This.
But then Germany's Kaiser Wilhelm I got old and died, and was soon succeeded by his grandson, Wilhelm II - who didn't like Bismark's cautious foreign policy. Wilhelm II wanted vigorous & rapid expansion, to enlarge Germany's (and his) place in the sun. Bismark, who was getting a bit old & unsteady himself, was replaced in 1890 with a new German Chancellor, more to the young Kaiser's liking.
Note that both WWI and WWII stuck Germany in large, long, two-front European wars. And that Germany got into WWI under the same Kaiser (Wilhelm II) who had dumped Bismark for being too cautious and anti-war.
Otto von Bismarck was very adept at putting together treaties and alliances to hold things at bay or in stasis until Prussia could benefit. Bismarck understood to have limited objectives--Bismarck had a plan--Bismarck always had a plan.
"Twisted History--Otto von Bismarck" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zc3Y-dU_GjM&list=PLhyKYa0YJ_...
Wilhelm II, alas, was an idiot. Anything with subtlety was doomed.
To be fair, it wasn't clear that even Bismarck could have kept all the plates spinning indefinitely. And Bismarck was getting old.
The biggest plate (the Russian alliance) was already falling when Bismarck was replaced, it hit the floor when German diplomats decided Bismarck's two-faced policy was unsustainable.
Wilhelm's obsession with a massive fleet to compete with England lost any hopes of forming an alliance with them and resulted in Germany being seen as a threat. Having a large fleet puts you at odds against England no matter what - that is their last line of defense. It's interesting to think what might have happened had Germany abandoned any aims on a massive navy and focused all those resources on it's army instead. My hunch is no mis-alignement with England and a very different looking world today if that happened.
I don't think so. The biggest mistake Germany made was letting its alliance with Russia lapse in 1891, in favor of trying to snag an alliance with the UK, which wasn't interested in one (Britain favored a policy of neutrality on the continent). This leads France to seize the opportunity and ally with Russia in 1894. A series of colonial issues leads the UK to realize around 1900 or so that not having any allies wasn't exactly a good thing, especially when you've got lots of people you're butting heads against.
Wilhelm was an absolute wrecking ball when it came to diplomacy. His tendency to show support for anyone fighting the British in colonial ventures in the late 1890s (especially the Boer War) couldn't have helped any chance for a UK-German alliance. It's only after tentative attempts to come to an agreement break down in 1901 that the naval arms race actually becomes an issue in UK-Germany relations: indeed, it's not really until dreadnoughts make the existing fleets (lopsidedly in favor of the UK) obsolete that German navy buildup actually poses a threat to the UK. The treaties the UK does enter into are less military alliances than they are colonial tension defusing, and Wilhelm's tendency to do the opposite would have likely made any formal UK-Germany treaty rather short-lived.
The naval arms race mostly takes place after the UK-German treaty attempts ended, and redirecting that money to a larger army would probably have pushed UK even harder into the Franco-Russian camp: during its period of continental isolation, its greatest fear is that of a second Napoleon, who conquers most of Europe and shuts the British out of it. A stronger German army makes that look more plausible, and aligning against Germany helps avert that catastrophe.
The alliance lapse was forced by then, the issue is that Russia and Austria-Hungary, the two historic German allies, were competing for influence over the Balkans. Bismarck, rather than taking a side or remaining neutral, tried to become the arbiter of that dispute, and led a duplicitous diplomacy towards Russia. That was largely due to his attempt to freeze Europe in a diplomatic state that benefited Germany, rather than acknowledging the changing nature of diplomacy and trying to find new allies and a new balance.
By 1891, German diplomats were faced with a tough choice: either continuing a two-faced policy which was doomed anyway, since Russia was not stupid, or acknowledging that and letting the alliance lapse.
By the time WWI rolled around, German veterans still in service were almost exclusively veterans of colonial wars. However, just about everybody from the Kaiser and central command down to the rank and file believed that a war against other Europeans would (and should) be fought differently from those colonial wars. Thus, the military philosophy that they thought won the Franco-Prussian war was brought to the present with very little modification, but enacted by people who had never actually seen its use.
This still happens today, too. Look at the volume of tanks that NATO countries shipped to Iraq and Afghanistan. What tank losses occurred were predominantly from infantry, because there were simply no enemy tanks available to engage.
"Fighting the last war" has been another way I've heard it referred to. It is why, for instance, I didn't agree with the US DoD curtailing the F-22 purchase plans in favor of more counter-insurgency focused efforts.
As to tanks in Iraq/Afghanistan, lets not get tricked into thinking they were useless because there were no tanks for them to fight. They proved supremely useful as mobile pillboxes or observation posts, that could sit somewhere and use their sensor suites that were far and away better than the binoculars or nvg's a solider could put to their face.
