WI: Germany returns to pre 1871 boarders after ww1

What might happen to history if after world war one Germany is broken down into the nations it was made up of before 1871? Might ww2 have been avoided? Would the country be too vulnerable to a communist invasion? We it stay divided.
 
Presumably "pre-1871" means that the North German Confederation is back--and it will surely eventually absorb the south German states, as Mike Stone noted.

Moreover, in its pre-1871 borders Prussia (and therefore the North German Confederation) included a lot of Polish territory...
 

Perkeo

Banned
What might happen to history if after world war one Germany is broken down into the nations it was made up of before 1871?
Germany wasn't made up of nations but of the realms of whoever happened to call himself the local sovereign. The only regions that have a national identity other than German are Bavaria, maybe Württemberg and parts of Prussia.
You may try North German confederation (renamed to "German confederation"), Bavaria, and a West German State called Rheinland or Hannover. The people of Baden and Württemberg may decide by referendum which one to join. That way the borders would at least be not entirely artificial.

Might ww2 have been avoided?
Depends on when and how Germany is reunited. Hitler is stuck in Bavaria, which will be the most reluctant to join. In the best case this means that even if he does come to power, he cannot do much harm. In the worst case he takes Bavaria in a successful Beer hall Putsch and proceeds to gain support in the other Germanies.

WW2 is avoided when the Nazis don't rule Prussia by the end of the Great Depression the dey is saved - no matter when or if Germany is reunited.

Would the country be too vulnerable to a communist invasion? We it stay divided.
If Prussia and Poland settle their differences, they are strong enough. OTOH Poland might act greedier towards a smaller Prussia and Prussia might be more pissed off.
 
Germany wasn't made up of nations but of the realms of whoever happened to call himself the local sovereign. The only regions that have a national identity other than German are Bavaria, maybe Württemberg and parts of Prussia.
You may try North German confederation (renamed to "German confederation"), Bavaria, and a West German State called Rheinland or Hannover. The people of Baden and Württemberg may decide by referendum which one to join. That way the borders would at least be not entirely artificial.


Depends on when and how Germany is reunited. Hitler is stuck in Bavaria, which will be the most reluctant to join. In the best case this means that even if he does come to power, he cannot do much harm. In the worst case he takes Bavaria in a successful Beer hall Putsch and proceeds to gain support in the other Germanies.

WW2 is avoided when the Nazis don't rule Prussia by the end of the Great Depression the dey is saved - no matter when or if Germany is reunited.


If Prussia and Poland settle their differences, they are strong enough. OTOH Poland might act greedier towards a smaller Prussia and Prussia might be more pissed off.
Smaller doesn't matter, as in the 18th century a larger Poland can, and will, get beaten up even by a smaller geographical Prussia. Especially since everyone else around Poland hates that Poland is agressive (IOTL they invaded Lituania, White Russia (Belarus), Russia, Ukraine, and disputes with Czechoslovakia which was democratic while Poland was not).

I also disagree that Germany wasn't made up of nations. Then Liechtenstein, Andorra, and Monaco aren't nations either; and Switzerland didn't become a nation-state at the Treaty of Westphalia but instead in the 1800s. Metternich said Italy was a geographical concept, not a nation. Nations are something that states construct to have the loyalty and obeyance of the public, a state is not what a nation constructs to protect it. That's the problem with some of these AH.com threads about "ideal borders" and in real geopolitics regarding self-determination (thanks alot President Wilson).
 
Germany reunifies literally the moment France's back is turned and then dares her to come back for round two.
 

Perkeo

Banned
Smaller doesn't matter, as in the 18th century a larger Poland can, and will, get beaten up even by a smaller geographical Prussia. Especially since everyone else around Poland hates that Poland is agressive (IOTL they invaded Lituania, White Russia (Belarus), Russia, Ukraine, and disputes with Czechoslovakia which was democratic while Poland was not).
Poland was beaten up by Prussia and Austria and Russia. Prussia didn't accomplish that on her own let alone manage to defend herself against potential aggressions from Russia/USSR as well.

