NationStates Jolt Archive

...when Bismarck travelled to his family's holdings during the revolution in 1848 to make sure no one was rebelling there, someone had come out and shot him dead?

Assume that the person who would later have become Prussian Chancellor wouldn't have been as brilliant a politician, and would not have seized on the chances presented to allow Prussia to control and eventually more or less annex the rest of Germany.

What if the unification in 1871 wouldn't have happened?

What would have happened on the continent? Would the British Empire still be around? Would the US have given up its isolationism...would it have been an enemy of the Empire?

I'll be honest: I know very little about European history. I only took two courses on it in college, and they only covered the very early history (i.e., Roman Empire, Ancient Greeks, the Celts, Europe after the fall of Rome). What I do know is that I don't like Bismarck, though. At all.

Hmmmm...

Had Germany never been united...

The Russian Revolution probably still would have hapenned, the British Empire would have been sustained, creating abit of a Cold War between the USSR and the B.E.

The USA would have remained isolationist, but given vague support to the Empire over Russia. Most other Empires (France etc.) remain.

I think at the very least we'd eventually see a war between the U.S. and Japan as Japan was adament upon gaining ground everywhere in the Pacific and I don't see that changing even without the unification of Germany.

...that's about all I can contribute, as I know jackshit about the events of that specific time period.

poland conquers all!

What I do know is that I don't like Bismarck, though. At all.Why? He was pretty competent and initiated many social reforms, also he kept a network of treaties that would ensure a stable balance among the 5 big European powers Everything went downhill of course after he was dismissed to make way for the new German emperor's own ambitions.

Maybe Austria would have managed to dominate the rest of Germany then? Instead of expanding into the Ottoman Empire.

Why? He was pretty competent and initiated many social reforms, also he kept a network of treaties that would ensure a stable balance among the 5 big European powers Everything went downhill of course after he was dismissed to make way for the new German emperor's own ambitions.

Hitler also spoke highly of him. That alone disqualifies him in my book.

Hitler also spoke highly of him. That alone disqualifies him in my book.
WDT2!

WDT2!

:confused:?

:confused:?
Don't worry. ;)

If someone gets it they are awesome. But anyway, Hitler spoke highly of loads of people, and that's not really grounds for disliking someone. I don't mind Bismarck myself.

Exactly. Hitler spoke highly of the British....

I don't like about him that he was such a reactionary and a monarchist. The sort of laws he put in place against dissent don't sit well with me.

But either way, let's get back to the crux of the issue...how would the world have developed with Germany remaining a bunch of weak little states of varying political alignments.

Or maybe, do you think that Germany would have been unified either way?

I don't like about him that he was such a reactionary and a monarchist. The sort of laws he put in place against dissent don't sit well with me.

But either way, let's get back to the crux of the issue...how would the world have developed with Germany remaining a bunch of weak little states of varying political alignments.

Invariably a centralised power would just take them over....

Hm, there was a strong unification movement in Germany in these days. So I think there would be a German Reich. Perhaps even bigger. It was Bismarck who prevented the unification of Austria and Prussia after Prussian - Austrian war.

Of course, if Wilhelm II would became King of Prussia/Kaiser of Germany (With different borders though), he could have messed up with all his neighbours much earlier. Probably, WW I would have started earlier, or perhaps nobody would call this war WW I because Willi messed it up so that Germany would be overrun by all its neighbours.

Well, I think Bismarck was a intelligent diplomat - he managed to prevent wars in a dangerous time. But he was a "democratical ****" (My history teacher called him so. ;) ), who always fought against the socialists. That was the reason he introduced the first social security system - he wanted that the people had no reason to vote the SPD.

Hitler also spoke highly of him. That alone disqualifies him in my book.

Well, I think that Bismarck would have dispised Hitler and his crazy ideoligy. He may be rectionary, but he was intelligent enough to know that you can't mess up with the rest of the world.

Exactly. Hitler spoke highly of the British....

O RLY?

YA RLY, I think. I'm pretty sure that was one of the reasons he tried to sign peace with Britain after France fell.

O RLY?

Yeah; he really admired them, for some reason. Which is why his vision of the world involves Germany the land power dominating Europe, America the economic giant across the Atlantic, and British Empire on the high seas. And yeah as mentioned he wanted peace with Britain, instead of dismembering her Empire.

