What if Germany had gotten it's act together a hunder years sooner?

[General_CFR]

IMHO, not the France was the primary obstacle for unifying Germany in the late XVIII century, but the lack of the national consciousness. The inhabitants of todays Germany felt themselves as Prussians, Bavarians, Hannoverians, Saxonians - not the Germans.
For unification they needed some kind of national idea, which appered in the XIX century after the victories over Denmark, Austria and France.

 

[Verbose]

IMHO, not the France was the primary obstacle for unifying Germany in the late XVIII century, but the lack of the national consciousness. The inhabitants of todays Germany felt themselves as Prussians, Bavarians, Hannoverians, Saxonians - not the Germans.
For unification they needed some kind of national idea, which appered in the XIX century after the victories over Denmark, Austria and France.

Nothing fosters a sense of joint national destiny as a good crisis!

I think it's pretty well established that a key year for the rise of German national consciousness is 1812, in order to fight Napoleon.

And for that matter, the German "Länder" are still bickering between themselves in ways suggestive of German national consciousness as a kind of optional-extra they have just grafted on top of a more visceral sense of being Brandenburgers, Saxons, Bavarians, etc.

But you're right that France in the 18th c. was no technical obstacle to German unification. Unless one means it indirectly...

A major obstacle to German 18th c. unification would be the dynastic policies of all these little German statelets. You don't get German unification until a large, wealthy and self-conscious middle-class German bourgeoisie takes up the cause if Germanness in the 19th c. They did so in part as a conscious reaction against the French-oriented German aristocracy and monarchies — like Fredrick II The Great of Prussia, reported to have spoken French as his first language, and he spoke crappy French at that, but his German was even worse.

The German bourgeoise set themselves up as the true guardians of Germanness, unlike the aristos who had fallen to pernicious foreign, French, influence. Which is why in 1848 they attempt to unify Germany through a liberal revolution. Had it succeeded there would have been a United States of the Republic of Germany in 1848. But the monarchical reaction crushed it, and the liberal bourgeoise retreated to lick their wounds (except those disgusted enough to emigrate to the US en masse, the "49'ers" iirc).

At this point clever-guy Bismarck recognises that the next time the liberal middleclass decides to rise the flag of rebellion, the odds are good they will be successful in sweeping the crowned heads of Germany from their thrones. So, in order to save these monarchies, the Prussian most of all and the Junker-class of nobles he himself belonged to, this unruly middleclass would have to be given their unification, but if it got done from the top down, chances were it would defuse things to the point where the monarchs and the nobles can go on enjoying most of their privileges.

So that's what Bismarck delivered, to not a small amount of consternation and confusion of the middleclass liberals, who didn't quite know what to make of the situation, even if the unification was gratifying.

 

[Adler17]

Verbose there are some mistakes: Indeed German nationalism was weak in the 18th century. But not as dead. Frederic, who himself was proposed to be husband of Maria Theresia by Prince Eugene of Savoy before the hatred started over Silesia, spoke indeed French better than German. However he also tried to justify his actions with German nationalism and even attacked the Empress in not acting for the best of Germany. That she had to defend that was indeed new. A few decades before that might not have worked but now there was already a base for nationalism. Although indeed most Germans said then, when asked for their nationality, I am Prussian or Bavarian, and the meaning of German was equal to that like today saying I am European, the idea of a German nation grew already.
Indeed that was weak and nothing to unify Germany with the masses. But then we are not in a national state but a dynastical. National states had already to develope. And that did not really start until about 1789. So a unification of Germany would only be possible if the Kaiser was able to seize the power he lost a long time ago. If that was possible, and only Frederic as Maria's husband would have been able to do so, a unification was possible. But without the nationalism. And the test of time would have been difficult to stand. Not only because of that but also because of missing reforms. Frederic started it but he was unable and unwilling to go the way the reformers did after Tilsit. When the need for reforms was vital for Prussia and leading in the end to the modern state.
Prussia was in relation to other states one of the most liberal states in the world. That's why the revolution did not work in Prussia. But the urgent need of reforms had to come. It would be an interesting question if Napoleon might have been only as a hasardeur in modern day history books, smashed by the German army. Or he was, as he did in 1805, smashing Germany. But then, with the German Federation, a united Germany might have reemerged like a Phoenix in 1815. And then history is open.
The last thing to comment is the revolution of 1848. Only a minority in the parliament in Frankfurt (in the Paul's Cathedral) wanted to abolish the monarchy. Indeed a constitutional monarchy was in the end made and the Prussian king, Friedrich Wilhelm IV., elected as German Kaiser. Because of several reasons (Kleindeutsche/ Großdeutsche Frage, war with Denmark, armies still in control of the monarchs and the fact Friedrich Wilhelm IV. declined to be an elected king) the revolution was invain. But most parts were indeed taken by Bismarck to make the constitutions of 1867/1871. He saw the need of a Realpolitik. Thus he gave the Germans a unified state. He in the end fulfilled the revolution of 1848 (what he himself declined)! As a sidenote when the president of the Reichstag, who was once also president of the Paulskirchenparlament, von Simson,gave the crown to Wilhelm I., he took the crown by the people. He was democratically legitimated Kaiser! As he didn't want that a month later the German Reich was proclaimed at Versailles.
BTW Bismarck played the cards brilliantly as Kanzler. He told the Reichstag the Kaiser would intervene, if something was against his will, and told the Kaiser the opposite, that the Reichstag would intervene. So he got in most cases his will. BTW to his 80th birthday the Reichstag did not make anything!