I also disagree that Germany wasn't made up of nations. Then Liechtenstein, Andorra, and Monaco aren't nations either; and Switzerland didn't become a nation-state at the Treaty of Westphalia but instead in the 1800s.
That's not late, since the modern nation state concept didn't become common much earlier.
Metternich said Italy was a geographical concept, not a nation.
Wishful thinking that history proved wrong
Nations are something that states construct to have the loyalty and obeyance of the public, a state is not what a nation constructs to protect it. That's the problem with some of these AH.com threads about "ideal borders" and in real geopolitics regarding self-determination (thanks alot President Wilson).
There are some nations that were constructed by states, but there also plenty examples were nations (de-)constructed states: Prussia could't tell the Poles that they were Germans, USSR couldn't tell the Lithunians that they were Sowjet citizens or the East Germans that they weren't West Germans, etc. pp.
And no nation was ever created or destroyed just because someone issued a decree.
 

Perkeo

Banned
Germany reunifies literally the moment France's back is turned and then dares her to come back for round two.
Germany unites - yes. But why come back for round two? Germany accomplished the revision of the OTL peace treaty without a war.
 
Depends on when and how Germany is reunited. Hitler is stuck in Bavaria.

Why?

He came from Austria, but that didn't stop him making his political career in Germany. And when he needed German nationality in order to run for President in 1932, it was Brunswick, not Bavaria, which naturalised him.
 
It would be much like the demilitarised Rhineland. As soon as the Germans felt the treaty wouldn't be militarily enforced they'll reunify and subsequently probably seek to add Austria and the Sudetenland. Poland would lack access to the coast and so be massively subject to German economic pressure. Whether world war 2 results depends on whether Hitler or someone similar comes to power, so reparations and the great depression are important.
 

NoMommsen

Donor
Germany wasn't made up of nations but of the realms of whoever happened to call himself the local sovereign. The only regions that have a national identity other than German are Bavaria, maybe Württemberg and parts of Prussia. ....
HOLY SH --

Don't try to ventilate such "exceptionalism" in Saxony, Thuringia, Hessia, the Dithmarsh peasants or a bit broader Holsteinia, Frisia, the lower Rheinland (Ruhr-region and not to forgot Cologne) and - if we are in the south of Germany - the very "neighbour" of "Schwabia" or Württemberg : Badenia /you know, what the badenians say about the schwabs : "there are "badische" (badenians) and "unsymbadische" (non-dadenians) but the latter sounds the same as "unsympathetic".
Though I might agree with you, that bavarian culture is - for me personally - a rather "far stretch" to be called part of the "german culture realm", all these regions I've named (there are still more) have a very strong own identity, even stronger and "livlier" before the wars.

Don't take the remnants of local culture and identity (a status they have achieved by various reasons) you can find today, as a basis for what might have happened ITTL.
I.e. during the early twenties there were two VERY strong - and political ... active - movements for breaking off the german empire (seperate) in the Palatinate and the Ruhr-Cologne region.



However, for the theme :
The idea of breaking up Germany after WW1 is IMO one of the ... better ideas of an alternate outcome. But for that you can't keep Prussia and even lesser the North German Confederation at life. Both are just too big to NOT immediatly afterwards try to reunite/swallow up the "rest" of Germany again.
Better would have been somehting like the "German Confederation" of 1848-style

deutscher_bund.png

But with the prussian "Rheinprovince" as a state by its own, a "united" Thuringia and a united Hessia, perhaps give Saxony even the regions back "gained" by Prussia by the Vienna congress.

Thereby a WW2 as we know it would have definitly been avoided.
Fascism/Hitlerism ... maybe not, but most likely with only very local "importance" and not as a germany-wide unified movement.
In the first decade there probably would be a "patch-work" of different kind of states : communistic, republican, authorian, maybe even fascistic.
But IMO - as long as "outer interventions" are limited (aka no war-like occupation in the East (Poland) as well as in the west (Rheinland) - they would develop into more or less authoritarian police-states (social-demacraticly or pseudo-neo-monarchical painted), tending later towards some form of constitutional republik (with or without a "nobility-head").

There would be a strong movement for these single states to "unify" again, but with much more difficulties and only over a considerable time (a decade at least, 2-3 even more likely) without a "mayor" bloc, as the North German Confederation or Prussia alone would constitute.

BUT ... to implement such a division ?
What would be the "overall" scape-goat for the Entente to get their reparations ?
How would the Entente "enforce" this, given the to be expected even and much bigger "opposition" against the ToV IOTL (which was VERY short of NOT being "accepted" by the germans) ? Would they be willing - and able - to occupy the whole of Germany ? ... embroiling in a lot of "unrests" and uprisings to be squahed with military force ? ... for a substantial time ?
 
