Would An Austrian Germany Be More Peaceful?

kernals12

Banned
Prussia's militarist tendencies are infamous. There's the old joke that they were "an army than inherited a country". Prussia famously unified Germany through "blood and iron". West Germany's first Chancellor, Konrad Adenauer, squarely blamed the Prussians for the rise of the Nazis.

The obvious solution to this is for Germany to be unified by Austria instead of Prussia. But is there any reason to believe that this would make Germany any more peaceful?
 

Dolan

Banned
Nope, there will be wars and religious resentments amongst the Northern Protestants against the Southern Catholics.

But at least all the violences would be directed INSIDE.
 
Depends what is the POD. If rise of Prussia to great power status is prevented then likely yes. Austrian expansion was directed to Balkans and Italy, while Prussia expanded into Poland. Partition of PLC benefited mainly Prussia and were done, because there was need to compensate Prussians Austrian and Russian gains at cost of Ottomans, to keep balance of power between these three-for obvious reasons Prussia could not be given Ottoman territory.
Without strong Prussia there would not be such need. If PLC survives, there is no border between Germany and Russia, that means conflict between these two is less likely.
 
1871-1914 is a fairly long period of peace for such a supposed unstoppably militaristic culture. And the major war they did end up in, wasn't even really their fault, more supporting their ally too far. Austria didn't really end up in less fights over its history.

It more depends on the exact unification scenerio. Austria could unify with the rest of Germany and shed its various issues that could spark conflict. Like taking the German bits off Denmark, not having Italian lands, not having Serbian or Romanian claimed land by detaching a friendly Hungary, whatever happens with the border with France, etc. or it could end up having issues with nearly all its neighbours and forced to fight it out.
 

BigBlueBox

Banned
I think it's a safe assumption that Austria wouldn't have taken Alsace-Lorraine from France, so that alone would reduce the chances of conflict since the new Germany's next-door neighbor wouldn't have a 40-year grudge.
 
-Austria basically started WWI.
-The Nazi party got its start in the Catholic south
-Hitler was Austrian

Those 3 points give a resounding no, in my opinion.
 
-Austria basically started WWI.
-The Nazi party got its start in the Catholic south
-Hitler was Austrian

Those 3 points give a resounding no, in my opinion.

Austria was pushed into taking an aggressive stance by Germany, who wanted a showdown before Russia got too strong.

I actually think an Austrian Germany is not going to be as economically and militarily strong as OTL Germany, meaning it won't be spoiling for a fight as much.
 
Austria was pushed into taking an aggressive stance by Germany, who wanted a showdown before Russia got too strong.
Not exactly. Most Austrians were clamoring for war, and Germany simply gave their support for their own reasons. That's not the same as Germany pushing an unwilling Austria into war. Serbia was viewed by Austria in much the same way that the USA viewed Afghanistan in the 1990s and 2000s - a failed state that was actively promoting terrorism and needed to be tamed.

Saying that WWI was started by militaristic Prussians is a legacy of the heaps of propaganda that were shoveled out by the Entente during and after the war. All the nations involved were very militaristic. That was simply the nature of European society at the time. If Prussia did not unify Germany, there may not have been the specific circumstances that historically led to WWI, but general war in Europe would probably have happened anyway. For example, if Napoleon III was not kicked out in 1871, he might have incited a war against this hypothetical mega-Austria, with similar results. Similarly, the collapse of Ottoman authority in the Balkans created a powder keg that surely would have drawn in the Great Powers in some form - especially in this scenario where a more powerful Austria is competing with Russia in the east.

In short, the carnage of the early 20th century was not caused by Prussian militarism, though it certainly contributed to it like everyone else. It was caused by geopolitical factors combined with the culture and military theory of the time. It's even more ridiculous to say that Prussia was responsible for the Nazis. The Nazi Party was already a mass movement and the SA had over three million members before the Prussian military establishment was brought under Nazi control.
 
