WI: Greater Germany, including ALL of the Austrian Empire?

[Eurofed]

No. The King of Hungary would not be monarch of those territories, who would be own souvereign states. A sort of EEC, so to say.

I do not see any real urge to displace the Habsburg dynasty with new ones picked from thin air, or worse radical republics, in most Magyar or Croat liberal nationalists, until rather late in the Revolution, when the reactionary centralist mindset of the court had embittered them. It took a lot for the Magyar Diet to declare the Habsburg deposed.

again the conservatives wanted to keep the Habsburg monarchy intact and hence were willing to make compromises to ensure that, and not due to a commitment against Balkanisation in general.

This is not the whole picture. Moderate national-liberals wanted to keep the remarkable economic benefits of the large internal market that the habsburg empire provided, and were not so keen to cut up the region in a criss-cross of new customs lines, currencies, and conflicting laws.

 

[Eurofed]

To everyone else in Europe.

Rather, France lamenting her lost hegemony and Britain her balance of power. That's far from "everyone else in Europe". I fail to see the compelling evidence for Dutch, Spaniards, Italians, Magyars, Swedes, picking up arms at the cry of "OMG, the evil liberal Germans want to dominate us with their superior commerce". For once, Iberics and Nordics won't care, and liberal 1848 Italy shall almost surely side with liberal 1848 Germany.

No, as has been said the idea that just France would care is wrong. This nation would utterly dominate Europe which really harms the British balance of power desires.

London has a global empire to develop and defend and democratic political constraints that mandate the necessity of a good casus belli before they can start or join an aggressive war against a peaceful liberal unification. It's no case they stayed neutral when Nappy III attacked in 1870.

Russia...The most likely of the remaining powers to remain neutral but still, I don't think it would approve of such a huge, powerful neighbour sitting on its doorstep.

Russia has its own geopolitical agenda which mandates expansion towards the Ottoman Empire, Central Asia, and the Far East, where UK is the problem, not Germany. In none of thse places but the Balkans they are going to have a possible contrast with Germany for decades. If German leadership is smart, and writes Russia a blank check for the Ottoman spoil, they are not going to bleed for French greatness and British balance of power.

Hell, even a theoretical monocultural lovely liberal democratic neighbour sitting right on that border could be seen as a threat. Not just to Russian dominance of Poland but to Russia itself.

Theoretically, yes. In practice, geopolitical concerns above are rather more compelling. You would need a Tsar fanatically driven to crush the "liberal contagion" with a reactionary cruade. Not even Nicholas I and Alexander III went that far.

Then thats not to mention conservative German elements which would still exist to some degree even in the most absolute of possible radical victories.

This is not the expected PoD however. If liberal Habsburg/Hohenzollern monarchs decide to cooperate with the liberal-national movements, the diehard reactionary junkers simply lack the power base for a counterrevolution.

 

[Eurofed]

Anyway, I'm just wondering how such a state would actually call itself, 'cause Germany-Hungary-Italy is quite unwieldy.

(Central) European Confederation or Empire.

Possibly if liberal nationalist Germans are classical-minded enough (quite likely for the Frankfurt “Parliament of Professors”) not to bother the historically correct but nationally incorrect label, they may add “Roman”, so it might even be

(Central) European (Roman) Confederation/Empire.

Roman directly recalls the old HRE and the official name of the Carolingian Empire (the standing precedents for this state). It is sufficiently large to justify the European label, and no other term would accurately describe the supranational union of Germans, Italians, Magyars, and various assorted Western/Southern Slavs.

Central because in order to mollify the sensibilities of the French, they may decide the restrict the geopolitical claim implied by the name. Central Europe loosely but adequately describes a state built on the Elbe/Danube/Rome axis.

I’m uncertain whether the founders would prefer to go for geography and use central, history and use Roman. Likely not both, it would be unwieldy. Maybe Central European fits best. Mittel European Bund/Reich and Impero/Confederazione del Centro Europa seems like a cool name to me, and I think both the Emperor and the liberals would agree.

