After the big defeats and a succesfull Klapka expedition to Hungary which with the austrian and french defeats and whitout the Ausgleich result in a revolution in Hungary. In the end the defeats and the initially hated alliance with the french would lead to a revolution between the austrian germans. At the peace treaty Prussia annexes Austria and gives Russia Galicia as compensation. Hungary is independent but is forced to accept a Habsburg ruler - with very limited power though. Austria is admitted to Germany in two parts - Austria and Bohemia maybe both but Bohemia for sure under a Habsburg ruler. Its a good thing in Bohemia cause there would be some who dont like the germans but are loyal to the Dinasty. If you really dont want Dalmatia could be given to Hungary in the peace.

The question is of course: would be Prussia strong enough for this? I dont think so but its still more likely than your version.
 
Umm, the problem is reorganization is a little anachronical (based in otl when german was defeated and all noblity lost power) so that is why raise some eyebrown but can be pulled if the nobles are 'repaired' and some adjustement are made to keep pro-prussian vote in the bundesrat, so need a lot of political capital and lobbying but is pausable.

That's the reason I'm planning a gradual reorganization. Taking advantage on the aftermath of the 2nd War by the 1890s, some minor states (the Thuringian ones and some other) could be merged, maybe like a 'federation inside the federation', while some Prussian, Austrian and even Hessenian and Bavarian provinces could be upgraded to states (Bavarian Franconia was Protestant I think) and re-balance the power.

IOTL Prussia start to cede some power to the rest of Germany in the 1890s when insidious Bismarck was finally gone.

Your plan again a little anachronical but can be pulled, specially with new provinces added(from france, swizerland and belgium) and some changes in the east(like Galicia become poland, adding the baltic duchy and other changes)

I have thought about this, but I find this a bit complicated. Maybe at a later stage.

About other Chancellor? who? prince leopold?(the one who make the whole mess with the spanish sucession war), the Bavarian Prime Minister(as a compesation for bavaria reduced power), an austrian(as a compesation for the same')

Maybe someone from a minor state, that could be seen more 'neutral'. A guy from Hesse would be optimal, as it is a mixed religious area.

Do the TL, will be a pretty good one and have already all the info to do it

Thanks :D

I will start this by the Christmas Days, when I will have more free time.

Your idea is interesting but there are several flows.

I know. Thanks for your contribution :)

Lets start with Bismarck: I would decribe him as a prussian before a german who likes conservatism far better than liberalism but ultimatly is willing to use any of them to reach his goals. He is not crazed by german nationalism at all.

Yes, I'm aware. That's why I'm planning to evict Bismarck right after the 1871 victory, when nationalists would impose their visions over Bismarck's ideas. IOTL they managed to pull some measures over him, like the acquisition of Alsace-Lorraine, so it would be just a matter of pulling harder and make him to resign.

the 1866 war: you say that this is the point of divergence were Prussia wins a much bigger victory. But i dont think he can do that without others jumping in on the Austrian side. I mean mostly Russia. Napoleon hated Austria and really wanted Venezia for Italy and he thought he would get some territorial compensation for remaining neutral so as long as Prussia doesnt try to annex Austria here i dont think he would jump in.

Well, Russia has been recently hit at Crimea and suffered with the Polish uprising of 1863, so they would be (they were IOTL) reluctant to get involved in new conflicts during the 1860s unless they would affect them directly.

Moreover, I'm not thinking about Prussia storming Austria, just pushing it to a more unstable situation, enough for making Hungarian elites to prefer full independence over Ausgleich.

But why would Prussia win a bigger victory? I mean this victory was enough for them to get anything they wanted.

Make the Prussian troops to enter in proper Austria, with a brief occupation maybe.

Austria falling apart after this bigger defeat:
Lets assume that this bigger defeat still happened and FJ resigned. His son (and wife too) were really loved in Hungary not like Franz Ferdinand later so i dont see any rebellion against him.

Love for a particular prince or empress would not make a realm to stay together. If Hungary splits, an Hungarian count would be upgraded to King, and this does not mean that relations with the Austrian Habsburgs should be bad.

Anyway, I have always believed that popular 'love' for Sissi have been such an overrated myth pushed by romantic stories of the era (and still today).

