WI GrossDeutschland formed

I do have a question: What if the Mexican empire received more french support and didn't fell, thus leading to a stronger Austria-French relationship (but not a real alliance), then after the explosion of the Franco Prussian war, the austrians enter after the battle of Sedan in the French side (believing that after France falls, Austria would go next), but it was too late and the Germans manage to beat the French and then the austrians, would this allow Germany to annex Austria and the sudets, while creating a allied Kingdom of Hungary and Bohemia?
 
Absolutely, since declaring war alongside France would be political suicide for A-H by alienating its primary ethnic supporters, the Austrian Germans.
 
The Hohenzollerns didn't want Austria in the Empire. Perhaps public opinion is too strong to resist it after a second victory. The settlement will have to be structured to preserve Prussian and Protestant dominance.

Austria joins the Reich (under a Habsburg or not). Bohemia is annexed outright by Prussia. Galicia and Bukovina are established as protectorates of Germany.

Hungary (under a Habsburg or not) is independent but unstable and dependent upon Germany much as Ausgleich Hungary was dependent upon Austria.
 
Overall, the idea is a bit unlikely, but it's not ASB.

Austria is incorporated into Germany - not sure if it would be one large federal state or split into a few federal states along province lines. There was also an idea to replace the Habsburgs with one or more northern German dynasties which lost lands to Prussia, as a form of compensation. The Czech lands are probably also annexed as a federal state within Germany, although in theory they could also join the Danubian network of German puppets and German-friendly states.

The rest of the former Habsburg Empire is remade into a German economic and political sphere of influence - independent Hungary, Romania and Serbia (both slightly bigger), possibly united in some kind of a "Danube Confederation". But there are some internal and external difficulties with this concept, so the "Confederation" might end up very loose and informal, not quite how Bismarck and others envisioned it.
 
The absortion of Austria will inevitably change the balance of power in Germany. It doesn't matter how much you can divide and redraw the Habusburg Empire from scratch, the fact is that the majority of the population of Grossdeutschland would be Catholic and the Prussians wouldn't accept it.
 
The absortion of Austria will inevitably change the balance of power in Germany. It doesn't matter how much you can divide and redraw the Habusburg Empire from scratch, the fact is that the majority of the population of Grossdeutschland would be Catholic and the Prussians wouldn't accept it.

Kulturkampf, they could slowy convert more and more germans to protestantism, considering the autocratic policy of the house of Hohenzollern this could be made
 
Kulturkampf, they could slowy convert more and more germans to protestantism, considering the autocratic policy of the house of Hohenzollern this could be made

Actually, Kulturkampft was a battle for secularization, I doubt of a intent of mass convertion.
 
Kulturkampf, they could slowy convert more and more germans to protestantism, considering the autocratic policy of the house of Hohenzollern this could be made

Your history books have lied to you.
"Kulturkampf" had nothing to do with a conflict between Protestants and Catholics.
It was a struggle between the (Catholic) church and the secular state (that had already tamed the protestant churches centuries ago).
It was an argument about secular or religious schools, about marriage, about the political power of the church establishment and especially the pope. The usual slur for explicitly Catholic politicians was "ultramontane", meaning they got their orders from beyond the Alps.

And autocracy of the house of Hohenzollern? The Romanovs were autocratic. Even the Habsburgs were more autocratic, after all. No kidding I am at a loss what specific policies you mean as especially autocratic.
The Second Reich was a constitutional monarchy, not a parliamentary monarchy (like the UK and all other European kingdoms are today), that is true.
 
And there's more than one way to skin a cat.

What's to stop Austria being linked to Prussia in a personal union, with Wilhelm as "King of Austria and Bohemia" or some such title, but with Austria remaining a nominally separate country, rather as Hungary was in the Habsburg Monarchy post-1867? That keeps Austrians out of the Reichstag, but gets Germany their taxes and the military service of their young men
 
And there's more than one way to skin a cat.

What's to stop Austria being linked to Prussia in a personal union, with Wilhelm as "King of Austria and Bohemia" or some such title, but with Austria remaining a nominally separate country, rather as Hungary was in the Habsburg Monarchy post-1867? That keeps Austrians out of the Reichstag, but gets Germany their taxes and the military service of their young men

At least the ethnic Germans of Austria and Bohemia-Moravia will want to enter the Reich, and they will demand it loudly. Of course, their new King Wilhelm (how do you even say that in Czech?) will deny this because, um, he does not trust the German Kaiser?
IMO 1867 is to late to pull this kind of stunts. You can treat smallish Alsace-Lorraine as some kind of non-represented quasi-colony (and even that does reflect badly on Germany internationally), but not large A-B-M.