About the title its head of state would carry, obviously it depends on the name of the state. But otherwise it would basically be a second-tier monarchical confederation in a tripartite personal union which is made up of two first-tier monarchical federations (Greater Germany and Italy) and a third state which is either a federation itself (Hungary proper, Slovakia, Croatia, Transylvania) or a unitary state that grants a special quasi-federal autonomous status to a region (Croatia). I think the second option is rather more plausible.

Hungary would stick to the historically name of Kingdom of Hungary, which carries a lot of historical clout for Magyars. At the very most, they can concede to rename themselves as Hungary-Croatia. Both Germany and Italy would almost surely name themselves Empires, both for historical precedent and prestige, and because some member princes of both states carry the title of kings, naming the overlord an Emperor avoid them a demotion gives him a proper superior states. Hungary has no such problems. The head of state of the confederation would then carry the special title of Emperor or President of the confederation.

Therefore:

Empire/Confederation of Central Europe made up by

· Empire of Germany
· Empire of Italy
· Kingdom of Hungary(-Croatia)

ruled by the Emperor/President of Central Europe, who is Emperor of Germany and Italy and Kingdom of Hungary (and Croatia).

And how would their flag look like?

The national colors of Germany are black, red, gold, and white. Italy and Hungary have white, red, and green. Therefore, a combination of black, red, gold, white, and green. If they want to be nice to their Slavs, add blue to represent Pan-Slavic colors as well. Therefore, something like the flag of the Seychelles, but substitute blue with black, or the flag of South Africa, but swap the places of black and blue (Germans have much more importance in the confederation than Slavs).

 

[Boto von Ageduch]

[...] we assume that a liberal Habsburg Emperor and the Frankfurt Parliament work together to create a federal liberal Greater Germany that is in personal union with a liberal Kingdom of Hungary and Croatia. [...]

Seriously, a liberal Habsburg Emperor is kind of an oxymoron.
Even if you change personalities, the emperor would not be free just to work
with riffraff gathered in Frankfurt. Remember that Austria declined the pan-German
crown offered by the Pauskirche convention!
That simply were not the people to offer such a rank.

A prominent part Austrian self-conception was the centuries-old tradition of
Habsburg German emperors and the (roughly) millenium-old tradition of Habsburg Austrian rulers.
It is hard to see how that is consistent with liberals claiming to do everything
in a new and better way.

And re personal union:
The actual Paulskirche constitution contained an article (even very much at the beginning, afair) claiming that

"no foreign monarch may obtain a German crown unless he relinquishes his foreign pricipality,
and no German monarch may accept a foreign crown without relinquishing
his German principality."

(That was by heart, corrections welcome.)

This certainly was a central concern of the delegates.
How does that work with Hungary?

Sure, if that unification is Habsburg driven, then the central government would try to keep the lands together. But Habsburg had no actual such designs. If we assume its done by liberal 1848 revolutionaries, then in the spirit of 1848 liberal, democratic nationalism they will most likely let the Hungarian lands secede (as one state, or two or more or whatever).

Or even "spin off" rather than "let secede".

 

[Boto von Ageduch]

Well, sorry.

But you get the general idea. Uber-Reich including all of the Austrian Empire.

But unfortunately a lot depends on the way how it comes about.


I only see two vague options how to engineer the Uber-Blob:

• Successful Paulskirche, Hungary spinned off, but ruled by a close relative to the Austrian ruler. Make the two states drift together later.
  Problem: Why should the prices let such a revolution and loss of their power happen?
• An Austria pursuing (more) power over all of Germany (modelled after OTL's Prussia).
  Problems:
  1. Austria was already the most influencial power within Germany. Why strive for more and incurring trouble with the petty states?
  2. Of course, Prussia would neither be willing nor forced to join an Austria-dominated Germany.
  3. Prussia was still an aspiring power eager to beat #1, Austria. Austria did not need to prove its status.
     Solution to this latter issue: Perhaps you can make an Austrian-Prussian condominium, with the lesser pricipalities still existing, but under A&P predominance.
     Think of the empire 1871, but with the Prussian and Austrian courts sharing into central power.