Apparently he was totally shocked when he heard that Britain DOWed him...... :rolleyes:

YA RLY, I think. I'm pretty sure that was one of the reasons he tried to sign peace with Britain after France fell.

Ah.

O RLY?

Don't forget - he thought that the British were part of the "masterrace", not like the Russians or Jews. And they had a really big empire, which proved in his eyes, that the "masterrace" could rule the world.

Hitler also spoke highly of him. That alone disqualifies him in my book.Well, you can't always choose whose praise you get. Certainly Bismarck would not have spoken highly of Hitler.

Hmmmm...

Had Germany never been united...

The Russian Revolution probably still would have hapenned


Doubtful. While the Russo-Japanese War had damaged the Czarist regime, the challenges that it faced would have been much more easily confronted, and there were several unique factors of the First World War that forced the Revolution.

Remember, several factors:
-Lenin came to power on the promise of peace on the Eastern Front.
-The Army, the backbone of the Czarist regime was a functional organ of state until the Ludendorff and Hindenburg broke it.
-During the war, the already glum conditions for the peasants got even worse when faced with rationing.

Hitler also spoke highly of him. That alone disqualifies him in my book.

Hitler also spoke highly of Beethoven, does that automatically disqualify Beethoven?

Well, if there's one thing that's sure it's that we wouldn't be drinking "'n Toten Otto" (Fürst Bismarck Doppelkorn). :D

Doubtful. While the Russo-Japanese War had damaged the Czarist regime, the challenges that it faced would have been much more easily confronted, and there were several unique factors of the First World War that forced the Revolution.

Remember, several factors:
-Lenin came to power on the promise of peace on the Eastern Front.
-The Army, the backbone of the Czarist regime was a functional organ of state until the Ludendorff and Hindenburg broke it.
-During the war, the already glum conditions for the peasants got even worse when faced with rationing.But what if the Germans hadn't arranged Lenin's journey to Russia?

But what if the Germans hadn't arranged Lenin's journey to Russia?

But then Lenin wouldn't get the opportunity to go anyway.....

But then Lenin wouldn't get the opportunity to go anyway.....?

?

He went back in a period of extreme internal chaos and discontent due to the strain of prolonged, disastrous war with Germany.

Probably war between the UK and France over the scramble for Africa, had his complex network of treaties had not existed.

He went back in a period of extreme internal chaos and discontent due to the strain of prolonged, disastrous war with Germany.

I wrote: "But what if the Germans hadn't arranged Lenin's journey to Russia?"
You wrote: "But then Lenin wouldn't get the opportunity to go anyway....."

I do not understand this English, or at least I don't understand how your reply fits to my question.

If the Germans hadn't arranged Lenin's journey to Russia, Lenin wouldn't get the opportunity to go anyway. Go where? What opportunity? ?

The Paris Commune would have lasted longer...or would it have happened?

Lemme come up with a scenario.

Prussia continues to try and become the great hegemon. Something akin to the economic union would probably still have come up.

Against that, Austria tries to present itself as a guarantee for the German states' independence. The two powers still rival each other.

When Napoleon III comes to power in France, he wins over several states along the Rhine to his side and expands France's influence that way.

What follows is an ugly period of the major powers all trying to secure the various thrones in Germany, and getting on each other's nerves in the process.

Without uniform support from the states, Prussia can't beat France all by itself, but eventually some sort of war between Prussia on one side, and France and Austria on the other will break out. Britain will try and keep out of it.

Thanks to developments in technology, trench warfare still favours the defenders, and the Prussian Army holds out for a long time after quick initial success in occupying smaller neighbouring states. Russia might join in late as well to make some winnings.

So by 1920 or so, we have a beaten Prussia (even more militaristic and dangerous because it was recently beaten), a French Bonapartist monarchy (which is the major power in Europe), an anachronistic but relatively stable czarist Russia, a British Empire that's still going from strength to strength (though conflicts of interest with Japan in China are becoming increasingly obvious) and Austria as the other continental power, but with more diplomatic influence than any real military might.

America still doesn't care and remains isolationist.

A bumbling fool for Chancellor is improbable; perhaps instead it is someone with little finesse, a brute who understands nothing but might.

The Second War of Schleswig would still happen and presumably with a similar result.

