Grossdeutschland, what if?

[Naval Power]

What kind of position would Germany be in today if the Austrian Empire was dismantled and united with Germany in 1871. Lets say Germany still loses WW1 and WW2, but instead of Austria gaining its independence from Germany at the end of WW2, the countries have become one culturally and politcally over the 80 years that they were joined from 1871-1945. Lets also assume the division of Germany had not happened do to a slower Russian advance in WW2 and the surrender being to the Western Allies after an economic collapse.

I know this is a lot of assumptions, but with the merger of Austria and Germany, and the costs of reunification out of the picture, would Germany have a much greater economic/military effect on the modern world? They are already the leaders of Europe, but would they provide a substantial counterweight to the American/Chinese dominance of the world markets without the EU exisitng?

Part 2 of the question, what in history would have changed if Grossdeutschland had formed at the end of the Franco-Prussian war, or even after the Frankfurt assembly in 1849? I personally feel that Germany would have beaten their opponents on the continent during WW1 and made an uneasy peace with the US/UK. I don't know what would happen after that, but speculate please.

Thanks

 

[simonnomis]

I don't see Germany as much of a 'leader' in the present EU, especially as she doesn't do any 'leading'. At best she's on an even-footing with France, but in reality I consider the French to have more influence on policy and decision-making, and militarily both the French and British have more influence than Germany. Adding Austria wouldn't make a significant difference given it's small population. This is especially so as the crucial reason for Germany's current impotence (relative to say France or the UK) is that she did lose both world wars, which in your scenario would remain true. So no change.

As for Germany and Austria uniting earlier, well, that effectively happened in both world wars in any case (Anschluss in '38, and the Alliance in WW1), and what happened? They lost. Uniting earlier wouldn't have made any difference, except perhaps to weaken them, given that it's likely the rest of the Austro-Hungarian empire would have seperated from Austria at the time of unification, taking with them most of the population and the important Bohemian industrial regions.

 

[Cuchullain]

Does your scenario assume that the non-German portions of the Austrian Empire are incorporated into Germany, or just Austria itself? I think that would make a big difference, considering the potential for racial tensions in the broader empire, as opposed to one that was only ethnically German.

 

[Naval Power]

Does your scenario assume that the non-German portions of the Austrian Empire are incorporated into Germany, or just Austria itself? I think that would make a big difference, considering the potential for racial tensions in the broader empire, as opposed to one that was only ethnically German.

IIRC the Frankfurt assembly proposed that Austria and Bohemia would be abosrbed, while Hungary and the like would be given their independence. Now, the Bohemians probably didn't really want to join, but the basic idea was that they were going to, free willingly or not.

I don't see Germany as much of a 'leader' in the present EU, especially as she doesn't do any 'leading'. At best she's on an even-footing with France, but in reality I consider the French to have more influence on policy and decision-making, and militarily both the French and British have more influence than Germany. Adding Austria wouldn't make a significant difference given it's small population.

I guess I should have stated that though it isn't the political leader, it is most certainly the economic leader of the EU, it is also the most populous member. 10 million or so Austrians would put Germany at round about 92 million people right?

 

[simonnomis]

I guess I should have stated that though it isn't the political leader, it is most certainly the economic leader of the EU, it is also the most populous member. 10 million or so Austrians would put Germany at round about 92 million people right?

The point is though that having the largest economy in Europe, as it has since the 1970s, had clearly not given Germany much of an advantage given that she has less effective worldwide influence than either France or the UK. Japan is another good example, a population and economy far larger than even a combined Germany-Austria (128m versus 92m), but pretty impotent on the world stage. By losing WW2, both Germany and Japan effectively limited their world influence and power. Maybe in a few generations this will change, but by then India, Brazil and Russia are likely to be more of a counterweight to US and China than any individual European state or Japan.

 

[Naval Power]

The point is though that having the largest economy in Europe, as it has since the 1970s, had clearly not given Germany much of an advantage given that she has less effective worldwide influence than either France or the UK. Japan is another good example, a population and economy far larger than even a combined Germany-Austria (128m versus 92m), but pretty impotent on the world stage. By losing WW2, both Germany and Japan effectively limited their world influence and power. Maybe in a few generations this will change, but by then India, Brazil and Russia are likely to be more of a counterweight to US and China than any individual European state or Japan.

I think you can directly tie Germany's lack of worldwide influence to the fact that unlike France and Britain, Germany has never been a significant naval player, nor is it now. Regionally, Germany has tons of influence. I personally feel that China's growth is going to start going backwards, their population is getting older and older on average because of their state imposed policies and because they are finally becoming developed. Once their "baby boomers" are gone its not going to look so hot for them. India and Brazil will continue to grow, but I don't believe Brazil has more influence than Germany on the world stage. Germany is the world's largest exporter, is it not?

 

[sydhe]

The interesting question to me would be what would happen to Galicia. I think Russia especially would have trouble with an independent Galicia right next to Russian-occupied Poland.