The Austrians had to realize by 1867 that unhappy Magyars did not pay their taxes and did not send reliable troops. What can Wilhelm do if unwilling Austrian, insulted by their treatment as second-class citizens, try to withold their contribution? Send Prussian soldiers, again and again?

This is not to say that Prussia might not try it at first, but I don't think it will work in the long view.

BTW, who gets Trentino and Triest (and Dalmatia)? Italy will demand it, but I assume that Prussia will try to keep a port at the Mediterranean. But that is probably a case where the UK will want to be asked nicely for permission.
 
The idea that A-H (because by 1870 the Ausgleich is a done thing already) might enter the war of 1870 is so unlikely to be borderline ASBish:

  • Hungary is strongly against any further intervention in Germany and if the Hungarian veto were to be bypassed by the emperor it would result in a major internal crisis (not that FJ would be likely to force the issue, not after the disasters of 1859 and 1866)
  • the A-H army has not been reformed (no time,no money, no leaders). Anyway the glacial slowness ofits mobilization would not allow it to intervene before late August, when France is already almost belly up
  • considering that A-H would have to keep troops on both the Italian and the Russian border it is somehow doubtful that they might dream of invading southern Germany or Saxony
  • most importantly, all of Europe is already worried by the territorial gains made by Prussia after 1866, as well by the chaos that would result from a dissolution of A-H. Bismarck knows this very well, in 1870 he was in his prime. Which means that even if thevery unlikely event of A-H entering (and certainly loosing) the war, he would not in any case look for an annexation of Austria, much less Bohemia
  • finally the war happened in 1870: Grossdeutschland is not a popular idea, and even the German empire that came to be in January 1871 was not a given in the summer of 1870. Again 1870 is not 1900 or 1920: even in 1848 the Grossdeutschland idea never gained any traction and died very quickly

If A-H wants to save the 2nd Empire, the best way is to lobby with the other European Powers to call for a ceasefire in France and a European conference: they tried in an half-assed way to do this (there were talks in St. Petersburg initiated by A-H with Italian support, but after some initial interest the Russians stepped back, and the British were never too much interested; in all honesty, the window of opportunity was probably too narrow)
 
Your history books have lied to you.
"Kulturkampf" had nothing to do with a conflict between Protestants and Catholics.
It was a struggle between the (Catholic) church and the secular state (that had already tamed the protestant churches centuries ago).
It was an argument about secular or religious schools, about marriage, about the political power of the church establishment and especially the pope. The usual slur for explicitly Catholic politicians was "ultramontane", meaning they got their orders from beyond the Alps.

And autocracy of the house of Hohenzollern? The Romanovs were autocratic. Even the Habsburgs were more autocratic, after all. No kidding I am at a loss what specific policies you mean as especially autocratic.
The Second Reich was a constitutional monarchy, not a parliamentary monarchy (like the UK and all other European kingdoms are today), that is true.

Well, Brazilian school books ignore the german unification all the way to world war one, i just readed about Kulturkampf in the wikipedia, thank you for correcting me, I learned something new today :p

About the Hohenzollern, I used the wrong therm, they were a democracy with a strong Kaiser, not a absolute monarchy, I'm sorry again :(
 
At least the ethnic Germans of Austria and Bohemia-Moravia will want to enter the Reich, and they will demand it loudly. Of course, their new King Wilhelm (how do you even say that in Czech?) will deny this because, um, he does not trust the German Kaiser?
IMO 1867 is to late to pull this kind of stunts. You can treat smallish Alsace-Lorraine as some kind of non-represented quasi-colony (and even that does reflect badly on Germany internationally), but not large A-B-M.

Why not? It would have its own Reichsrat, and would be separate except for defence and foreign affairs; and on those matters its lack of representation in the Reichstag would scarcely matter, given how little power the Reichstag had over them.


BTW, who gets Trentino and Triest (and Dalmatia)? Italy will demand it, but I assume that Prussia will try to keep a port at the Mediterranean. But that is probably a case where the UK will want to be asked nicely for permission.


Would it matter how Italy or GB felt?

If the Italians tried to take Trieste, within a few weeks they would probably be defending Taranto, while if a British Army tried to intervene, it would be arrested by the local Polizei.
 