And what you say about only hungarian magnates supporting the Ausgleich is bullshit. The whole political elite was supportive of a peace with the Habsburgs. Those parts who didnt support it wanted more freedom inside AH but never the dissolution of AH. It may be that the simple peasant in his hut thought other wise but there was no political or any kind of leader whom he could follow

You may know that the main Hungarian politician than pushed for the Ausgleich, Ferenc Déak, was himself a hardcore nationalists that stated the right of Hungary for full independence, but he came up with the compromise as a way to protect the Hungarian interests without engaging in a new conflict with Austria. Still, he had to convince many of his fellowmen.
After 1866, the Austrian Empire was a broken toy with huge state debt and financial crisis. It was on the brink of complete implosion, not like 1848. The Ausgleich (unwanted by dumb FJ and many conservative Austrian elites) just saved the Empire at the eleventh hour. Simply make Austria a bit more weak in the eyes of Hungarians, and there would have not been a point of return.

If you really want for hungary to break away it should be during and as a result of the austro-prussian war - before the Ausgleich. On the prussian side György Klapka - an exiled general from 1848 - organized a legion that was supposed to go to Hungary. I think the chance of succes for them really low and even if they had succeded in breaking into Hungary and incurring a new revolution i dont really think Bismarck would support them after he got what he wanted.

I considered this as well but I do not see it clear. I prefer the scenario of 'controlled implosion' with Austria too weak to avoid it. And I think this would have helped the later union of the Austrian states with Germany.

Anyway if things go as you say and Austria is defeated and is weaker much weaker after 1866 then OTL it would want and need even more an Ausgleich like treaty with Hungary - Hungary might even get better terms wich would make an even bigger supporter of it later.

Probably Austria would have wanted the Ausgleich then, but Hungary (who proposed it IOTL) would not. 'Better terms' means independence,as the Ausgleich de facto created two states with a shared monarchy, army and little more. Mind that Hungarian nationalists only wanted independence and coped with the Ausgleich to avoid more conflicts (1849 still in the memory) and also many German Austrian nationalists prefered an alliance with Germany than making more concessions to the non-German nations of the Empire.

But lets assume that all this happened and Austria has a new ruler and Hungary broke away (i dont think Austria would let Hungary go without a serious fight). Why would this new Austria fall to peaces?

Austria would not let by their own will, but maybe felt unable to prevent it. Austria could not prevent implosion in 1918, because of the bad post-war situation.
Considering the particular composition of Cisleithania, it would be so hard for a weak Austria to retain disconnected territories like Dalmatia (moreover if Croatia gets independence) or Galicia. Bohemia-Moravia also wanted independence (IOTL they proposed a Triple Monarchy when the Ausgleich) and if Prussia keeps the occupation more time, it would have been easier.
The most likely result is a 'provisional Ausgleich' between proper Austria and Bohemia-Moravia (before joining Germany as separate states, but both ruled by Habsburgs) and controlled partition of Galicia.

And if anyone believes that Hungary would willingly trade its western border region for Dalmatia knows nothing of Hungary of that time. They were crazy about the lands of the Saint Stephen Crown and would never give up or trade away integral parts of it. Not to mention simple logic: the western border region was never a separate entity -its part of Hungary proper if you like and was populated by mostly germans and a small hungarian minority. Dalmatia would be part of Croatia and no hungarias lived there.

I discarded the idea of exchanging the Western Strip with Dalmatia. But it's easy to imagine that Germans living in the Western Strip would easily revolt as they would not accept to live in an independent Hungary, in the same way that Bohemian Germans prevented a full independent Czech state.
If Hungary wants Austria to recognize their broad borders (including Banat, Transylvania etc.) they should lend the areas where Germans are majority. Just like somehow happened in 1918. It's a quid pro quo.
Even if Austria is weak and Hungarians can push for independence at a point, Hungarians were not that dumb to foresee that once Austria would be recovered, Vienna would fight for the German territories at least. If they want stable and widely recognized borders, such concession is mandatory.

The 1870 war:
I think i have to point why the resoults were accepted by the GPs IOTL: Brittain saw France as a bigger treat for the status quo and peace around that time so they were inicially happy with Napoleons fall. And the new Germany wasnt the Germany of 1914: it had not much more population than France around 1870.

Yes, my point is that UK would not bother that much at this stage, as they loved to see Second French Empire badly defeated.