As you see, it is relatively hard to make up explanations for such a development.
Having said this, strange things also happened in OTL and will happen again.
So perhaps it's worth considering.

 

[Tyr]

Rather, France lamenting her lost hegemony and Britain her balance of power. That's far from "everyone else in Europe". I fail to see the compelling evidence for Dutch, Spaniards, Italians, Magyars, Swedes, picking up arms at the cry of "OMG, the evil liberal Germans want to dominate us with their superior commerce". For once, Iberics and Nordics won't care, and liberal 1848 Italy shall almost surely side with liberal 1848 Germany.

Well add to the mix the Dutch who will be worried it tries to swallow them up in some attempt to get all Germans under the banner.
The Scandinavians (especially Denmark) for the big threat this presents. It could potentially even try and take over them for all they know.
The Ottomans- it may decide to try and liberate some Christians. Even if it doesn't even the Germans being very nice to their minorities will be dangerous.
Portugal- "If its enough to scare Britain then we're freaking scared"
Spain- Spanish history of this period is not something I know but weren't they still a rather absolute monarchy? (sorry if not, they'd still find something to be scared about)
The Italians- Well, the Austrians are sitting on a large amount of Italy from the start, who's to say they may not want to add more? At the least they'd be scared of them upsetting the balance of power.

London has a global empire to develop and defend and democratic political constraints that mandate the necessity of a good casus belli before they can start or join an aggressive war against a peaceful liberal unification. It's no case they stayed neutral when Nappy III attacked in 1870.

Overthrowing their allies' governments and threatening the stability of the continent is as good a cassus beli as is needed. This isn't EU3.
And Britain stayed neutral in 1870 because it was none of their business. There was no big threatening mega power involved, just two middle-rate powers. To support either one would have messed up the balance more than just letting them kill each other.

Russia has its own geopolitical agenda which mandates expansion towards the Ottoman Empire, Central Asia, and the Far East, where UK is the problem, not Germany. In none of thse places but the Balkans they are going to have a possible contrast with Germany for decades. If German leadership is smart, and writes Russia a blank check for the Ottoman spoil, they are not going to bleed for French greatness and British balance of power.

First; What's your obsession with French greatness? The French were not great in this period. They were a second rate power.
Second; I very much doubt such a lovely Germany would sign over the Ottomans to Russian conquest.
Third: You forget the big one; Poland. The arrangement they had with Prussia and Austria-Hungary here was a good one. They all kept the Poles oppressed and ruled happily, all this now is changing. The Russians are not going to be thinking of invading Turkey when the stability of what they currently have is under threat.

Theoretically, yes. In practice, geopolitical concerns above are rather more compelling. You would need a Tsar fanatically driven to crush the "liberal contagion" with a reactionary cruade. Not even Nicholas I and Alexander III went that far.

Because there was no such opportunity.
If Britain and France tell Russia they're going to go in and fix Germany Russia will be wanting a part of that.

This is not the expected PoD however. If liberal Habsburg/Hohenzollern monarchs decide to cooperate with the liberal-national movements, the diehard reactionary junkers simply lack the power base for a counterrevolution.

Then its ASB.
There will always be conservatives.

 

[Eurofed]

Seriously, a liberal Habsburg Emperor is kind of an oxymoron.

As if absolute monarchies never get reformist, liberal-minded monarchs. Enlighenment ? Meji Restoration ? Heck, the Habsburg got Joseph II not too far ago. Our liberal Habsburg may easily decide to style himself according to the Joseph model.

Even if you change personalities, the emperor would not be free just to work
with riffraff gathered in Frankfurt.

Who's going to stop him ?