Your history books have lied to you.
"Kulturkampf" had nothing to do with a conflict between Protestants and Catholics.
It was a struggle between the (Catholic) church and the secular state (that had already tamed the protestant churches centuries ago).
It was an argument about secular or religious schools, about marriage, about the political power of the church establishment and especially the pope. The usual slur for explicitly Catholic politicians was "ultramontane", meaning they got their orders from beyond the Alp.



Actually it was just one more of Bismarck's devices to dish the German Liberals.

Like him, though for different reasons, Liberals disliked the power of the RCC, so many of them were tempted to go along with the Kulturkampf. Iirc, even Crown Prince Frederick was at first inclined to support it, though his English wife never did. The Prince Consort's daughter was smart enough to see through Bismarck's game, and recognise a "wedge issue" when she saw one. Though, iirc, even she was put out when the Catholic Centre Party was formed to combat it. She felt that a political party formed on an overtly Confessional basis was somehow unnatural and "not the done thing". However, neither she and her liberal friends nor Bismarck and his illiberal ones were able to do much about it.
 
Why not? It would have its own Reichsrat, and would be separate except for defence and foreign affairs; and on those matters its lack of representation in the Reichstag would scarcely matter, given how little power the Reichstag had over them.





Would it matter how Italy or GB felt?

If the Italians tried to take Trieste, within a few weeks they would probably be defending Taranto, while if a British Army tried to intervene, it would be arrested by the local Polizei.


The italians could attack Austria before the prussians fully overrun it
 
The italians could attack Austria before the prussians fully overrun it

Would that be any different from OTL?

After Koniggratz the Austrians pulled South Army from Italy to hold the line of the Danube. The Italians of course overran Venetia but when they tried to push beyond that were held by local forces. So no change is likely there even if Koniggratz is a bigger Prussian win than OTL.

iven that Trentino and Trieste are both part of the traditional "Reich", Italy can expect no Prussian support for such moves.
 
Would that be any different from OTL?

After Koniggratz the Austrians pulled South Army from Italy to hold the line of the Danube. The Italians of course overran Venetia but when they tried to push beyond that were held by local forces. So no change is likely there even if Koniggratz is a bigger Prussian win than OTL.

The armistice between Austria and Italy was signed in Cormons (Friuli) on August 12, 1866. The armistice between Austria and Prussia had been signed three weeks earlier, on July 21.
At the time of the armistice of Cormons, the main Italian army under gen. Cialdini had taken Udine, the fortresses of the Quadrilateral were being invested by another Italian army under gen. Cadorna and Garibaldi,commanding mainly volunteer forces, had broken the Austrian resistance in Trentino and was ready to enter the city of Trento.
It looks like that only a portion of the Southern Austrian army had been pulled from the Italian front (the fortresses were still manned, and the defense of Trentino was by regular jaeger regiments, not just "local forces") and anyway there was no more need to keep the southern army on the Danube, since the armistice of Nikolsburg had been signed and the Bohemian theater had been quiet for three weeks (effectively Prussia and Austria had already negotiated the main terms of the peace of Prague, which was signed on August 23, just 11 days after the armistice of Cormons). Italy had been fighting alone Austria since July 21 and had been under strong pressure from France to terminate hostilities. Was caving in and signing the armistice the right thing? Probably it was, given Italian diplomatic isolation and French pressure. Certainly it did not came to be because they were stopped by "local forces" :rolleyes:

iven that Trentino and Trieste are both part of the traditional "Reich", Italy can expect no Prussian support for such moves.
Which "traditional Reich"? The traditional Reich (HREGN) had been formally dissolved in 1805, by which time it was neither traditional nor a Reich. Bismarck (who in the end managed always to have his way) had already managed to convince the king of Prussia that marching on Vienna after Koniggratz was not a viable idea and had already decided that any serious punishment of Austria was not in the interest of Prussia (not "Germany": Prussia). He would not have supported Italian claims beyond Veneto and western Friuli because of his long term strategy to keep the Austrian state viable as a future ally, but certainly did not give a fig for romantic notions of the traditional territories of a non-existing Reich
 
The problem is that others european countries will not let Prussia do what it want.

Russia for exemple will not let Eastern Galicia and Bukovina becoming prussian provinces so the new German Empire need to give Russia something, at least these two parts, and probably Western Galicia will also be given to Russia.

And I don't believe, it will be possible for an access to the Mediterranean Sea, so Istria and Triest, and probably Fiume (Rijeka) will become italian... But Italy will not ge given region considered to be completely or partially german, so the South Tyrol still italian as the northern and eastern parts of the Friul...

The rest of the coast will go a great Croatian-Hungary Kingdom under maybe a Habsbourg King...
 
Top