Solution:
Let the point of divergence be the Ausgleich: Austria loses bad in 1866 but not as badly as OTL so it remains strong enough not to make the treaty with the hungarians right away. Than let them ally France in 1870 which would destroy them: the german populace doesnt like this. After the big defeats and a succesfull Klapka expedition to Hungary which with the austrian and french defeats and whitout the Ausgleich result in a revolution in Hungary. In the end the defeats and the initially hated alliance with the french would lead to a revolution between the austrian germans. At the peace treaty Prussia annexes Austria and gives Russia Galicia as compensation. Hungary is independent but is forced to accept a Habsburg ruler - with very limited power though. Austria is admitted to Germany in two parts - Austria and Bohemia maybe both but Bohemia for sure under a Habsburg ruler. Its a good thing in Bohemia cause there would be some who dont like the germans but are loyal to the Dinasty. If you really dont want Dalmatia could be given to Hungary in the peace.

The question is of course: would be Prussia strong enough for this? I dont think so but its still more likely than your version.

OK, I would think about it :)
 
Regarding reorganization, my current thoughts:

* Post-1870 changes: as IOTL, but with some changes (possible because Bismarck is out):

Establishment of different autonomous provinces inside the main realms:

- Prussia: apart of the IOTL provinces, creation of Province of Lusatia (with parts from Brandenburg and Silesia) and division of Province of Hesse-Nassau in three provinces: Province of Nassau, Province of Hesse-Kassel and Province of Hesse-Franconia. Eventual division of Schleswig-Holstein in two provinces.
- Bavaria: creation of Province of Palatinate and Province of Franconia.
- Austria: the IOTL crownlands are revamped as autonomous provinces.The Western Strip is distributed between Upper Austria (Pressburg, Eisenstadt, Ödenburg) and Styria (Stein am Anger), excepting the northernmost districts, added to Moravia.
- Bohemia-Moravia: divided in three provinces: Bohemia, Moravia and Austrian Silesia.
- Hesse-Darmstadt: divided in two provinces: Starkenburg and Upper Hesse.
- Alsace-Lorraine: the Territory is divided in two provinces: Alsace and Lorraine.

* Post-1890 reorganization:

- Some of the previous provinces are upgraded to states. These states could keep the personal union i.e. the King of Bavaria would stay as head of Palatinate and Franconia even if these provinces became states.
- The Thuringian minor states are merged into a single state, maybe functioning as an 'internal federation'. Prussia cedes some territory to 'glue' all of them.
- Lorraine, Luxembourg and some parts of the Rheinland (Saarland) could be merged in a new 'greater' Lorraine state.

If you have further suggestions, please share :)
 
Just 2 things about Hungary:

I dont think that love for Sissi was overestimated. A personal example: im hungarian and i can say that we dont really have a fond memory of our Habsburg rulers. I havent seen any statues of them anywhere in the country but i know of several that were removed. The placese named after them were renamed later. The only exception i know of is the Bridge named after Sissi - everything else disppeared. (to tell the truth there is one more Habsburg we remember fondly - Maria Theresa - 2 from i dont know how many)

The situation in Hungary in the 1860s:
Deák and his follower: After the defeat of the revelution in 1849 the hungarian politicans looked to Deák for leadership. He decided to follow a policy of passive resistance. But this was not easy to follow and by the end of the 50s after the austrian defeat in Italy Deák took the first step toward peace. He was refused but from that point things developed in the way that ended in the Ausgleich. Deák's original proposal which he made well before the Austrian defeat of 1866 was the same he offered after that. He didnt try to use his strengthened position to get more from Austria. I think that this indicates that he wouldnt ask more even if Austria suffered a bigger defeat. Deák was the guy for compromises. He said that every step taken forward - however small - that doesnt bar the way for furture steps on the way must be taken.

The other party at home wanted more freedom but they too were for a treaty with Austria. Austrias bigger defeat might strengthen this party but i still dont think that they would opt for freedom - they wanted things like a fully separate army and there were something about trade rights. This shows in the fate of László Teleki - the original leader of this party. He was an exilee how returned home after being pardoned. He refused Deáks idea of a treaty with Austria but had to see that even in his own party he is alone with his wiews. Seeing this - he served the idea of a free Hungary in his whole life and now this is abandoned by the whole of his people- he commited suicide in 1861. So in 1861 there was already no support for a complete refusal to an agreement with Austria in Hungary.

