Germany never unites
- Thread starter tom
- Start date
THe Holy Roman Empire surviving in the form it had in, say, 1650 would seem extremely unlikely. Even if the Napoleonic wars with their reorganisatzion didn't happen I would expect the greater states to sort of accrete smaller ones until some kind of balance is reached between a few major players.
If we're talking about the 19th century states, OTOH, I think that has potential. Definite potential. You'd need to blunt the thrust of nationalism somehow - maybe it's cultural (no Sturm und Drang), maybe historical (no 1848), maybe both... The competing force of local loyalty and distrust of the 'others' would have been able to hold its own, and if you posit a German customs union and maybe more freedom of movement and trade, that would allow you an outlet for idealistic identification with the 'whole'
A successful non-unified Germany might serve as an example for other European nations, making the desire for monolithic national-ethnic states less overwhelming. German would also likely stay more fashionable without a war of 1870. An image like OTL Scandinavia might develop - you know, nice, enviably peaceful people who are scarily good at all sorts of things, but ultimately need not be taken seriously because they're 'too different'.
Without the wars of 1866 and 1870-71, Prussia will have a harder time being taken seriously as a first-rate power. France remains a leading power with an unbroken record of victory and without an unhealthy obsession with 'revanche'. Russia and France would not find the unifying interest in keeping Germany down. They might seek to play diplomatic chess with German states, with Britain balancing the board...
No WWI, of course. If there is a great-power war, it might involve France and Russia, with Germany as a battlefield, or France and Britain, with various German states as British 'continental swords'. They had better get something out of it, otherwise there'd be clamoring for national unification (you know, 'never again be other nations' footmat!'). A Germany with the attitude of a 20th century neo-ethnic nation-state with something to prove is scary...
I could see it. Today, Germany is the heart of a European free-trade zone, its small states using a century of practice at the art of getting along in a compromise-based system. It is a prime tourist destination for those seeking to dream among romantic forests, walk in the footsteps of the brothers Grimm or Goethe, and experience first-hand the painted fairy-tale villages of children's-book fame. Its industries turn out high-tech goods, and many of its cities offer a haven to Jews fleeing persecution in Poland and Russia...
Adjust hue control if you'd like it darker
If we're talking about the 19th century states, OTOH, I think that has potential. Definite potential. You'd need to blunt the thrust of nationalism somehow - maybe it's cultural (no Sturm und Drang), maybe historical (no 1848), maybe both... The competing force of local loyalty and distrust of the 'others' would have been able to hold its own, and if you posit a German customs union and maybe more freedom of movement and trade, that would allow you an outlet for idealistic identification with the 'whole'
A successful non-unified Germany might serve as an example for other European nations, making the desire for monolithic national-ethnic states less overwhelming. German would also likely stay more fashionable without a war of 1870. An image like OTL Scandinavia might develop - you know, nice, enviably peaceful people who are scarily good at all sorts of things, but ultimately need not be taken seriously because they're 'too different'.
Without the wars of 1866 and 1870-71, Prussia will have a harder time being taken seriously as a first-rate power. France remains a leading power with an unbroken record of victory and without an unhealthy obsession with 'revanche'. Russia and France would not find the unifying interest in keeping Germany down. They might seek to play diplomatic chess with German states, with Britain balancing the board...
No WWI, of course. If there is a great-power war, it might involve France and Russia, with Germany as a battlefield, or France and Britain, with various German states as British 'continental swords'. They had better get something out of it, otherwise there'd be clamoring for national unification (you know, 'never again be other nations' footmat!'). A Germany with the attitude of a 20th century neo-ethnic nation-state with something to prove is scary...
I could see it. Today, Germany is the heart of a European free-trade zone, its small states using a century of practice at the art of getting along in a compromise-based system. It is a prime tourist destination for those seeking to dream among romantic forests, walk in the footsteps of the brothers Grimm or Goethe, and experience first-hand the painted fairy-tale villages of children's-book fame. Its industries turn out high-tech goods, and many of its cities offer a haven to Jews fleeing persecution in Poland and Russia...
Adjust hue control if you'd like it darker
Redbeard
Banned
They were lucky to unite...
As almost any other OTL event the German unification was the result of a lot of earlier events and you need not change many before the result changes.