Remember that Austria declined the pan-German
crown offered by the Pauskirche convention!

Changing the stubborn reacionary dynastic centralist mindeset that led them to do so is precisely the PoD.

A prominent part Austrian self-conception was the centuries-old tradition of Habsburg German emperors and the (roughly) millenium-old tradition of Habsburg Austrian rulers. It is hard to see how that is consistent with liberals claiming to do everything in a new and better way.

Habsburg German Emperors were still elected, you know. You just need an Habsburg clever enough to realize that being elected by an handful princes, or some hundred elcted deputies, it does not matter, a throne is a throne, and the Paulskirche constitution offers the Emperor far more power that the pathetic late HRE ever did. If they want a precedent, the HRE ultimately descends from the Roman EMpire, whose EMperors were (officially) elected by the Senate, the People, and the Army, not by a bunch of nobles.

And re personal union:
The actual Paulskirche constitution contained an article (even very much at the beginning, afair) claiming that
This certainly was a central concern of the delegates.
How does that work with Hungary?

As an aside, do you perchance know of any decent English translations of the Paulskirche constitution ? Google translation horribly garbles it. It would be terribly useful to develop TLs like this one.

Anyway, that bit was written well after OTL Habsburg refused the crown. I expect the Paulskirche Assembly, giddy with enthusiasm at the Habsburg acceptance of the Imperial crown, to eagerly write an article that allows the personal union with Hungary.

 

[Eurofed]

Well add to the mix the Dutch who will be worried it tries to swallow them up in some attempt to get all Germans under the banner.

Worried = "We shall try to play MegaGermany against Britain and France as neutrals instead of immediately joining German customs union", not "We immediately join the new anti-German coalition".

The Scandinavians (especially Denmark) for the big threat this presents. It could potentially even try and take over them for all they know.

Or they could try to appease Germany, like they did in say both World Wars.

The Ottomans- it may decide to try and liberate some Christians.

Theoretically possible, but then they would support Russia doing the same, and Russia is likey to do it far before Germany. Italy may be willing to do it too eventually, but it shall be years before it has the muscles to do it, even with German help.

Portugal- "If its enough to scare Britain then we're freaking scared"

True. At least until budding German economic hegemony gives them an alternative, but it shall be decades.

Spain- Spanish history of this period is not something I know but weren't they still a rather absolute monarchy? (sorry if not, they'd still find something to be scared about)

Weel, in this period they are tossing in the bed lika mad from semi-absolutist to semi-liberal and back again via coups and revolutions and various merry dynastic civil wars, all the while like grasping to the remnants of their colonial empire, I would say they could care less about the size Germany gets.

The Italians- Well, the Austrians are sitting on a large amount of Italy from the start, who's to say they may not want to add more?

Well, if a liberal German-Austrian Emperor is willing to unite Italy in an efficient confederation as part of the Mega-Empire, many liberal-national Italians may be easily willing to call him "My Emperor", as long as he gives Italians a fair power share.

There's this variant of the PoD I've proposed, where a liberal Habsburg takes the lead of the national movement in Germany and Italy and creates a confederation of Germany, Hungary, and Italy.

In 1848, Italians were willing to follow *any* prince that seemed decent and willing to unite Italy. Charles Albert, Pius IX, even a liberal Habsburg.

At the least they'd be scared of them upsetting the balance of power.

This is farcical. Since unification, Italian politics has not given a dime to concerns about the balance of power, they only care about joining the strongest side that can help them fulfill their irredentist, colonial, and would-be great power objectives, and shower them with the biggest economic/political/strategic advantages. The strongest their patrons the better. Unless MegaGermany is keeping a lot of irredent Italians under its brutal thumb, Italy is the power sure to join it enthusiastically from the start.

Overthrowing their allies' governments

When ? Where ? I just notice peaceful liberal revolutions happening. Britain did not join Holy Alliance's counterrevolutionary expeditions even at the wrost reactionary nadir of its hsitory in the 1815-1830 period, to say to do this now on their own is ASB.

and threatening the stability of the continent is as good a cassus beli as is needed. This isn't EU3.