There was no political force in Hungary who seriously tought of breaking away from Austria at this point. The only ones who supported this were the exilees of the revolution. Kossuth personally said of the treaty that with this we bound ourselves to Austria but that only means that we will be the pyre on which the austrian eagle will burn - and we with it. But they had no real support in hungarian political circles. The pesantry and simple peple may have looked at him with adoration but he didnt really have a way to reach them.

Thats why i offered to use Klapka. He was an exilee and still wanted freedom. And as i said: the small man still adored Kossuth so he might had a chance if getting serious support from abroad.
 
Just 2 things about Hungary:

I dont think that love for Sissi was overestimated. A personal example: im hungarian and i can say that we dont really have a fond memory of our Habsburg rulers. I havent seen any statues of them anywhere in the country but i know of several that were removed. The placese named after them were renamed later. The only exception i know of is the Bridge named after Sissi - everything else disppeared. (to tell the truth there is one more Habsburg we remember fondly - Maria Theresa - 2 from i dont know how many)

I'm very interested in the opinion of an Hungarian regarding this issue.

Well, I did not want to say that Sissi was not loved, but simply that love for her (or for another royal) would have not stopped Hungary (or another part of the Empire) to seek its independence if really wanted to.

The situation in Hungary in the 1860s:
Deák and his follower: After the defeat of the revelution in 1849 the hungarian politicans looked to Deák for leadership. He decided to follow a policy of passive resistance. But this was not easy to follow and by the end of the 50s after the austrian defeat in Italy Deák took the first step toward peace. He was refused but from that point things developed in the way that ended in the Ausgleich. Deák's original proposal which he made well before the Austrian defeat of 1866 was the same he offered after that. He didnt try to use his strengthened position to get more from Austria. I think that this indicates that he wouldnt ask more even if Austria suffered a bigger defeat. Deák was the guy for compromises. He said that every step taken forward - however small - that doesnt bar the way for furture steps on the way must be taken.

Yes, but I think (maybe I am wrong) that before 1866 the Ausgleich was some sort of goodwill proposal (which was not attended by the Austrians) and after 1866 the same Ausgleich became a sort of 'This is it or nothing' that Austrians were not in position to refuse, unless they would want to seriously risk the stability of the Empire.

But I'm not that sure that Deak or an alternate Hungarian magnate would have not pushed for full independence in a different (worse for Austria)scenario. Maybe if proper Austria is occupied by Prussia like Bohemia was (it would have been difficult for Hungary to propose the Ausgleich in such circumstances).

The other party at home wanted more freedom but they too were for a treaty with Austria. Austrias bigger defeat might strengthen this party but i still dont think that they would opt for freedom - they wanted things like a fully separate army and there were something about trade rights.

This and independence is just two words for the same.

This shows in the fate of László Teleki - the original leader of this party. He was an exilee how returned home after being pardoned. He refused Deáks idea of a treaty with Austria but had to see that even in his own party he is alone with his wiews. Seeing this - he served the idea of a free Hungary in his whole life and now this is abandoned by the whole of his people- he commited suicide in 1861. So in 1861 there was already no support for a complete refusal to an agreement with Austria in Hungary.

OK, but 1861 is pre-war. There were also no support for splitting AH in 1911 and by 1918 it was liquidated. Wars change scenarios so fast.

There was no political force in Hungary who seriously tought of breaking away from Austria at this point. The only ones who supported this were the exilees of the revolution. Kossuth personally said of the treaty that with this we bound ourselves to Austria but that only means that we will be the pyre on which the austrian eagle will burn - and we with it. But they had no real support in hungarian political circles. The pesantry and simple peple may have looked at him with adoration but he didnt really have a way to reach them.

Yes, you are right; that's why the ITTL aftermath of 1866 should change things more than it did IOTL. This is something that I should think better, but I'm sure (and I take it like a challenge) that there is a way to push the situation to a limit where Hungarian elites choose independence over Ausgleich.

Thats why i offered to use Klapka. He was an exilee and still wanted freedom. And as i said: the small man still adored Kossuth so he might had a chance if getting serious support from abroad.

Well, I was thinking about a more moderate Hungarian nationalist that could be later upgraded to Kingdom of Hungary (maybe one of the Telekis?).
 
I have thought that if Rudolf commits suicide still childless as IOTL, Franz Ferdinand would reunite the two Habsburg states as new King of Austria and Prince of Bohemia.

