Prussia and Federal Austrian Empire in the 20th Century

[James]

I'm currently reading Iron Kingdom: The Rise and Downfall of Prussia, 1600 – 1947. I have to say I think it is one of the best historical reads there is. Superb book and I recommend it.


Anyway, I got thinking about what would have happened if Germany had never unified (obviously would have depended on many things) – Prussia as a 20thCentury power with all the military innovations that came with it. The Prussian air force, navy and obviously mechanised armour. What ideas have people got regarding this?

[rallymodeller]

They would have had to work hard to keep the Soviets at bay. The only thing I can think of as being a savior to them is if they went to a Swedish-style neutrality.

Good idea, though; I'm going to have to do some thinking on this one.

[James]

Would the Prussians have invested in an air arm? The army was Prussia's pride and joy and the navy was poorly equipped – look at the disparity in terms of naval power between the Prussians and the Danes during the wars over Schleswig-Holstien. I imagine it would depend on what the Russians and French were doing, although I'm unsure about the likelihood of a Franco-Prussian war from occuring, but I don't think it would have been impossible. I could also see Britain having closer relations with the Prussians at this point in time, acting as they did similarly in the past where Britain used the Prussian Army as a 'threat' to France; a ready-made, 'British-led' army on the border.

I imagine relations would be better with Austria given Prussia never looked at unifying Germany – either with Austria as 'grossdeutsch' or without them as 'kleindeutsch' – and I imagine that the Frankfurt Parliament could still exist, although I can also see Austria still trying to assert themselves over the lesser-German states especially the likes of Saxony, Baden, Bavaria and Wurttemberg who did not trust Prussia even though it saved their monarchies during the revolutions of 1848.

[Joe C-P]

Without Germany as the center of the Central Powers, without WW1 to serious weaken Russia, the Soviets may never have the chance to overthrow the Czar. Perhaps the Czar lasts long enough to be awakened to the true state of his nation and his people, and allows further reforms. Or perhaps it slowly deteriorates, never becoming a true world power.
Poland survives.
Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire also deteriorate and die, possibly violently.

[Alvis 3.14159]

Very interesting concept. I'd have to hazard a guess that without an unified germany threatening the "stability" of Europe, the majority of trouble would revolve around the internal issues of Austrio-Hungary, and the attempts of its' neighbors to take advantage of that. You'd have a weak Turkey on the southeast, Italy on the southwest, and France to the west. Without a rapidly expanding and advancing economically Germany to threaten it, Britain might have very well relied on its' traditional enemy, France, as the prime reason to do what it does, and a Great War may have broken out between the UK and France over some little dispute in southern Austrio-Hungary. Maybe in a place like Sarajevo.

Without a unified Germany, there'd be less advances in certain sciences, like chemistry, as it was actively promoted by German governments as a way to advance their power quickly. It certainly wasn't heavily promoted in the UK at the time, and really, anything beyond steam powered trains wouldn't have likely gotten much support anywhere else in Europe either. You'd maybe wind up with the US becoming a faster expanding power, or possibly being held back by a massively dominant UK. Without the threat of a German Navy however, the UK wouldn't have expanded its' fleet, or even gotten into the Dreadnaught building spredd, or would they have wound up going up against France in that?

France was always the traditional enemy of the British, I think they'd easily revert to that mode of operations. Likely more wars along the lines of the Franco-Prusiian one, and not a large WW1 type.

Unless, of course, you toss in a different monarch going power hungry, like the King of Italy or an alliance of several smaller powers, but that tended to fall apart historically, so nobody would ever field anything like Germany did.

In the end, we'd have less high tech and less huge deadly wars, but shorter lifespans and no internet or cell phones or TV or space travel. Or even plastic models...that's part of the chemical industry too.

Alvis Pi

[rickshaw]

Prussia was a militarist society.  Militarist societies tend to place, quite obviously the military at the centre and everything is designed to support them.  They are also expansionist in nature.  They are not going to sit on their hands and watch the rest of the nations surrounding them.  As a consequence they also tend to be rather paranoid, seeing threats everywhere.   The end result would be similar to what we saw with Germany, except on a smaller scale.  I'd see Prussia expanding into Western Germany and eventually unifying Germany by force, rather than a mix of guile and might as occurred in real life.  If there was no Bismark, I'd see Prussia eventually upsetting the great powers, Austro-Hungary, France, Russia and UK sooner rather than later.  Perhaps WWI in about 1890?  WWII in about 1920?  We might not see the creation of the Central Powers nor the advent of the Soviet Revolution (more than likely a Russian one though).  The UK would not be faced with a naval building contest so naval construction and innovation would be slowed.