I once puzzled with a Scandinavian unification timeline (many possibilities from 10th century) and the more I studied the more it was clear that a German unification was very unlikely if there was major powers south (Habsburgs), north (Norse) and west (France) of Germany. In OTL the northern part of Germany was left alone enough to develop Prussia, but with a Norse Empire Prussia will only be the almost forgotten name of an ancient Slav tribe. Without a strong German power, independent of other continental powers, there will be no German unification in the OTL sense.
The northern lowland part of Germany probably will develop in its own “Platdeutsch” way ending as distinct from “highland” (southern) Germany as Netherlands or Scandinavia today. This part will either be very closely connected to Scandinavia/Netherlands or be an actual part of the Norse(Dutch?) Empire, and over time become the major part of the Empire and with Platdeutsch as the common language. The Rhineland will naturally be connected to France and Bavaria to Austria. Saxony will be a wildcard and in the Scandinavia/Austria contest be playing the Bavaria role of the OTL Austria/France contest.
Another barrier to German unification could be a more clear protestant victory in the 30 Years War, especially if the victorious protestant ruler consolidates his power and draws protestant northern Germany into his sphere of influence. This could be the case if Gustavus Adolph survives Lützen. In many ways it is nothing short of an OTL miracle that they so well succeeded in uniting Protestant and Catholic Germany.
If Frederick the Great is defeated in the Seven Years War (or in the War of Austrian Succession in 1740), which was very close and probably only was stopped by Catharine of Russia suddenly dying (and a Czar with a Prussia fetish taking over), then it is unlikely that there is a sufficiently strong German power around which to gather when German pan-nationalism is born after the French occupation of Napoleonic Wars (if they happen at all?).
If Napoleon/the French Revolution is defeated earlier, and the Germans spared years of occupation and humiliation, then German pan-nationalism is not given the boost it was in OTL. That can’t avoid having negative consequences for a later unification. I guess we will instead have a German revolution based on bourgeois dissatisfaction with the basic political and economical conditions rather than pan-nationalist sentiments.
If there arises a 19th century German power with the potential for being a true rival to Prussia, unification will very much risk ending in a division. It could be the Bavarians defeating Napoleon at Hanau in October 1813 and succeeding in bullying South Germany into Bavarian “protection”. That would probably end in two Germanys – a southern and a northern.
The 1848 revolts taking over will probably make it difficult to have anything coherent out of Germany for many decades. We will instead see a lot of small republics connected into a loose federation but under heavy influence from neighbouring great powers.
If Bismarck is somehow dethroned earlier the German unification is getting very unlikely. Bismarck’s first big test was the war against Denmark over Schleswig-Holstein in 1864, and he was here helped much by an extremely incompetent Danish diplomacy (practically refusing British mediation) and by Danish politicians interfering with military matters in a most unlucky way. In other words it is possible to think up a scenario were the German Army suffers defeat, which will mean Prussia and especially Bismarck loosing all creditability as a German rallying point.
If Austria isn’t defeated clearly in 1866 the consequences will be the same, and a war with France, not to mention a victory, is becoming unlikely. An undefeated France will never allow a truly united Germany.
A German defeat in 1870-71 (or 64 or 66) will of course not remove German pan-nationalism, but the chance of the Prussian King becoming Emperor is very remote. Without the victorious Prussian King and his competent Chancellor behind him, a unified Germany capable of standing up to the neighbours will be as likely as pigs flying. In the end it was Bismarck’s “iron will” in subduing the included German states/nations into a Prussian political, economical and military context that created the strong Germany we know from OTL. German pan-nationalism of course was a nice environment for a man like Bismarck, but in itself pan-nationalism doesn’t create strong powers – just see where pan-nationalism has brought the Slavs, Arabs or Scandinavians.
Regards
Steffen Redbeard
As almost any other OTL event the German unification was the result of a lot of earlier events and you need not change many before the result changes.
I once puzzled with a Scandinavian unification timeline (many possibilities from 10th century) and the more I studied the more it was clear that a German unification was very unlikely if there was major powers south (Habsburgs), north (Norse) and west (France) of Germany. In OTL the northern part of Germany was left alone enough to develop Prussia, but with a Norse Empire Prussia will only be the almost forgotten name of an ancient Slav tribe. Without a strong German power, independent of other continental powers, there will be no German unification in the OTL sense.