Adler

 

[Squonk]

Well, Frederic could have been married with Maria Theresia. And such a marriage might have united Germany. The 7 years war would have been lead but with other coalitions. Prussia, Hannover, Austria and Britain against France, Bavaria, Saxony, Sweden and Russia. Ironically this German state might have even helped Poland! Frederic wanted to keep Russia pleased, when Catherine came to him. He feared a war and so he had to get a piece of the cake he originally wanted to keep as buffer between Prussia and Russia.

Adler

Such marriage would not be possible. First because of religious differences, and secondly because both France and Britain, and Charles VI as well, didn't want MT to marry anyone of importance.

You seem to insinuate Frederic was against partages - au contraire, he was the driving power behind it. Russia had the smallest interest in partage of all three participants.

But truth is that united Germany would make partages less probable, because France and Russia, and Austria if it existed, would be more vary of making Germany stronger.

 

[Squonk]

oh, and Adler is right when it comes to nationalism - Frederic's victory over the French was source of pan-german pride, even in the german states that were french allies at this time

 

[Verbose]

Germany, like Italy. is one of these "cultural nations" which have been around since the Renaissance. There's been sources of pan-German pride since at least back then.

I think it depends a bit on what is meant by "Germany", if a dynastic political entity in the 18th c. sense (maybe most likely by Austria then), really would mean a German unification in the sense the OP seems to suggest, or if there are more variables need to be fulfilled. I think the latter might be the case.

 

[Adler17]

@Verbose: If a unified German entity, like dynastic state of the 18th century, could have become a national state would to be discussed. I see many problems with it though. But not impossible.

@ Squonk: Indeed the Prussian victories over the French were also "celebrated" even in the other German states allied with France. So a pan German nationalism existed long before. And perhaps it is older than expected having roots to the unification of the HRE in the 10th century.
However what interests had Prussia in a disbanded Poland? None. In his writings Frederic gave his clear opinion. He wanted to keep Poland as a buffer between Prussia and Russia. A partition was not in his interests. But he feared another war and so he agreed. As Russia was the only trustworty power as ally, England and France had not much interests in that areas, it was asked as ally for Prussia and Austria as well. Indeed the alliance with Russia of 1764 brought both partners enough time to rebuild the country. It was a defensive alliance. However Russia was on expansion and the target Poland. Frederic saw in Russia an ascending threat. He thought it was insane to help such a power. However he needed an ally and not a foe as Austria was still eager to retake Silesia, even after three wars happened. So Frederic, despite his attempts, was unable to keep the dissidents problem out of the power of Russia. Russia had too much influence now. In 1768 it interved in Poland against the Bar confederacy in a Polish civil war. Frederic was unable to prevent that. He was between a rock and a hard place. So he decided not loose the ally and fulfill his treaty with Russia exactly. Not more or less. However that does not mean he didn't want to retake West Prussia and Warmia!
This pressure let him do what he always did: To go into the offensive. To lower this pressure. But before the trouble started when Austrian troops at the end of 1770 took Zips and some other areas by force. They were given in 1412 to Poland by the Hungarian crown for depts. To avoid another war Frederic planned the partition. Thus all powers should get a piece of the cake Poland d a war. Austria, eager to stop the Russian advance on the Balcan, agreed (despite of Maria Theresia).
So Poland was departed for the first time. And in all partitions Prussia should get the smallest part (34.900 km², Russia 84.000, Austria 83.000). Also there were already big German populations living in that areas since medievel times.
However although the partition was initiated by Prussia, Frederic saw himself forced to do so by Russia. The pressure made by Catharine was too big for him.
No other power intervened. And we have to see that Poland was then no national state like today and because of the unability of the Polish central power to end the cruel civil war with the Bar confederacy it had even positive effects in ending that trouble. Not that this was the primary aim of any of that powers.
In the end the first partition did not end the problems. Nevertheless all 3 partitions were made, directly or indirectly, on pressure by the Russians.