[Weaver]

Perhaps WWI in about 1890?  WWII in about 1920? 

WWI was depressingly predictable outcome of the great power rivalries, so no argument there. However WWII was born from the end state of WWI, so with a different WWI, you might get no WII at all, or at least a very different one. If WWI with a Prussia that was smaller than Germany or with a lower level of technology (due to an earlier start date) was shorter and/or less destructive than the real one, then you might not have the victors pushing for the kind of punitive reparations that created the conditions in 1920s Germany which fostered the rise of the Nazis.

WWI was also critical in destabilising Russia to the point where the Soviet revolution could work, so with a "nicer" WWI, you might not have the revolution at all, which in turn would make the communists in Germany weaker and less emboldened. That would in turn mean that they wouldn't provoke the same right-wing paranoia that the Nazis fed on.

[raafif]

No Hitler so a (militaristic) government better able to take advice from competent generals on waging war ? Would Rommel, Udet etc have got a fair go if Goering et al had been sidelined ? (everyone must learn to speak German   -- an earlier EU  )

I don't think that the German People in the pre-1936 era would oppose any government, especially a Prussian one so WW2 the first & second EuroWar would still probably happen, maybe just without England/Commonwealth & USA ?

Even in 1980 the Prussian people slavishly obeyed "Don't Walk" street-signs even tho there was no traffic in sight at all -- you should'a seen the dirty looks I got when I used my common-sense & crossed the road despite the sign  
    -- no offense to my all my other German friends --

[rickshaw]

Perhaps WWI in about 1890?  WWII in about 1920? 

WWI was depressingly predictable outcome of the great power rivalries, so no argument there. However WWII was born from the end state of WWI, so with a different WWI, you might get no WII at all, or at least a very different one. If WWI with a Prussia that was smaller than Germany or with a lower level of technology (due to an earlier start date) was shorter and/or less destructive than the real one, then you might not have the victors pushing for the kind of punitive reparations that created the conditions in 1920s Germany which fostered the rise of the Nazis.

However if you end up with a more "gentlemanly" end with a militaristic Prussia still largely intact, you could still end up with a WWII albeit for different reasons.   I could still see the Prussian nobility adopting the "stab-in-the-back" rationale and anti-Semitism was rife.   The end result is essentially the same.

WWI was also critical in destabilising Russia to the point where the Soviet revolution could work, so with a "nicer" WWI, you might not have the revolution at all, which in turn would make the communists in Germany weaker and less emboldened. That would in turn mean that they wouldn't provoke the same right-wing paranoia that the Nazis fed on.

As I suggested, we might not see a Soviet Revolution in Russia but I believe we'd still see a Revolution.  Kerensky's Mensheviks would still come about, if Russia found itself in a similar situation - unable to sustain a war abroad and unable to sustain itself at home.  Just as happened against the Japanese in 1905.

I'd see Communism as a much less powerful force throughout Europe.  The Prussians wouldn't have been able to send Lenin back to Russia and without Lenin, no Soviet revolution and without a Soviet revolution, much less Communist inspiration and/or influence.

[Weaver]

Perhaps WWI in about 1890?  WWII in about 1920?  

WWI was depressingly predictable outcome of the great power rivalries, so no argument there. However WWII was born from the end state of WWI, so with a different WWI, you might get no WII at all, or at least a very different one. If WWI with a Prussia that was smaller than Germany or with a lower level of technology (due to an earlier start date) was shorter and/or less destructive than the real one, then you might not have the victors pushing for the kind of punitive reparations that created the conditions in 1920s Germany which fostered the rise of the Nazis.

However if you end up with a more "gentlemanly" end with a militaristic Prussia still largely intact, you could still end up with a WWII albeit for different reasons.   I could still see the Prussian nobility adopting the "stab-in-the-back" rationale and anti-Semitism was rife.   The end result is essentially the same.

