[imagicnation]

Would Germany still have united the way it did or at all if Bismark was out of the picture?

[Thunderhawk]

If not Bismarck, then some one else.


He was a link in the chain, a prominant one, but still building on past work. The ruling class of Prussians subverted the various German cultures and peoples in Germany into something subserviant to a centralized state ran by Aristrocratic Businessmen/generals, akin to the situation in Prussia.

(Things to consider: How many generals were not Prussian or trained there? How many major businesses werent owned or controled, in part, by Prussian Junkers? How many influenced non-Prussian politicians were there?)


The cultural impact was there, the changes set. Unification under the Prussian rulers was happening, it would have continued into a formal unified state eventually.

Bismarck's (Prussian nobility in general) anti-Catholic stance didnt help unification, though it was useful as a tool to speed up the conversion of Catholic non-Germans into non-Catholic Germans.

[Clausewitz]

Bismarck wasn't responsible for the 1848 revolution, and I think that revolution (even though it had a different political tack than Bismarck wanted) signified that Germans wanted Germany. I think other Prussians, with Bismarck or without, were interested in pursuing leadership among Germans and Germans looked to Prussia as a leader.

On the other hand, Austria might have stepped up to the plate.

[imagicnation]

Bismarck wasn't responsible for the 1848 revolution, and I think that revolution (even though it had a different political tack than Bismarck wanted) signified that Germans wanted Germany.

Germans had always wanted a Germany which is why the Holy Roman Empire was supported for so long. However, Germans were afraid of losing priviledges and power if they formed into even small states. That is why there were so many free city-states in Germany.

[Clausewitz]

Germans had always wanted a Germany which is why the Holy Roman Empire was supported for so long. However, Germans were afraid of losing priviledges and power if they formed into even small states. That is why there were so many free city-states in Germany.

Well, first, I dispute the idea that Germans predominantly liked the HRE; keeping it intact required massive resources from abroad in the 16th and 17th centuries, and they weren't in any hurry to make it meaningful again after 1648. There was no love lost when it was finally dissolved either.

If there was any great popular love for the institution beyond that I'm not aware of the evidence.

Also, I don't think it's consistent to say that the Germans wanted Germany but preferred to keep their city states. If they wanted Germany, they would have to have done so with the qualifier "...at the cost of the sovereignty of my locality," and they didn't express this will meaningfully and with any great force until 1848.

[Thunderhawk]

For those curious, HRE = Holy Roman Empire.

I think other Prussians, with Bismarck or without, were interested in pursuing leadership among Germans and Germans looked to Prussia as a leader.

I disagree. Prussia (lesser extent Austria) were looked at as leaders, as they were the only real German powers. Prussian aristocracy however wanted to become the rulers. A fine line perhabs, but the 1848 revolution and the Prussian actions afterwards attest to their desire for power over Germans - not a desire to be with them.