WI Prussia takes the Sudetenland from Austria in 1866?

as the title says. Prussia takes the Sudeten from austria after the austro-prussian war in 1866, as part of a peace similar to the one that ended the franco-prussian war OTL- reparations, etc. italy still gets venetia. what happens? perhaps a stronger german-italian alliance? by ww1, whay would be the major alliances?
 

Germaniac

Donor
It didn't exist... at that time. The Germans there were as Bohemian as any Czech was. The Nationalism needed didnt exist
 
im not really concerned with whether there was a concept of the sudeten. the region is still valuable as a potential buffer between austria and soon-to-be-united germany. is this enough of a reason for prussia to annex the region after the war? what would this lead to? i think that austria would probably start hating germany for taking its dominant place in germany, with the sudeten providing a visible reminder-similar to france after the franco-prusian war. when prussia then beats up on france and unites germany, france and austria could form some kind of anti-german alliance, based on "an enemy of my enemy is my friend". once austria and russia start competing over the balkans, germany and russia could form an alliance on the same principle. italy would probably join to fulfil its irredentist claims on both france and austria. is this series of events realistic?
 
I always wondered if the Prussians had pressed their advantage during the Austrian-Prussian War and had outright annexed Bohemia. Maybe other countries (ex. Italy, Romania, Serbia, etc.) would jump on the Austrians and claim parts of the empire for themselves.
 
I believe that one of the most important reasons for Bismarck not to annex any parts in Austria was so Austria wouldn't remain an enemy after the war. He tried the same thing with France, but failed.
 
The nationalism existed at the time. It became apparent when in 1848 the Czechs declined to participate in the German National Assembly in Frankfurt.

The divisions weren't yet as deep as later on in the 19th century, though. I am also not sure whether the time was ripe for such "ethnic" border-drawing in monarchical Europe.

Also, the Prussians could only annex the Norther part of what was known as the Sudetenland, i.e. the border stretch opposite Silesia, Saxony and Thuringia. Again, as long as Saxony remains independant (which was rather the question than annexing parts of Austria), these stretches of land would rather have been given to Saxony.

If Prussia would have annexed parts of Austria, this would IIRC rather have meant the whole of Bohemia - what a can of worms!

Aside from these geopolitical problems, losing Northern Bohemia and Moravia might have made life for the Danube Monarchy a bit easier in the long run. The Czechs might have been placated akin to the Hungarians, solving the main political problem of Cisleithania.
 
If Prussia took only the German-settled parts bordering to Silesia, the percentage of Germans in A-H would fall slightly. So the Czechs and others would have a little bit more power in the parliament. Could have ramifications, but we on AH.com probably won't get too much into the details.
 
im not really concerned with whether there was a concept of the sudeten. the region is still valuable as a potential buffer between austria and soon-to-be-united germany. is this enough of a reason for prussia to annex the region after the war? what would this lead to? i think that austria would probably start hating germany for taking its dominant place in germany, with the sudeten providing a visible reminder-similar to france after the franco-prusian war. when prussia then beats up on france and unites germany, france and austria could form some kind of anti-german alliance, based on "an enemy of my enemy is my friend". once austria and russia start competing over the balkans, germany and russia could form an alliance on the same principle. italy would probably join to fulfil its irredentist claims on both france and austria. is this series of events realistic?

I once wrote a TL that was somewhat opposite in the sequence of events, but with the same result. In my TL, known as the 'Twin Eagles and the Lion', Bismarck had the epiphany to support Russia in the 1878 Berlin conference after the Russo-Turkish War. Russia still doesn't get what she wants because her bluff to go to war is called and Germany doesn't want to expose herself to French aggression.

Disraeli and Andrassy work together to enforce moderation of the original Treaty of San Stefano. The result of German support for Russia is that Austria-Hungary's representative Andrassy is pissed off and Vienna walks out of the Three Emperor's League. Russo-German Alliance formed, later joined by Italy and in TTL's WW I they proceed to break up the Habsburg Empire and Germany ends up with the Sudetenland among other things...

Here's the link: https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=119376
 
1) With regards to nationalism: the Czech revival had taken place and there was a lot of bad feeling in Bohemia especially (but "Bohemian" and "Moravian" were still important, and German-Czech relations were generally a lot better in Moravia); this was a transitional period after the end of Vienna's Germanisation policy in 1859-60, and as far as the Czechs were considered there situation remained transitional up to 1918.