So, after 1890s reorganization, we could have 'Hohenzollern states' and 'Habsburg states' inside the German Empire, sort of this:

Hohenzollern states (under rule of King of Prussia)

01 Brandenburg-Lusatia
02 East Prussia
03 Hannover-Emsland
04 Hessen-Franken
05 Hessen-Kassel
06 Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen
07 Nassau
08 Pomerania
09 Rhineland
10 Saxony-Eastphalia
11 Schleswig-Holstein
12 Silesia
13 West Prussia-Posen
14 Westphalia

Habsburg states (under rule of King of Austria)

15 Bohemia
16 Carinthia
17 Carniola-Kustenland
18 Lower Austria
19 Moravia-Upper Silesia
20 Salzburg
21 Styria
22 Tyrol-Vorarlberg
23 Upper Austria

Wittelsbach states (under rule of King of Bavaria)

24 Bavaria
25 Franconia
26 Palatinate

Free states

27 Alsace-Lorraine
28 Anhalt
29 Baden
30 Bremen
31 Brunswick
32 Hamburg
33 Hessen
34 Krakow
35 Liechtenstein
36 Lübeck
37 Luxemburg
38 Neuenburg
39 Oldenburg
40 Saxony
41 Thuringian Federation
42 Union of Lippe
43 Union of Mecklenburg
44 Waldeck
45 Württemberg
 
Free states


35 Liechtenstein

I don't think Liechtenstein would be big enough to be a state unless it includes a lot more territory then it's modern day borders. It should be folded up into one of neighbouring state.

Otherwise it looks fine.
 
My guess is that Thuringia would instead of the 17 votes would get around half that which would still be more than Bavaria's 6 votes in the Bundesrat. This combined with the elevation of some Prussian provinces to states would still keep the balance of power with Prussia especially if the 6 additional Catholic states get less than their fair share of votes in comparison to Prussian dominated states in the Bundesrat.


You still haven't explained why Prussia would bother. The existing arrangement is fine for her and she has no particular interest in tidiness for its own sake. These duchies are as totally under her thumb as if they were Provinces, so why change anything?
 
I don't think Liechtenstein would be big enough to be a state unless it includes a lot more territory then it's modern day borders. It should be folded up into one of neighbouring state.

Otherwise it looks fine.

Yes, you are right. The problem is that Liechtenstein had their own Princes, who, even if closely tied to the Habsburgs, were keeping their own lineage. Liechtenstein could only be merged with (Tyrol-)Vorarlberg, but then it would be completely taken under Habsburg rule.

If the Graubunden was to be absorbed after an eventual Swiss break-up, it could form a sort of federated state under the Liechtenstein's lineage, but not at this stage.

You still haven't explained why Prussia would bother. The existing arrangement is fine for her and she has no particular interest in tidiness for its own sake. These duchies are as totally under her thumb as if they were Provinces, so why change anything?

The key here is the change of mind from a Prussian point of view to an all-German point of view. This happened IOTL when Bismarck left in the 1890s: the following govts under Wilhelm II were more oriented to 'what could work for all Germany' rather than 'what could benefit Prussia'.

IOTL the Thuringian states were merged under the Weimar Republic (while the other minor states kept their status), which was still Prussian dominated, but just had switched its mind to implement measures for the right function of all Germany, not only Prussia.

Once the all-German point of view comes over the only-Prussian point of view, territorial reorganization becomes an important issue, because the HRE-inherited organization was just obsolete and little functional.

If you were a chancelor that would think about all Germany and not just Prussia, it would be obvious that the best way to keep a good balance of power inside is re-organize the entities in middle-sized states where there were not too strong, not too weak members, that could equilibrate each other.
 
The key here is the change of mind from a Prussian point of view to an all-German point of view. This happened IOTL when Bismarck left in the 1890s: the following govts under Wilhelm II were more oriented to 'what could work for all Germany' rather than 'what could benefit Prussia'.

IOTL the Thuringian states were merged under the Weimar Republic (while the other minor states kept their status), which was still Prussian dominated, but just had switched its mind to implement measures for the right function of all Germany, not only Prussia.

Once the all-German point of view comes over the only-Prussian point of view, territorial reorganization becomes an important issue, because the HRE-inherited organization was just obsolete and little functional.