Feuds over the administration of Schleswig-Holstein would undoubtedly arise and the decision between Kleindeutschland and Grossdeutschland. As per our timeline, the inevitable conclusion seems to be war. The Prussian military leadership seems well placed to shatter Austria and her allies. If history doesn’t diverge here, I believe 1870 will be too late to prevent the formation of Germany. The change has to be here.

I propose the Bismarck’s replacement makes the peace after the Austro-Prussian war harsher; this is the vital difference. Possibly all of Hesse-Darmstadt and the Kingdom of Saxony are annexed by Prussia as well as Sudetenland, perhaps even more. Venetia, Trieste, Lombardy, Trento and South Tyrol would have gone to Italy.

Austria-Hungary is still formed although is weaker than in OTL. This aggressive Prussian chancellor sees the unification of Germany as possible; by bring the blade against other German peoples. The next decade sees Prussia subduing its allies into the Northern German Confederation, barely noticeable as independent. As Prussia plans to occupy southern Germany; Austria and the south German states ready themselves in fear after seeing Prussia’s worsening purge in the north. South German states become even closer to Austria hoping it can protect them.

1870 brings the threat of war with France over a potential alliance between Prussia and Spain. Prussia does not back down and wheels into France. Austria-Hungary seizes its chance, along with its south German allies and marches into central Germany, in an attempt to cut von Moltke’s supply line. After hard fighting Austria accepts minor gains from its previous losses. Prussia is again able to focus its full efforts on France and still annexes Alsace-Lorraine easily. The Greater Prussia is formed; plans for Kleindeutschland remain in place, despite Austria-Hungary’s attempts to set them back.

The other European powers use their influence to ensure Prussia doesn’t try to start a war over southern Germany; trying to use north and south German alliances as counterweights. The Balkans Wars see Serbia rise to threaten Austria-Hungary in the south and a reassertion of Russian interests in the Balkans. If the butterfly effect is minimalised; then World War 1 might still happen (by this time the alternate Chancellor has been replaced by an appointment of King Wilhelm II of Prussia).

When Arch-Duke Ferdinand dies, Austria-Hungary and the pro-Grossdeutscland south Germany, realises a war with Russia requires moving fast against the opponent. Prussia sees its chance and aligns with Russia; but Austria-Hungary has promised Alsace-Lorraine to France. Britain is also very likely to enter the war to try and prevent German unification under Prussia (although it is against the less probably unification under Austria). Prussia is made aware these facts and launches a preemptive attack on France through Belgium within days of Austria-Hungary declaring war on Serbia, ensuring French, British and Belgium involvement. Since Prussia has less manpower than Germany in OTL; the plan flops.

While the South German states launches a minor push into central Germany; while the Austrian/South German schwerpunkt is in fact further east in Poland catching the disorganised Russians off guard. Despite inefficiencies in the Austrian forces, Prussia itself is threatened. The war soon seems to be losing battle for Austria outnumbered and suffering internal wobbles, despite Britain, Belgium and France making ground on the Western Front. Reinforcement from its allies in the west, as well as South Germany sees Austria hold on till the Russian collapse of 1917 which radically alters the balance of power. The Ottoman Empire would probably side with Austria-Hungary, but its entrance would barely be noticed. Russia would recognise the Austrian backed Kingdom of Poland to get out of the war and Prussia soon sues for peace. France and Britain try to moderate the peace, wanting Austria and Prussia to balance each other, while Austria-Hungary tries to make it as harsh as possible.

Whatever the peace; Austria’s internal instability will threaten the pro-Grossdeutschland camp in the years of peace. The question of Grossdeutschland or Kleindeutschland would remain unsettled, creating the potential for a fourth inter-German war.


I also suspect Bismarck wouldn't get a battleship named after him.

The Paris Commune would have lasted longer...or would it have happened?

Probably wouldn't have happened.

If Bismarck had not been there after 1848, could there have been another, only perhaps this time successful, attempt by the liberals like the orginal Frankfurt assembly? An imperial France next to a liberal constitutional Germany would really have changed history...

Canada would rule the world.

Hitler also spoke highly of him. That alone disqualifies him in my book.
That logic disqualifies you!
---------------------------
The British would be alll seeing and all powerful, America and Britain would probably have gone head to head over Trading rights, much like Britain and Germany were pretty much doing/going to do.
The Russian Tzars would have stayed in power for a few more years, maybe even now as there would have been no pretext(add more appropriate word) for the Relovution.