Adler

 

[Hawe Hawe]

Nothing was more hindering for a german unification than the established particularism and feudalism. Remember that there were not only prussians and Habsburg, the only two states really capable of leading a unified Germany, but hundreds of small but independent states. Nowadays Thuringia consisted of 20 or so states for example, and all together from the Count of Lippe-Detmold to the bavarian King had no interest in a German nation at all. This would have meant an end of their sovereignity(?). Thats why the idea of nationalism was an anti-feudal, liberal and anti-aristocratic philosophy in the early 19th century, as has been pointed out by other posters. Strange but true but german nationalism was a "left wing" idea invented by a rather emancipated civil society after the impact of enlightment. Impossible to imagine in 1770.

 

[Verbose]

Nothing was more hindering for a german unification than the established particularism and feudalism. Remember that there were not only prussians and Habsburg, the only two states really capable of leading a unified Germany, but hundreds of small but independent states. Nowadays Thuringia consisted of 20 or so states for example, and all together from the Count of Lippe-Detmold to the bavarian King had no interest in a German nation at all. This would have meant an end of their sovereignity(?). Thats why the idea of nationalism was an anti-feudal, liberal and anti-aristocratic philosophy in the early 19th century, as has been pointed out by other posters. Strange but true but german nationalism was a "left wing" idea invented by a rather emancipated civil society after the impact of enlightment. Impossible to imagine in 1770.

Yup, that's what I was thinking.

You only really get these little princelings to play ball once there is a credible threat from the German bourgeoisie to just topple their thrones and be done with it. That's when the schemes of Bismarck starts looking good.

And nationalism as a radical, leftist idea only seems odd with a couple of centuries hindsight.

The French rev. was nationalist, and so radical it had the crowned heads of Europe soiling themselves.
Marx claimed to have learned class-thinking from the liberal French historian brothers Auguste and Amedée Thierry. What they did was to write a French history with the French people as the protagonists, not as per usual the kings and their dynasties. So yes, nationalism is liberal, and was crazy radical and violently revolutionary once upon a time.

Dangerousaly radical in the early 19th c. was just entertaining the idea that the people was somehow historically and politically important as something more than a huddled mass to be taxed and drafter for dynastic purposes.

 

[Adler17]

The German states (300+) were made lower to about 40 with the so called Reichsdeputationshauptschluß of 1803. In that small secular and clerical states were given to the surviving powers. At last there were 38 members of the German Federation in 1815 (which was even more reduced to 35 in 1863 and to 26 in 1871 (if the Reichs' own state of Alsace- Lorraine is counting here)).
Such a Reichsdeputationshauptschluß had to happen in the course of the unification. It should be difficult but not impossible for Friedrich to do that if he became emperor of Germany by marrying Maria Theresia.
Anyway a unification then was not impossible but very difficult.

Adler

 

[Hawe Hawe]

Yes, i agree the Reichsdeputationshauptschluß was a big step to german unification, but it was very controversial even in the situation of 1803 when Germany (or better Austria and Prussia) was suffering a historical decline.
Can you imagine the same 30 years earlier when the clerical states still had influence? I don't know.
Anyway, in the 18th century for any empire it didn't really matter whether your state citizens consisted of a homogenous nation or wether it was a mixture of various nations and even cultures.
More important was the total population.
@ Adler17: Since a liberal, self determined german unification was out until 1840, i think that the only way could have been by force. The marriage way you suggest seems possible but it sounds a bit medieval to me and i doubt that a dynastical marriage would have established a stable, long term national state.
My scenario by force: No miracle at the end of the Seven Years War but Austria wins and crushes Prussia to total unimportance. But then it is getting difficult. At this time the Habsburg empire is already spread over whole Europe from Belgium to Milan and from Silesia to the Balkan. More influence, territory and population in germany would mean either giving up the idea of the Habsburg empire or would mean a total european hegemony like no country had since Charlemagne. The strongest super power with enemies on every side, sounds like WW 1 was going to happen hundred years earlier too.
I doubt that such a strong country would have existed long in the difficult location in central Europe. Bismarck knew that, thats the main reason why he favored a small german solution (kleindeutsche Lösung) without Austria.

 

[.Shane.]

ROFL, its not a history forum, its a fiction forum.