And despite what armchair strategists may think, the British people are not mindless gung-ho robots ready to unleash naked military aggressions on every nation of Europe with size problem, at the "balance of power" battle cry. The public, press, and parliament demand something like an allied country being invaded before they put British blod and money on the line. This ain't a computer game, indeed, where UK AI starts flinging DoWs when any other country reaches a province threshold.

No doubt if MegaGermany forms by faultless means, someone in Whitehall may start looking for possible ways to cut it down to size, in tandem with France, if they not not too busy dealing with Imperial matters the other side of the globe (since Imperial concerns always take precedence on balance of power ones), but these things take time, opportunity, and political plausibility to set up.

And Britain stayed neutral in 1870 because it was none of their business. There was no big threatening mega power involved, just two middle-rate powers. To support either one would have messed up the balance more than just letting them kill each other.

Fine, in Alt-1870 they may join the fray on France's side IF France can provide a decent casus belli that the British public can accept to spill blood for and is not the obvious aggressor (NOT a given). Russia shall almsot surely be neutral, and leap on the opportunity to carve up some extra bit of Ottoman hide. France/Britain vs. Greater Germany/Hungary/Italy. A fascinating fight to have in a TL, no doubt, but my bets are all on the CP side. I'll bring popcorn. The Central European Confederation in Paris in how many months ?

First; What's your obsession with French greatness? The French were not great in this period. They were a second rate power.

With homicidal urges against anyone that threatened their would-be continental hegemony.

Second; I very much doubt such a lovely Germany would sign over the Ottomans to Russian conquest.

From a 19th Century liberal European PoV, Christian authoritarian rule is much better than Muslim authoritarian rule.

Third: You forget the big one; Poland. The arrangement they had with Prussia and Austria-Hungary here was a good one. They all kept the Poles oppressed and ruled happily, all this now is changing. The Russians are not going to be thinking of invading Turkey when the stability of what they currently have is under threat.

IF the Polish nationalists are restrained and foresighted enough to get on the good graces of liberal megaGermany instead of alienating it with bullheaded separatist riots in Posen and the like. Since these are Polish nationalists, I won't keep my breath waiting for that to happen.

If Britain and France tell Russia they're going to go in and fix Germany Russia will be wanting a part of that.

Hardly. 19th Russia got pretty much what it wanted in Central Europe t the Congress of Vienna. Afterwards, their geopolitical directions of expansion were wholly elsewhere, not in Germany. The Tsars were not Trotski or Stalin.

 

[Valdemar II]

Or they could try to appease Germany, like they did in say both World Wars.

Honestly you need to read up on the Schleswig Wars, appreasement won't happen at least not from Denmark. In OTL Denmark was in war with Hannover, Prussia and Holstein for three years (1849-1851) and ended up with status que, as part of a bigger alliance Denmark is a serious problem for Germany.

 

[Tyr]

Worried = "We shall try to play MegaGermany against Britain and France as neutrals instead of immediately joining German customs union", not "We immediately join the new anti-German coalition".

blahdy blah

Well, if a liberal German-Austrian Emperor is willing to unite Italy in an efficient confederation as part of the Mega-Empire, many liberal-national Italians may be easily willing to call him "My Emperor", as long as he gives Italians a fair power share.

I disagree with you but to avoid the risk of ridiculously long quoted posts; Who cares anyway?
France-Britain-Russia is enough. The others aren't going to add too much to the pot. They are not going to be supporting Germany though, that's the point.

There's this variant of the PoD I've proposed, where a liberal Habsburg takes the lead of the national movement in Germany and Italy and creates a confederation of Germany, Hungary, and Italy.

In 1848, Italians were willing to follow *any* prince that seemed decent and willing to unite Italy. Charles Albert, Pius IX, even a liberal Habsburg.