If you were a chancelor that would think about all Germany and not just Prussia, it would be obvious that the best way to keep a good balance of power inside is re-organize the entities in middle-sized states where there were not too strong, not too weak members, that could equilibrate each other.
But the German empire is a confederation of its member states. The kings, dukes want to retain their status as rulers and the populace does not want to be merged with others. The people are loyal to their royal family and their state. If a Chancellor tries this all Kings, dukes, counts etc. who rule something in the empire will stand up. Even the emperor would not like this and dismiss the chancellor. This is alternate history and not paradoxplaza. We Germans like consensus and dislike changes. We want to retain the status quo. The only reorganisation that I buy would be the unification of the Duchy of Brunswick and the Kingdom of Hannover after the Brunswickians die out and the Hannoveranians inherit and the Rhineprovinces and Westphalia forming kingdoms in personal union with Prussia. The emperor is German emperor not emperor of the Germans/Germany.
 
But the German empire is a confederation of its member states. The kings, dukes want to retain their status as rulers and the populace does not want to be merged with others. The people are loyal to their royal family and their state.

I think you are being a bit anachronistic here. This is true until 19th century, when the liberal revolutions and the rise of nationalist movements changed this mentality (not only in Germany, but across Europe).
Kings, dukes etc. wanted to retain their status, of course, but after 1848 they were forced to make more and more concessions. Prussia did not impose pan-Germanism, just took advantage of that movement for their purposes; otherwise, they could have never ruled over that big bunch of German states.

If a Chancellor tries this all Kings, dukes, counts etc. who rule something in the empire will stand up. Even the emperor would not like this and dismiss the chancellor. This is alternate history and not paradoxplaza.

I have not said anything about removing rulers, did you notice I said 'Thuringian federation'? IOTL the policies followed by post-Bismarck German governments diminished the power of the different entities (including Prussia) in favour of a more centralized government, and this was possible because the different German social classes favoured this trend.

We Germans like consensus and dislike changes. We want to retain the status quo.

Well, depending on the historical period, isn't it? During the Napoleonic era and later, between 1914 and 1945, what you say here did not apply like at all :rolleyes:

The only reorganisation that I buy would be the unification of the Duchy of Brunswick and the Kingdom of Hannover after the Brunswickians die out and the Hannoveranians inherit and the Rhineprovinces and Westphalia forming kingdoms in personal union with Prussia. The emperor is German emperor not emperor of the Germans/Germany.

If you read carefully my posts, I did not say nothing at all about changes in the lineages. Proposed reorganization implied upgrading provinces to states, but still ruled by the same rulers (this change basically implies re-balancing voting at Bundesrat etc etc but no giving or removing territories to anyone) and 'federate' some minor states (still, nobody loses nothing, but 'share' representation at the chambers).
 
Meanwhile, I have designed this scenario for the post-1890 events: Germany develops a constitutional monarchy system while resented France and Italy fall into fascism.

After an earlier Bolshevik revolution, Europe is divided in three blocks as shown in the map below: the West/Mediterranean Fascist block (purple), the Central/Scandinavian alliance of constitutional monarchies (green), and the Eastern Communist block (orange).

The UK does not formally belong to any block, but it's diplomatically close to the constitutional monarchies.

Euro1900.png
 
Why Soviet Union that early? 1890's are not the great war era and communist was pretty minor in russia in that era(but part of the anti tsarist movement with the democractics being the biggest) and feel almost a cliche, the most probable area would be france(hello 1870 commune) and a lesser degree italy. And Hungary losing transivalnya territory that easily is almost ASB too, you should change that, other soviet union is boring to death
 
Why Soviet Union that early? 1890's are not the great war era and communist was pretty minor in russia in that era(but part of the anti tsarist movement with the democractics being the biggest) and feel almost a cliche, the most probable area would be france(hello 1870 commune) and a lesser degree italy.

Sorry, I did not explain it well. I was talking about a post-1890 scenario in wide sense, including first decades of the 20th century. Of course USSR will not appear that early.

And Hungary losing transivalnya territory that easily is almost ASB too, you should change that, other soviet union is boring to death

Hungary does not lose anything, maybe the border is a bit odd. France and Italy will follow a Nazi-like path after being defeated in 1890, so communism should appear later in another place. Russia is the most reliable as it happened IOTL. I want Germany and its allies to be sandwiched between Western fascists and Eastern communists :D
 
Top