How would the Entente "enforce" this, given the to be expected even and much bigger "opposition" against the ToV IOTL (which was VERY short of NOT being "accepted" by the germans) ? Would they be willing - and able - to occupy the whole of Germany ? ... embroiling in a lot of "unrests" and uprisings to be squahed with military force ? ... for a substantial time ?


Not for any length of time. They even left he Rhineland five years before they were required to.

This is a recurrent problem with attempts here to improve on the ToV. It failed because it required more effort to enforce than the victors were willing to make. Yet more often than not the proposed "solutions" would require still greater effort, so they are non-runners from day one.
 
Last edited:
The trend was towards unification, and if that were specifically reversed by a dictate of the winners... that would only increase the momentum towards unification as soon as that is possible again.

There might be exceptional circumstances delaying this, but truly exceptional. For instance, if the Communists gain power in Berlin and neither the local opposition nor, more importantly, the winning powers prevent that, then it might be the Bavarians shun a reunification with Communist Prussia. This, however, assuming the winners do maintain a post-war hands-off policy, will only end up in a German civil war along the lines of the Finnish or Hungarian one.
You would still end up with unification, probably a bit later after the winners decamp, and certainly with more bloodshed. But still unification... unless you keep changing things. If the Soviets win against the Poles, Poland goes Communist, the Communists all over Europe take a Trotskist export-the-revolution foreign policy... but we've got multiple PODs here.
 
Wishful thinking that history proved wrong
I just want to point out that Metternich was correct at the time he said that. There was serious hostility to any kind of Italian unity within Italy- mostly from the elites of the different realms, unsurprisingly. It was neither wishful thinking since Metternich wanted to create an Italian analogue to the German Confederation, nor was he proven wrong by history, but rather by changing times and Italian unity becoming a popular idea. Saying that he was proven wrong by history, to me, implies historical predeterminism.
 
I just want to point out that Metternich was correct at the time he said that. There was serious hostility to any kind of Italian unity within Italy- mostly from the elites of the different realms, unsurprisingly.

Huh? Maybe for some definition of "the elites".
If we consider the emerging new middle class as part of the elites, then that was overwhelmingly in favor of some form of unification.
If we look at the ruling classes instead, some were against unification, some wanted a federal organization, and some were already looking forward to full unification.
As to how quickly the times changed, Metternich made his statement in 1847 - and the following year not just Italy but the whole Europe erupted. In Italy, places like Milan didn't just want more freedom in general; they also wanted to boot out the foreign domination and become Italians.
 
Reunification isn't so easy. Break Germany into small states and any unification movement will have to win power in every German state. They would also need to write a constitution and form a government. How do the Germans balance the power of the small and large states for example. All of this gives foreign powers the chance to meddle backing one state against the other and the various parties against each other. Works even better if the German princes stay on their thrones.

Rather than reunification, Germany may end up in the worst days of the Holy Roman Empire where Europe fought its wars by proxy in Germany
 

longsword14

Banned
Break Germany into small states and any unification movement will have to win power in every German state.
:rolleyes:
As if the Germans did not have a unified framework for a single nation in the past. Once the unification train starts going then there would not be any squabbling over the type of movement in different regions but create a pan-German narrative, which is only natural.
 
:rolleyes:
As if the Germans did not have a unified framework for a single nation in the past. Once the unification train starts going then there would not be any squabbling over the type of movement in different regions but create a pan-German narrative, which is only natural.

They had a model of Prussian domination. The unification train isn't so simple. If Bavaria elects a communist regime, Baden a monarchial, Wurtemberg fascists and Saxony Republicans they might not be as keen on unification as people think.
 

longsword14

Banned
They had a model of Prussian domination.
The German Empire had more to it than just "Prussian domination". We have OTL to show us how little these provincial movements came up to while the national movement is always capable of taking them all under one umbrella, readily coming together in a unification bid.
 
The German Empire had more to it than just "Prussian domination". We have OTL to show us how little these provincial movements came up to while the national movement is always capable of taking them all under one umbrella, readily coming together in a unification bid.

The point was that unification was achieved by Prussian arms. Getting the country to unite is another matter. Its not that these movements would be provincial in nature but that they would put their own interests ahead of everything. Using American politics for an example: The Democrats tend to win in big states while the Republicans sweep the sparsely populated rural states We have the compromise House and Senate. But would one side really accept a system that they would always lose?
 
Top