Certainly the "Sudetenland" did not exist in any definite sense. There were places were Germans formed a majority in the countryside already closely matching the future Sudetenland, but these were not more important in political terms than the many cities which remained German or had large German populations (remember that Brno, Olomouc, and Jihlava still tried to establish German enclaves in 1918).

Nobody would ever consider breaking up the ancient kingdoms on ethnic lines and creating incredibly awkward borders. After all, nobody except the Germans considered it after WW1, and their opinion didn't count for much.

And anyway, why would one German state fighting another German state want to draw ethnic boundaries?

2) Austro-German anatagonism: not plausible. Austrians were German until 1945, so how can you get revanchist towards your own nation (not state, but certainly nation)? Austro-German alliance and tightening relations in all spheres were, diplomatic considerations aside, popular with both countries and the foremost concern of the two pan-German lobbies.

3) Bismarck taking Austrian territory: also not too plausible. Bohemia and Moravia are extremely valuable to the Hapsburg monarchy (they're its economic engine, and without them it's a bizarre shape), not an area of any particular Prussian interest, and would cause a tremendous upset of the balance of power if they were taken, which was the last thing Bismarck wanted (and he had no definite plans to unify all Germany north of Austria at this stage).

The Austrian territory which Bismarck famously didn't take, sticking it to his generals to smooth relations with Austria, was the purely symbolic vestige of Hapsburg Silesia, which the king and officer corps wanted for reasons of "honour".
 
Last edited:
Excellent post, IBC. I think you very much brought this discussion to a close.

Maybe one should generally replace the idea of a Austro-German antagonism with Austro-Prussian antagonism (or even North(G)-South(G)-antagonism) - which existed.

Which term will live longer, Damnyankee or Saupreiss?
 

Eurofed

Banned
In my own "a different 1866" TL, Prussia indeed ends up annexing the Sudetenland, but this occurs as the ultimate result of a rather different Austro-Prussian-Italian war, where Italy performs much better, winning decisive victories at Custoza and Lissa, which allows it to ask all its claims at the peace table. This pushes the rest of the Prussian elite to ask for all of Bohemia-Moravia (and Saxony) to keep the pace with their own allies, and Bismarck is simply overruled on this. Napoleon III intervenes and threatens war to moderate the Prussian-Italian demands. With most of their armies in the East, Berlin and Florence are reluctantly forced to comply, which ends up into Prussia getting Saxony and the Sudetenland (besides the OTL stuff) and Italy getting Trento and Gorizia-Gradisca (again besides the OTL stuff).

This however wins Austria only a temporary reprieve. Total defeat in the 1866 war, on top of the other 1859 defeat, sends the Habsburg empire on a death spiral. Overconfident France picks a fight with the Prussian-Italian alliance over the twin casus belli of Luxemburg and Rome in 1867, and gets its butt handed over on a place even more so than OTL as a result. Napoleon III is only able to woo Denmark into a most unwise revanchist alliance, which results into German annexation of Denmark. Austria almost does likewise, but it is getting too nstable and mobilization is called off at the last minute. A few years later, when the Russo-Turkish war is raging, Austria collapses after a last-ditch, half-hearted Ausgleich attempt fails, and the empire is wracked by rebellions by Magyar and Slav nationalists, German liberals, Pan-German nationalists, etc. Bismarck sees the writing on the wall and under pressure by German nationalists and his Italian allies accepts his destiny as the unifier of Grossdeutchsland.
 

Valdemar II

Banned
I think that if Prussia annexed any of Austria they would be more likely to annex Bohemia (the province not the Kingdom), and take Saxony at the same time. Of course Bismarck would need to get a stroke to do such a thing.
 
Prussia wanted to annex all of Saxony after the 1866 war, right? But did not so that they could get a quick peace.
 
Prussia wanted to annex all of Saxony after the 1866 war, right? But did not so that they could get a quick peace.

Exactly. That would apparently have been much closer to their interest than any carving up of Bohemia/Moravia. Austrian-Silesia might be a possibitiy, but that is a region of rather minor importance.
 
I believe that one of the most important reasons for Bismarck not to annex any parts in Austria was so Austria wouldn't remain an enemy after the war. He tried the same thing with France, but failed.