Last edited:
So what it seems like is that it would still be militaristic, but it would be a different kind of militarism, one that isn’t as obvious at first glance but is still definitely there.
 
The opposite, the hasburg would want use the full fight of germany to push even bigger in the balkans and italy
 
Not exactly. Most Austrians were clamoring for war, and Germany simply gave their support for their own reasons. That's not the same as Germany pushing an unwilling Austria into war. Serbia was viewed by Austria in much the same way that the USA viewed Afghanistan in the 1990s and 2000s - a failed state that was actively promoting terrorism and needed to be tamed.

Saying that WWI was started by militaristic Prussians is a legacy of the heaps of propaganda that were shoveled out by the Entente during and after the war. All the nations involved were very militaristic. That was simply the nature of European society at the time. If Prussia did not unify Germany, there may not have been the specific circumstances that historically led to WWI, but general war in Europe would probably have happened anyway. For example, if Napoleon III was not kicked out in 1871, he might have incited a war against this hypothetical mega-Austria, with similar results. Similarly, the collapse of Ottoman authority in the Balkans created a powder keg that surely would have drawn in the Great Powers in some form - especially in this scenario where a more powerful Austria is competing with Russia in the east.

In short, the carnage of the early 20th century was not caused by Prussian militarism, though it certainly contributed to it like everyone else. It was caused by geopolitical factors combined with the culture and military theory of the time. It's even more ridiculous to say that Prussia was responsible for the Nazis. The Nazi Party was already a mass movement and the SA had over three million members before the Prussian military establishment was brought under Nazi control.

Austria was aggressive but Germany encouraged Austria to be even more so in her demands on Bosnia. I would also put Russia in the aggressive camp, but I think it is undue to say all involved were like that. Bosnia was more than conciliatory. France did nothing more than back her ally to stop a super Germany forming, and Britain was so hesitant against going to war it actually made war more likely.
 

BigBlueBox

Banned
The opposite, the hasburg would want use the full fight of germany to push even bigger in the balkans and italy
In an Austrian-led Germany the various smaller German kingdoms and duchies would have greater autonomy than they did in OTL Kaiserreich, simply because of Austria's need to accommodate Protestants and Austria's inability to militarily subdue the other German states. Trying to drag Protestant North Germans into war in the Balkans or Italy for Austria's glory won't end well.
 
The opposite, much of them would want it to get the waive the flag effect, plus a lot of kingdom(ie prussia, bavaria,wutteberg) would want it to keep their standing army out of austria
In an Austrian-led Germany the various smaller German kingdoms and duchies would have greater autonomy than they did in OTL Kaiserreich, simply because of Austria's need to accommodate Protestants and Austria's inability to militarily subdue the other German states. Trying to drag Protestant North Germans into war in the Balkans or Italy for Austria's glory won't end well.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Well Austrian-based Grossdeutscheland, in which the Habsburgs retain their non-German interests makes war even more likely sooner than for Prussia -based kleinsdeutscheland, simply because the Habsburg ensemble will have more stuff that other countries, or rebelling nationalities, will want.
 

zhropkick

Banned
-The Nazi party got its start in the Catholic south
JK67iaA.jpg
 
A lot of people are saying that ww1 wouldn't start because Germany encouraged Austria to start it by promising full support.

If Austria controlled all of Germany they wouldn't even need to ask for support since they'd already controll all those resources. If anything it'd start sooner since Austria wouldn't have to wait until Germany gave them green light.
 
Prussia's militarist tendencies are infamous. There's the old joke that they were "an army than inherited a country". Prussia famously unified Germany through "blood and iron". West Germany's first Chancellor, Konrad Adenauer, squarely blamed the Prussians for the rise of the Nazis.

The obvious solution to this is for Germany to be unified by Austria instead of Prussia. But is there any reason to believe that this would make Germany any more peaceful?

The most likely option for a germany united by habsburg is by avoiding the thirty year war, and this alone should avoid a lot of the issues which came later...
 
Top