Hmm, I'm not sure that it is. To end up at something like the Nazis, you also need a the power vacuum caused by the weak Weimar Republic and the economic insecurity caused by reparations plus the general economic collapse. Post a weaker WWI, with the Prussian nobility still firmly in control of the country and the economics not so bad, so you have a quite different situation. The extremist views would still be there, but the majority of people only turn to them when they feel desparate and out of options.

There is another, entirely different possibility of course: a WWII ending to WWI, i.e. the victorious powers completely occupy Prussia, dismantle it's ruling structures entirely, and re-build it up as a completely different place.

[Taiidantomcat]

This is not my area of historical expertise but it has had my brain going in overdrive for a few days now. Prussian BF-109s? Austria Hungarian Stukas? lot of possibilities!





http://www.keiththompsonart.com/irongrip.html

[James]

I suppose it would all come down to relations with the other great powers. If Prussia could keep friendly relations with Russia and enhance those with Britain (especially if the Anglo-French rivalry is continuing), who were both traditional allies I think Prussia should survive. I don't think Prussia would have any desires to get Warsaw back, and both Prussia and Russia worked together to keep an eye on Polish Nationists.

I can imagine Prussian forces being deployed in Austria should the AH Empire break apart. Maybe try to take Bohemia and Moravia? Also would Prussia, now more secure thanks to the North German Confederation and crippling the French at Sedan, look to establish overseas colonies/trading posts? Maybe reclaim those it gave the Dutch?

Now, although I think the Franco-Prussian War would happen (both Bismark and Napoleon III wanted war) if it somehow never happened then I have the feeling a second Austrian-Prussian war would. Bavaria, which was very hostile to Prussia until 1871, would not accept the Prussian dominance over the smaller German states with the Hohenzollern King as Kaiser in all but name. Since Bavaria are closely related with Austria, another war (possibly allied with Baden and Wurttemberg), when Bismark or somebody after him, makes his move, is more than likely.

[NARSES2]

The problem I have with this is that the starting premise is "Anyway, I got thinking about what would have happened if Germany had never unified". All of Bismark's wars were aimed at German unification under Prussian leadership. Any victorious war with Austria-Hungary would secure the "cooperation" of the Catholic South and victory in a Franco-Prussian War would lead to the foundation of Germany as we know it.

Now if Prussia is defeated in the 7 Week War with Austria-Hungary you may well have a different outcome, with Bismark removed from office many years before he was in the real world. Prussia would then be beset with potential enemies on all sides and would have to become defensive, possibly strengthening the ties with Great Britain.

Prussian defeat in the Franco-Prussian War again would have led to some possibly huge changes. The French would in all probability have reinstated the Confederation of the Rhine as a bulwark against future Prussian aggression. They would have also returned any lost Austro-Hungarian territories (AH is no threat to them) and the Southern Catholic States, always uneasy bedfellows with Prussia, would have either slid back to an alliance with Austria or have formed an alliance with France. This would have had the effect of alarming Great Britain and thus Prussia would have been almost driven into a British-Prussian pact. I'm not sure how Russia would have reacted to this. It may have taken the opportunity provided by a weakened Prussia to sieze territory in Poland but is more likely to have concentrated on SE Europe and the Bosphorous as it did in the real world.

I think German unification was inevitable, indeed Frederick William IV was offered the "job" of Kaiser during the revolutions of 1848-1849. What is open is how that State was run, what it's ethos was and who it aligned with. If Frederick III, married to Victoria's oldest, had survived (he died of throat cancer after 99 days on the throne) then Prussia may well have become a constitutional monarchy. Not necessarily on British lines but sufficiently different to mean that by the time Wilhelm succeeded to the throne it was no longer so obviously militaristic. However to get to this stage would have meant much more involvement from the Southern and Western German States, rather then acquiescing to Prussian demands as they to a large extent did. If this had happened then you probably don't get WWI in the form it actually took. It all depends on which way this new Germany decides to face ? East or West ? Britain if not threatened by a German Naval build up would probably not have signed the Entente and as long as Germany does not invade Belgium then might have stayed neutral while perhaps cheering Germany on from the side lines ?

Any way that's my two-pennorths worth.