Too perfect, its rather ASB.
I very much doubt most in Italy would be willing to join Venice under Habsburg oppression. Austria was the enemy (tm).

This is farcical. Since unification, Italian politics has not given a dime to concerns about the balance of power, they only care about joining the strongest side that can help them fulfill their irredentist, colonial, and would-be great power objectives, and shower them with the biggest economic/political/strategic advantages. The strongest their patrons the better. Unless MegaGermany is keeping a lot of irredent Italians under its brutal thumb, Italy is the power sure to join it enthusiastically from the start.

You're the one with the farcical ideas. Everyone not currently expanding likes the balance of power. They especially don't like a super power suddenly showing up on their borders.

When ? Where ? I just notice peaceful liberal revolutions happening. Britain did not join Holy Alliance's counterrevolutionary expeditions even at the wrost reactionary nadir of its hsitory in the 1815-1830 period, to say to do this now on their own is ASB.

Because those revolutions never did what you're suggesting they have here.
Despite what some may think Britain was not content to just sit on its island, play empire and ignore Europe. Post-Napoleon there was a nice balance of power in place that remained until OTL Germany began to upset it. This Germany is coming at a earlier period and is far bigger and stronger, its even more of a upset. Britain will not and can not ignore it.

And despite what armchair strategists may think, the British people are not mindless gung-ho robots ready to unleash naked military aggressions on every nation of Europe with size problem, at the "balance of power" battle cry. The public, press, and parliament demand something like an allied country being invaded before they put British blod and money on the line. This ain't a computer game, indeed, where UK AI starts flinging DoWs when any other country reaches a province threshold.

Friendly countries HAVE been invaded.
The press will talk of the poor King of Hannover being forced away from his lands, members of his immediate family being lynched. Its the French revolution all over again. Only worse.
This is not a computer game.

No doubt if MegaGermany forms by faultless means, someone in Whitehall may start looking for possible ways to cut it down to size, in tandem with France, if they not not too busy dealing with Imperial matters the other side of the globe (since Imperial concerns always take precedence on balance of power ones), but these things take time, opportunity, and political plausibility to set up.

The idea that in certain situations Britain may be too busy with imperial matters is one that never works even in the most dire of situations (and there was nothing like this at the time). The empire largely looked after itself. Besides, Europe was far more important than the empire.

Fine, in Alt-1870 they may join the fray on France's side IF France can provide a decent casus belli that the British public can accept to spill blood for and is not the obvious aggressor (NOT a given). Russia shall almsot surely be neutral, and leap on the opportunity to carve up some extra bit of Ottoman hide. France/Britain vs. Greater Germany/Hungary/Italy. A fascinating fight to have in a TL, no doubt, but my bets are all on the CP side. I'll bring popcorn. The Central European Confederation in Paris in how many months ?

France is not the aggressor. Germany is, their coming into existence is an act of aggression against the established order in Germany.
Russia will defiantly not remain totally neutral and ignorant and will not use it as an excuse to attack the Turks; keeping what you have takes prominence over new gains. Even if it was just a liberal democratic Prussia (with which Britain and France would be more than happy) the Russians would be rearing to go.
The odds are squarely against the Germans I'm afraid. They've just came out of a revolution and are not up to their best. In particular I'd imagine their cash reserves to be quite drained- that would be first on the list of things to remember to take into exile for the fleeing nobles- and Britain is at the height of its power.

With homicidal urges against anyone that threatened their would-be continental hegemony.

Err? What? Not really. I'm really detecting some serious Francophobia here.

From a 19th Century liberal European PoV, Christian authoritarian rule is much better than Muslim authoritarian rule.

Not really.
Its somewhat enlightened, waning, muslim rule vs. totalitarian christian rule. The Ottoman empire was on the way out, having independence for its peoples was far preferable to having another empire step into the void.