 

[Adler17]

Hawe Hawe, most of it is right, but I don't see the abilities of Austria to unify Germany under her rule. Austria was too busy in other areas, especially the Balcan. That's why they later refused to join Germany.
It is hypothetic indeed. But the only man IMO able to unify Germany was Frederic the Great. However here again there must be many ifs accepted. He had to become German emperor. And that was only possible by merrying Maria Theresia. If he had a son this son would have been king of Prussia and Archduke of Austria later. That would have been the de facto unification of both dynasties. So a power was there to unify Germany. But indeed the opponents of that solution were very powerful. And especially the foreign powers would be "not amused". Thus it is very problematic for the survival of such a state.
Another problem was the still feudal structure of the German states. In Prussia this was already breaking but not until the defeat of 1806 the opposition was crushed in most areas against that. Although the base for that was already laid down by Frederic and also his father. But Friedrich was not able to do more and partly also not willing to do more. Nevertheless without being a liberal state, in contrast to many others of that time, Prussia avoided a revolution and could crush the chains of feudalism very soon.
So the question is, if Friedrich was able to unify Germany, how long it could survive against the foreign enemies. Especially France. The next problem is modernizing the country to avoid a revolution and to modernize it to become ready for industrialisation. In Prussia this happened only because of the defeat of 1806. And even then it lasted until 1848 to become a constitutional monarchy.
So these tasks had to be fulfilled to make Germany a unified country in the 18th century:
1. To break the inner German resistance against the unification. Especially the Reichsdeputationshauptschluß and the opponents in Saxony, Austria, Bavaria, Baden, Württemberg and Hannover.
2. To break the foreign opposition. Here especially France, Sweden, Denmark, Netherlands, Russia and Britain are to be named.
3. To break the feudal structures in German states.
4. To keep the opponents in 1-3 at bay and master the test of time.

A deed worth given to Herakles by Eurystheus. Most likely it would not have worked. But not impossible, too.

Adler

 

[Verbose]

3. To break the feudal structures in German states

There alone I think you have a reason the only way for this to work out is probably through a revolution, by some group standing to gain from doing away with the feudal structure, which went a lot deeper into society than simply a matter of dynastic policies.

These feudal states, Ancien Empire France included, relied on systems of privilege and corporatism. There were influential groups in society other than
nobles and kings who benefitted from the system, like trade guilds.

Like in France, things would only get upset when a fair bit of social and economic change has meant there are new and upwardly mobile groups in society being short-changed by the old system.

Technically I suppose an imposed autocratic revolution from above would be possible.

Dunno' if Frederick the Great was the autocrat to pull something like that off though, considering what kind of state the Prussian monarchy was. I would think it would have required a considerably more visionary man than the courts of the 18th c. could produce. Frederick channelled his exceptional gifts in rather more conventional directions, into activities fitting fo a king, like war. Messing with the very social fabric of his realm would be a very counter-intuitive thing to do for a man like that.

 

[Adler17]

Well in his early years as king he tried to look for the fame in battle. However he started to make social reforms. Abolished torture, liberated all peasants on his own realms and made terraforming as well as the introduction of the potato to avoid famines. Also the law of state was much stengthened by him. Religion was nearly free (he let many Jews to find a new home in Prussia, also the Muslim troops in the army had an own imam). But indeed he was not able and partly also not willing to do much more to liberate the peasants even more. However it was one of the most liberal states of that time. Thus a revolution was avoided.
However indeed a unified feudal Germany would have to deal with that question the one or other way. Could they make reforms to do that? Or did they have to face a revolution? Would there a defeat against France like 1806, so that the reforms became obviously necessary? That are interesting questions. I don't have an answer.

Adler

 

[Dachs]

Well in his early years as king he tried to look for the fame in battle. However he started to make social reforms. Abolished torture, liberated all peasants on his own realms and made terraforming as well as the introduction of the potato to avoid famines. Also the law of state was much strengthened by him. Religion was nearly free (he let many Jews to find a new home in Prussia, also the Muslim troops in the army had an own imam). But indeed he was not able and partly also not willing to do much more to liberate the peasants even more. However it was one of the most liberal states of that time. Thus a revolution was avoided.
However indeed a unified feudal Germany would have to deal with that question the one or other way. Could they make reforms to do that? Or did they have to face a revolution? Would there a defeat against France like 1806, so that the reforms became obviously necessary? That are interesting questions. I don't have an answer.

Adler

Actually, an alternate history has been crafted in which Germany is more-or-less unified by 1820 following a PoD in 1770 with a sort of unlikely British Revolution (in the NES forum alternate history threads); however, it doesn't occur under Friedrich II but rather Josef II of Austria and his immediate successors, due to major centralizing reforms and an Austro-Prussian alliance what turns into more solid ties after a victorious war with ancien regime France and Russia in the first decade of the nineteenth century. Austria is more or less at the helm of that particular Holy Roman Imperial institution, with Prussia basically a puppet under F. W. III.