Chris

[James]

Good summary Chris and I agree with all that. Since finishing the book over the last month (from when I started this thread I was at the end of Fredrick the Great reign) it’s really clear that it could never really happen. So many things would have to have changed (quite far back in history – such as the defeat of the Teutonic Knights to the Poles/Lithuanians) to remove the need/desire for unification. In the 1600s, you could have changes to the timeline which would mean that the Kingdom of Prussia (as it was) would not exist - the Electors would not have much desire to acquire lands for Brandenburg – especially not the Konigsberg and the Duchy of Prussia. Not embracing Protestantism could be factor – would Brandenburg want areas to the west such as Cleve with large numbers of Lutherans and Calvinists. They may not get involved with the Dutch, but would probably still be used as a battlefield between the Danish, Swedes, Poles and Austrians.

From reading such a comprehensive, detailed and balanced book about Prussia, you really do get a sense of how the militaristic side of Prussia is portrayed as its only characteristic. It was quite a positive and semi-liberal society in many ways – a superb education system with education for all (up to 14) which was the finest in Europe, protection, freedoms and a tolerant attitude for religious minorities, an incorruptible civil service, a modern law code, and an extremely efficient bureaucracy. The Prussian Enlightenment was one of the great educational and social revolutions of the ages yet it’s been chucked on the scrap heap of history thanks to the Nazis embracing of ‘Prussianism’ – claiming it to be the same as Nazism. Saying that, the Weimar republic didn’t help matters. The major factor in the rise of the Nazis was the Social Democrats fear for the communist/spartakist extreme left (Rosa Luxembourg et al.) resulting in them ignoring the extreme right. They had seen what it had done to Russia and didn’t want it happening in Germany. The resources used by the government in 1919 to crush the rebellions was frightening; armies of 60,000men, tanks, heavy artillery, aircraft bombing and strafing in German cities.

The SDP formed political alliances which concentrated on eliminating the communists. Yet they ignored the extreme right. There was also the Weimar’s failure to embrace Prussianism and its values to crush both movements – Nazism would never have grown had some elements of Prussian Conservatism (especially with the East-Elbian landowners) been embraced. If the Weimar Republic had not tried to destroy Prussia because it feared its government and its army, who they felt were only loyal to the Hohenzollern Crown and not the Republic, then there is no way WW2 would have happened (although I’m sure Germany would have reclaimed West Prussia eventually). Senior Prussian officers and officials wanted to use the army to crush the Nazis, yet power of the army was taken away from them.

As the Nazis gained seats, Goebbels eventually used his propaganda machine to inaccurately describe Prussianism and Nazism the same thing, getting more votes – concentrating on Prussian militarism and strength but ignoring the enlightened, liberal advanced society - the education, welfare and religious freedoms Prussians enjoyed. This propaganda went through the history of the Third Reich (even Hitler’s inauguration was at the Garrison Church in Potsdam) until the outbreak of war when, knowing Hitler was about to destroy everything Prussia had created in a German state, Prussian officers constantly tried to kill Hitler. Remember, the Nazis got into power on a lie to Brüning that they would reinstate the Hohenzollern monarchy (but not Wilhelm II - Germany, especially Prussia had not forgiven him for what they saw as running away), resulting in Brüning recommending Hitler to Hindenburg. An Austrian who served in the Bavarian Army becoming a fan of Prussia. It doesn’t sound right to any historian and god only knows how the people of Germany thought it wasn’t strange at the time I do not know (considering the hostile attitude Austria and Bavaria had to Prussia even after 1871 and the unification). I honestly think that the histories of Germany and Austria have to be the most fascinating in the world.

Unification was the ultimate aim for the German populous and it was always going to happen eventually. My idea really was what if the formation of Prussia had followed our timeline, through FtG, the Napoleonic Wars, Battle of Leipzig and the Revolution of 1848 but there had been no Bismarck – no wars in 1866 and 1871. What if unification was later, in the 20th century? I think a war similar to WW1 was always going to happen, the Great Powers had been stepping on each others toes for to long.   

[NARSES2]

Although I would never say Prussia was "Liberal" I do agree with you that Prussian society in the mid to late 19thC was quite advanced socially. However this system was to a large extent aimed at providing the military with what it needed. Advanced technology and the people with the education to use it. It does go much farther then that I know but that was the core reason IMHO.

I do agree however that people do forget the social advances made in Prussia/Germany during the 19thC. As for the Weimar Rep ? I havn't really read much about them since my O levels 40 years ago  However I do agree with your summary of events leading up to the rise of Hitler.

German unification in the 20thC ? That I will have to think about 

Chris