Hardly. 19th Russia got pretty much what it wanted in Central Europe t the Congress of Vienna. Afterwards, their geopolitical directions of expansion were wholly elsewhere, not in Germany. The Tsars were not Trotski or Stalin.

Except its not what it wanted anymore is it.

 

[Boto von Ageduch]

As an aside, do you perchance know of any decent English translations of the Paulskirche constitution ? [...] It would be terribly useful to develop TLs like this one.

Sorry, no idea. I haven't even looked it up online in German.

Google translation horribly garbles it.

Just don't.

-_____________________

Who's going to stop him ?

His relatives. His fellow-noblemen. His generals. His administration. The other German monarchs.
A monarch may be not as free as it seems.
And besides that, I do not think that support for Paulskirche among humble people was at its highest in Austria.

Habsburg German Emperors were still elected, you know.

Sorry, in my memory the PoD was a whole bunch of decades after the HRE was dissolved.

You just need an Habsburg clever enough to realize that being elected by an handful princes, or some hundred elcted deputies, it does not matter, a throne is a throne,

So by comparison, for you the Nobel prize were as worthy as
a pin for 25 blood donations? An award is an award?
Seriously, I think close to nobody would back then would have taken such a simple view of it.

 

[Boto von Ageduch]

As to other powers concerns, and I am departing from the original proposals here,
I would like to turn to my suggested variant again:


Assume that around 1865, instead of waging war, Prussia and Austria
agreed on uniting Germany under a "codominion" rule.
Think of the empire 1871, but with the Prussian and Austrian courts sharing into central power. This would encompass OTL's Deutschen Bund and all territories of its members (call it Germany+).
Note there's nothing really liberal here, just an ornamental parliament for the fun of it (as in OTL).

Quite probably, they would obtain the agreement of the other princes to join
(ignoring minor losses as Luxemburg in OTL).


Now I agree with most other posters that other players in Europe wouldn't quite
love this concept. But what would be their reaction?
Although combining two of the five European great powers,
this new entity would come with a paralyzing mechanism in case of
disagreement between Austria and Prussia.
And after all, in case they agree, they were hardly any more powerful than
the German-Austrian alliance in OTL.

As to reactions, France might well start a war, the German-French War of OTL suggests
that that was an option.
However, I suppose that the discomfort in Britain and Russia was not big enough
to join such a war with own troups. Specifically Britain might issue stage directions
as to what the map may or mustn't look like when they are done (as they did
in OTL's Austro-Prussian War), but not intervene directly.
What do YOU think?

 

[Eurofed]

France-Britain-Russia is enough. The others aren't going to add too much to the pot. They are not going to be supporting Germany though, that's the point.

True, except it would be France-Britain (since 1849-50 at the very earliest and most likely since 1852-53; France has to stabilise back from its own revolution first, before it can unleash a major European war). Russia has nowhere a geopolitical stake at this than the Western powers.

I very much doubt most in Italy would be willing to join Venice under Habsburg oppression. Austria was the enemy (tm).

There were quite willing to follow Savoy or the Papacy, that had been among the worst reactionary Italian monarchies up to the year before or so. It is true that reactionary centralized Austria, that kept Italy divided and under the thumb of Vienna, was the enemy. But an Italian liberal federation with an enlightened Habsburg Emperor, with self-rule and in a personal union/defense/economic union with liberal Greater Germany ? Radically different story.

Everyone not currently expanding likes the balance of power.

But Italy wants to expand, or more properly, to recapture/maintain great power status. However, they are also mindful of their relative weakness, so they opportunistically welcome the patronage of a stronger great power whose coattails they can ride. This has been the pattern since the unification, with the Kaiserreich, Nazi Germany, USA, and the EU. You really should not project British mindset about the balance of power on Italian politics.

They especially don't like a super power suddenly showing up on their borders.

Again, only if they actively show claims on stuff Italy owns or wants. Otherwise, they may as well court it as a patron, if it look friendly. United liberal Germany and united liberal Italy only have a quarrel if the former keeps Trento and Trieste under its thumb, otherwise they are natural allies.