I would argue this last bit. Bismarck blamed France for screwing up the German unification, what with the whole Napleonic stuff. He wanted to humble them, weaken them, and make them see that Germany was the dominant force in Europe. It was an obsession, hence his very hard work in that theater.
 
I would argue this last bit. Bismarck blamed France for screwing up the German unification, what with the whole Napleonic stuff. He wanted to humble them, weaken them, and make them see that Germany was the dominant force in Europe. It was an obsession, hence his very hard work in that theater.
I thought that Bismarck never wanted to annex Alsace-Lorraine and was overuled by hardline nationalsits who wanted to lord it over a defeated France. He was too much of a realist to allow any personal grudge to get in the way of politics.
 

JJohnson

Banned
Hmm...I don't know absolutely all the details of the Austrian-Prussian war, but perhaps the Bohemian/Moravian people are lured into Prussia with the promise of a place at the national parliament? Is that something plausible? Then after Austria-Hungary is humbled, Italy gets its Trentino bit, Istria/Trieste, and Prussia gets Sudeten along with Bohemia/Moravia. By 1871, the Sudeten portions are annexed to the surrounding German states, leaving Bohemian/Moravian states as part of Germany.

That's a short response to be sure, if only because I'm at lunch and need to get back soon.
 

Susano

Banned
I would argue this last bit. Bismarck blamed France for screwing up the German unification, what with the whole Napleonic stuff. He wanted to humble them, weaken them, and make them see that Germany was the dominant force in Europe. It was an obsession, hence his very hard work in that theater.

WTF do you talk about? You are basically absolutely wrong on every single count.

"Bismarck blamed France"
-No, he never blamed them for anything. In fact, its the other way round, France blamed Prussia for its success in 1866, hence the really silly call of "Revenge for Sadowa"

"for screwing up the German unification"
-It didnt. It didnt need to.

"what with the whole Napleonic stuff"
As in Napoleon I? Well, he did destroy the HRE, but the HRE didnt matter at all to Bismarck. And hell, Bismarck himself had destroyed the German Confederation!

"He wanted to humble them, weaken them,"
-Bismarck wanted no such thing! His favoured approach in foreign politics was always NOT to have enemies with longlasting grudges. This is well known!

"and make them see that Germany was the dominant force in Europe"
-Not really. Bismarcks favoured sentence of "We are saturated" was meant seriously. He did not want a too overarching Germany that would rise the ire of other countries.

"It was an obsession, hence his very hard work in that theater"
That is a myth Bismarck himself created in his memoirs. German unification had NOT been his longtime goal!
 
WTF do you talk about? You are basically absolutely wrong on every single count.

"Bismarck blamed France"
-No, he never blamed them for anything. In fact, its the other way round, France blamed Prussia for its success in 1866, hence the really silly call of "Revenge for Sadowa"

"for screwing up the German unification"
-It didnt. It didnt need to.

"what with the whole Napleonic stuff"
As in Napoleon I? Well, he did destroy the HRE, but the HRE didnt matter at all to Bismarck. And hell, Bismarck himself had destroyed the German Confederation!

"He wanted to humble them, weaken them,"
-Bismarck wanted no such thing! His favoured approach in foreign politics was always NOT to have enemies with longlasting grudges. This is well known!

"and make them see that Germany was the dominant force in Europe"
-Not really. Bismarcks favoured sentence of "We are saturated" was meant seriously. He did not want a too overarching Germany that would rise the ire of other countries.

"It was an obsession, hence his very hard work in that theater"
That is a myth Bismarck himself created in his memoirs. German unification had NOT been his longtime goal!
I agree with this, but it does raise an interesting possiblility for a POD. What if there are changes to Bismarck's personality in his childhood or early political career? Perhaps giving him a very negative view of Austria.

Alternatively, the King and the generals could simply have overruled Bismarck after the victory at Sadowa and press on to Vienna like they wanted to OTL. Theoretically, the King could have done that, but was dissuaded after Bismarck enlisted the support of the Crown Prince to help persuade him. If Vienna fell to Prussian forces (very likely, IMO), losing Bohemia would have been the least of the Hapsburgs' troubles. The Empire could very well have collapsed after the humiliation of seeing the Prussian eagle fly over Vienna.
 
Top