The northern lowland part of Germany probably will develop in its own “Platdeutsch” way ending as distinct from “highland” (southern) Germany as Netherlands or Scandinavia today. This part will either be very closely connected to Scandinavia/Netherlands or be an actual part of the Norse(Dutch?) Empire, and over time become the major part of the Empire and with Platdeutsch as the common language. The Rhineland will naturally be connected to France and Bavaria to Austria. Saxony will be a wildcard and in the Scandinavia/Austria contest be playing the Bavaria role of the OTL Austria/France contest.
Another barrier to German unification could be a more clear protestant victory in the 30 Years War, especially if the victorious protestant ruler consolidates his power and draws protestant northern Germany into his sphere of influence. This could be the case if Gustavus Adolph survives Lützen. In many ways it is nothing short of an OTL miracle that they so well succeeded in uniting Protestant and Catholic Germany.
If Frederick the Great is defeated in the Seven Years War (or in the War of Austrian Succession in 1740), which was very close and probably only was stopped by Catharine of Russia suddenly dying (and a Czar with a Prussia fetish taking over), then it is unlikely that there is a sufficiently strong German power around which to gather when German pan-nationalism is born after the French occupation of Napoleonic Wars (if they happen at all?).
If Napoleon/the French Revolution is defeated earlier, and the Germans spared years of occupation and humiliation, then German pan-nationalism is not given the boost it was in OTL. That can’t avoid having negative consequences for a later unification. I guess we will instead have a German revolution based on bourgeois dissatisfaction with the basic political and economical conditions rather than pan-nationalist sentiments.
If there arises a 19th century German power with the potential for being a true rival to Prussia, unification will very much risk ending in a division. It could be the Bavarians defeating Napoleon at Hanau in October 1813 and succeeding in bullying South Germany into Bavarian “protection”. That would probably end in two Germanys – a southern and a northern.
The 1848 revolts taking over will probably make it difficult to have anything coherent out of Germany for many decades. We will instead see a lot of small republics connected into a loose federation but under heavy influence from neighbouring great powers.
If Bismarck is somehow dethroned earlier the German unification is getting very unlikely. Bismarck’s first big test was the war against Denmark over Schleswig-Holstein in 1864, and he was here helped much by an extremely incompetent Danish diplomacy (practically refusing British mediation) and by Danish politicians interfering with military matters in a most unlucky way. In other words it is possible to think up a scenario were the German Army suffers defeat, which will mean Prussia and especially Bismarck loosing all creditability as a German rallying point.
If Austria isn’t defeated clearly in 1866 the consequences will be the same, and a war with France, not to mention a victory, is becoming unlikely. An undefeated France will never allow a truly united Germany.
A German defeat in 1870-71 (or 64 or 66) will of course not remove German pan-nationalism, but the chance of the Prussian King becoming Emperor is very remote. Without the victorious Prussian King and his competent Chancellor behind him, a unified Germany capable of standing up to the neighbours will be as likely as pigs flying. In the end it was Bismarck’s “iron will” in subduing the included German states/nations into a Prussian political, economical and military context that created the strong Germany we know from OTL. German pan-nationalism of course was a nice environment for a man like Bismarck, but in itself pan-nationalism doesn’t create strong powers – just see where pan-nationalism has brought the Slavs, Arabs or Scandinavians.
Regards
Steffen Redbeard
10th century may be to late
Hi guys,
I think the 10th century might be too late for a non-unifying Germany (or what became later Germany). At this time a more or less strong central administration was already formed. There are few periods in German history were strong Kaiser ruled; the 10th century had at least two of these: Heinrich I (der Vogler) and Otto I. (der Grosse). Both had their problems in achieving their positions but there was a more or less general agreement among the dukes of the Eastern-Frankonian realm that there should be a central figure (I think this was connected to the believe that only a king has the divine rights to rule and brings salvation to his people). I agree that there were revolts and the dukes tried to undermine the central power (often quite effective) but since the treaty of Verdun a kind of general identity was acknowledged by the nobles. Some of the different german tribes were used to a central power at least since the dynasty of the Merowinger which founded the Franconian Realm. They subdued most of the tribes in nowadays (west-) Germany and (east-) France, starting with the Alemannnen 496 in the battle of Zülprich (last failed revolt 716), the Bavarians lost their more or less independence 788. But even they hat long standing connections to the different kings of the Franconians. Also the Saxonians were included in the 9th century (famous or infamous Carolus Magnus).