Despite what some may think Britain was not content to just sit on its island, play empire and ignore Europe. Post-Napoleon there was a nice balance of power in place that remained until OTL Germany began to upset it. This Germany is coming at a earlier period and is far bigger and stronger, its even more of a upset. Britain will not and can not ignore it.

Fine, once France has recovered enough from its revolutionary chaos (at least late 1849-50, when Nappy III has stabilized as president, more likely 1852-53, when he has done the coup and stabilized as Emperor), Britain can join the fray, IF France csan provide a decent casus belli that the British public can acceot to fight for.

The press will talk of the poor King of Hannover being forced away from his lands, members of his immediate family being lynched. Its the French revolution all over again. Only worse.

This only in the quite unlikely case that unification only comes when radical republicans manage to seize the leadership of the movement and unite Germany by methods as violent and radical as French Revolution. This is not the most likely PoD for a successful German-Austrian 1848, that is a liberal Habsburg (or Hohenzollern) monarch takes the lead of the liberal-national movement and the combined strength of both politically strongarms the other German states in accepting unifications, too.

Therefore, it would go rather more like "After 10,000 Hannoverians gathered before the Royal palace in support of German unification, prodded by the announce that Emperor Francis II had accepted the crown of German Emperor from the Paulskirke Assembly, the King of Hannover decided that his state, too, shall join unified Germany. Much rejoicing followed in the streets." Sorry, no guillotine, and nothing that Britain can interpret as case for intervention in the internal affairs of Germany. .

Germany is, their coming into existence is an act of aggression against the established order in Germany.

Good luck trying to sell this Holy Alliance reactionary crap to liberal French or Britons. You may have far better luck concocting a casus belli that say irredentist mega-Germany wants to unite Germanic peoples by attacking Netherlands or Belgium. That may sell to the House of Commons, not the "established order in Germany".

Russia will defiantly not remain totally neutral and ignorant and will not use it as an excuse to attack the Turks; keeping what you have takes prominence over new gains.

Russia has nothing to keep here, unless it may be shown that Germany is actively supporting Polish separatism to something like that. Theri geopolitical stake in keeping Germany disunited is much more fuzzy, if Germany is not aggressive towards them.

The odds are squarely against the Germans I'm afraid. They've just came out of a revolution and are not up to their best.

Like France.

In particular I'd imagine their cash reserves to be quite drained- that would be first on the list of things to remember to take into exile for the fleeing nobles

Which fleeing nobles ?

- and Britain is at the height of its power.

True, but even so, they are not going to attack Greater Germany allied with Hungary and/or Italy alone. They have nowhere like the necessary power projection capability alone. They need either France or Russia. The latter won't fight if Austria and/or Prussia supports the revoltuo and it does not go radical, France needs some years to put its own house in order before it can march. The same time France needs to recover, Germany and its allies can use to do it, too.

 

[Eurofed]

His relatives. His fellow-noblemen. His generals. His administration.

Many of whom may easily support the Emperor because they see the advantages in a united Germany under him (curbing radical revolution, expansion of power and influence) or because of sheer loyalty.

And besides that, I do not think that support for Paulskirche among humble people was at its highest in Austria.

So what ? The 1848 revolutions were a middle class affairs throughout Europe.

So by comparison, for you the Nobel prize were as worthy as
a pin for 25 blood donations? An award is an award?

"Paris is well worth a Mass" was spoken in 1593. Not all monarchs are going to be romantic or hidebound reactionaries or fanatics that are going to spit on unique opportunities for power because all the tills and frills of tradition aren't fulfilled.

A foresighted monarch may easily realize that the constitutional throne of united Greater Germany bestowed by a Parliament is infinitely more precious than powerless throne of fragmented old HRE to which many Habsburg were elected, so an election is an election. Historical justification are nto lacking if one is willin ot look for them. "Germany is well worth a Parliament".