 

[Adler17]

At Frankfurt 1848/ 49 there were three possible solutions of the German question:
1. The so called Großdeutsche Lösung, with Austria (including some now Italian areas) and Bohemia and Moravia, as they were considered to be Germans. Minorities in the area of the Reich should be protected by some laws. But as the Austrians did not want to give up the other areas, the plan died. That is the point Austria left Germany, at least in their minds (at last 1866).
2. This solution can be called also Großdeutsche Lösung, as it includes ALL Austrian territories as well. However for that solution, with so much problems, nearly nobody wanted to vote for.
3. Kleindeutsche Lösung, which finally was accepted in 1870/ 71, after 3 wars.
So a unified Germany would have caused wars already in 1849 (indeed with first German Danish war one war indeed happened). For such a war no German state was effectively ready, and only the Kleindeutsche Lösung had the potential to be accepted.
However, if Austria accepted to join with only the German areas (including Bohemia), history would be a very different. Without the troubles on the Balcan Germany was free of that sorrows, until a certain extent at least. But the foreign situation would be bad from the beginning as France and Britain were opposing that. Indeed they threatened to enter the war on Danish sides. That's why the vitorious German armies had to retreat from the Jutland peninsula. In the case of unification France and Britain might have been declared war on Germany. Russia was also not very keen to see an independent Galicia. So the situation then was not very good. Having to fight so many enemies with nearly no preparations, Germany was not able to do so.
However if Germany was united then a new power would have emerged in Central Europe, powerful enough to keep the French and the Russians away. France however, in the fear of a new opponent would have done everything to prevent this. England was in the situation to rebalance the balance of power and so a wild card, while Russia might go with France (without Bismarck and his policy). So ww1 was propable. The question then is, who was leading the German army? Austrian or Prussian officers? Austrian officers were not at the top like Prussian officers, whose soldiers were also better equipped and trained. Incompetence was one reason why Austria lost the wars against France and Prussia.
However if Germany was winning that war, the game was open again. And what alliances would have emerged or what wars happened, is not predictable.
The first part of the question was, what would happen, if Austria joined Germany in 1871. Then I do not think that ww1 happened in the form it happened, at laest not in 1914. However, IF, if Germany collapsed in 1945 only to the western Allies and Germany was not departed, then it must have been most likely in the area of 1937+ Austria, so the prewar situation, as the Allies would have done so only to keep th Russians out of Central Europe. So yes, Germany might be in an even better situation and likely with a greater army. But due to the fact of WW2 Germany would still be very cautious to act on the global position with her strength.

Adler

 

[Evie]

As Adler said - if we take this scenario, WW I becomes an entirely different war., as there is no "Shot heard around the world" to set it off, and in fact no Austrian-Serbian conflicts.

Perhaps this time it is Russia that sets off the World War, or some sort of colonial crisis?

 

[simonnomis]

Yes, perhaps my problem with the scenario as set out by Naval Power is that there would probably not have been a war in the first place if history had been so different pre-1914. At least, not in the way we think of WW1 and WW2. Which would make today's outcome very different for Germany. Given that the German/Austrian/German-Swiss population is the largest in Western Europe, it should technically be the most powerful/influential European power, though it's certainly not enough to challenge US hegemony without the rest of the EU.

 

[Adler17]

A war in Europe remains very propable, even if Germany and Austria were united. So many troubles with France and the Russian interior problems were almost causing that. However the cards were then completely new. No Serb terrorist would have caused ww1, and to speak of Alliances, it is completely different. So we really don't know.
The same goes for the Naval Arms Race. We don't know, if Germany really built up such a mighty fleet, and Britain felt being in danger. The same is for colonies.
IMO it is a too big IF to discuss really.

Adler

 

[Evie]

It's obvious there would have been *A* first world war. It's just as obvious it would never have been *THE* first world war.

For starter, a Grossdeutschland's international politics in the last twenty years leading to the World War would have been markedly different in that they'd have been looking for allies, as an alliance with Austria was now quite unfeasible.

 

[simonnomis]

Perhaps the search for allies would have resulted in Britain forming an alliance with Grossdeutschland instead of with France? Certainly there were attempts to form an alliance between the two after Bismarck went. Though people on both sides prevented this from happening, it was at the time less popular with Germany than with Britain. An alliance like this would certainly have changed European history more than any other I can think of (no loss of wars, for instance), and perhaps improved Germany's current position too.

 

[Evie]

Indeed. There's no way to tell how history would have gone if a Grossdeutschland had ormed.

 

[Adler17]

Under Bismarck Germany and Britain were de facto allied. This alliance broke finally with the death of Queen Victoria. Her darling was her grand son Wilhelm, in whose arms she died. Edward however, her son, hated his nephew, like Wilehlm hated him (additionally Edward was married with a Danish princess full of hate against Germany because of 1864). This caused the end of the unofficial alliance and also the arms race. For about 10 years of his reign an alliance was not possible any more. That finally changed when George V. was crowned. Until the outbreak of ww1, German and British governments were trying to stop all troubles they had. Indeed another year and Germany and Britain might have formed an alliance again after the struggles with the Naval Arms Race were finished. But the shots of Sarajevo stopped this (Wilhelm was on his yacht when he got the news. The British ambassador was with him).
However in the position of a united Germany, with Austria, Germany needed other Allies. Italy was one candidate, but surely they would not rely on them totally. Indeed the need of Russia and/ or Britain as allies would have been much greater. So Germany would have done everything to keep an alliance with them. Most likely Britain.
However this is only assuming Austria joined Germany under the rule of the Hohenzollern and not the Habsburger. So in the end this are only additional informations but they are still not very suitable for simulating such a history line.

Adler