What is left over?
Thüringa – part of the franconian realm at least since 620. So in the 10th century you have a more or less long standing tradition of kings or emperors.
To fail this process you should maybe consider the failure of the francs forming a kingdom. There are plenty of battles which were quite likely to have a different result.
But then what remains? The visigoths in spain and southern France, were they were beaten by the Francs again (526). The ostrogoths in Italy? They were beaten by Belisarius and Narses and later the Langobards. The later were again conquered by the Francs.
So with failing of the Francs you get a visigothic kingdom which might survive the islam invasion, probably some intermixed byzantic-langobardian Italy, a powerful Bavaria including what becomes later Austria, some Alemannian Kingdom including the south-west of nowadays Germany as also big parts of Switzerland. Some burgundian kingdom in south-central-east France. In the north a powerful saxonian realm which fights with the slavs across the river Elbe. Thüringa might get conquered by Bavaria or someone else.
What do you think?
Best Regards
richter
Hi guys,
I think the 10th century might be too late for a non-unifying Germany (or what became later Germany). At this time a more or less strong central administration was already formed. There are few periods in German history were strong Kaiser ruled; the 10th century had at least two of these: Heinrich I (der Vogler) and Otto I. (der Grosse). Both had their problems in achieving their positions but there was a more or less general agreement among the dukes of the Eastern-Frankonian realm that there should be a central figure (I think this was connected to the believe that only a king has the divine rights to rule and brings salvation to his people). I agree that there were revolts and the dukes tried to undermine the central power (often quite effective) but since the treaty of Verdun a kind of general identity was acknowledged by the nobles. Some of the different german tribes were used to a central power at least since the dynasty of the Merowinger which founded the Franconian Realm. They subdued most of the tribes in nowadays (west-) Germany and (east-) France, starting with the Alemannnen 496 in the battle of Zülprich (last failed revolt 716), the Bavarians lost their more or less independence 788. But even they hat long standing connections to the different kings of the Franconians. Also the Saxonians were included in the 9th century (famous or infamous Carolus Magnus).
What is left over?
Thüringa – part of the franconian realm at least since 620. So in the 10th century you have a more or less long standing tradition of kings or emperors.
To fail this process you should maybe consider the failure of the francs forming a kingdom. There are plenty of battles which were quite likely to have a different result.
But then what remains? The visigoths in spain and southern France, were they were beaten by the Francs again (526). The ostrogoths in Italy? They were beaten by Belisarius and Narses and later the Langobards. The later were again conquered by the Francs.
So with failing of the Francs you get a visigothic kingdom which might survive the islam invasion, probably some intermixed byzantic-langobardian Italy, a powerful Bavaria including what becomes later Austria, some Alemannian Kingdom including the south-west of nowadays Germany as also big parts of Switzerland. Some burgundian kingdom in south-central-east France. In the north a powerful saxonian realm which fights with the slavs across the river Elbe. Thüringa might get conquered by Bavaria or someone else.
What do you think?
Best Regards
richter
richter said:
This is fair enough, but the "Germany" included under the 10th-century kings and the later Holy Roman Empire included what was to become Austria, Switzerland, and the Netherlands. All these regions developed into separate more-or-less German nations. Now, there's a distinction between a proto-nation losing some border areas and its breaking up completely, but to me that does argue that the eventual unification of a Germany was not inevitable.
I doubt if the extreme fragmentation of the Empire pre-1800 was tenable in the long term, but stabilising into six to ten German states instead of the four we ended up with (any Dutch readers are going to want to lynch me....) is not out of the question.
Well, without a strong Germany in the late 19th century, things will begin to get a little dicey for Britain. IIRC, the British tended to play France and Germany one against the other in the prewar years, probably so neither gets a swelled head and starts hunting for colonies. Without Germany...Franco-British War?
Also, no Germany may make any eastward expansion by the Russians easier. Who knows what'll happen then.
Also, no Germany may make any eastward expansion by the Russians easier. Who knows what'll happen then.