> Believing that unification had come about as a result of military competence
It did.
> they mapped the future of the German Empire in terms of military power.
All empires are created in terms of military power. In what terms was the german empire supposed to compete against the british, french, russian, american, japanese, etc empires? The statement cannot be dumb because it's devoid of substance. It's literally a meaningless statement.
> Thus, Chrastil concludes, German victory in 1871 became catastrophic not just for Germany but ultimately for the rest of the world.
How was it 'catastrophic' as without it, germany wouldn't have existed? Also, 'rest of the world'? Germany's rise and germany's role in ww1/ww2 primarily affected germany's neighbors. Just because it was catastrophic for parts of europe doesn't mean it was catastrophic for everyone else. It's the same nonsense like 'the world is against russia' when most of the world is on russia's side or neutral. Like they all read from the same propaganda manual.
And it likely would’ve meant no WW1
WW1 was almost guaranteed to happen, if anything Bismarck's treaties might have delayed that.
Of course. Because Germany had their back. If AH was in weaker position it might not have evencome to that because they would have been more willing to compromise in general.
AH would be also allied/aligned with the South German state(s) which would’ve meant that its relations with Prussia would have been cold and antagonistic if not openly hostile.
> There were too many people at the time who wanted that war for various reasons for it not to happen ine way or the other.
In some ways it’s a direct outcome of what happened in the 1870s.
No unified Germany, would have meant there would’ve been much lesser need to form alliances to contain it (e.g. Russia and Prussia would’ve probably been allies/much closer since they both hated AH)
Which makes a Franco-British rapprochement much less likely (Britain was generally pro-Prussia in 1870 after all). Also in the future UK would’ve likely aligned with Prussia/North Germany just to maintain the balance of power in Europe.
All in all.. yeah there would still be war, we’d just be more likely to see a higher number smaller scale conflicts instead of something like WW1.
Austria was very willing to go to war in Serbia alone, it did help that Germany wanted to go to war with Russia. And Russia was very willing to go to war with both, Germany and Austria. After all so, as I said earlier, reasons for war in Europe were plenty. And everyone thought these wars would have been quick affairs like the war of 1870. Turned out everybody was wrong.
Regarding potential history if Germany didn't unite, I do not speculate. Especially since I doubt history would have been any better anyway.
You’d still have North Germany Prussia and Austria aligned South Germany which would’ve been fairly strong power in their own right and none of the major powers (especially Britain) would’ve any interest in allowing the other to gobble up neighboring German states (that didn’t matter as much back in the 1600s due to technological/logistical/economic/etc. reasons)
> Austria was very willing to go to war in Serbia alone,
Austria was certainly not willing to go to war with Russia alone.
> After all so, as I said earlier, reasons for war in Europe were plenty
German overconfidence about their capacity to wage a war on two fronts possibly being the main one.
Also no unified Germany would have meant that France and Britain wouldn’t have had that many reasons.
But sure, if your world looks better when everything can be blamed on Germany since, at least, Bismarck, by all means go for it.
Regarding Germany confidence, I mentioned that more than once, didn't I? Germany had one shot, they tried with some variation of the Schlieffen plan. They failed, but were too comitted to stop. Not that the Entente wpuld have been ready to negotiate a peace treaty to begin with.
But let's speculate, and pick an other evil war mongering nation responsible for the misery of the world, one that is equally redicioulous. The British Empire. Had Napoleon not tried to defeat Russia, but instead comitted to defeat the British in Spain, he could have formed a united nation in central Europe out of France, Spain, the various German Kingdoms and maybe even Austria as a very close ally. As a result, no German nation to behin with, hence no Hitler and no WW2 in the form we know it. So, the Brits are at fault, especially Wellington withbhis audavity to defeat Napoleon at Waterloo! See how that is completely laughable? History doesn't happen in a vacuum, and it did happen the way it did for a reason. What ifs are completely pointless, understanding why things happened the way they is very important so.
They didn’t. Britain and France went to war with Russia to stop it from dismembering the Ottoman empire.
The war over Bessarabia, Crimean just happened to be nearby and it was very strategically important in the region.
> when everything can be blamed on Germany since, at least, Bismarck, by all means go for it.
I’m not “blaming” Germany, just saying that its unification disrupted the balance of power in Europe. Many of the things which led to WW1 were mainly a reaction to that.
> So, the Brits are at fault,
Why do you think I’m try to blame on anyone for anything?
> What ifs are completely pointless,
They might be fun. I don’t believe we can just assume that history is 100% deterministic.
> understanding why things happened the way they is very important so.
Yes?
Germany's late development was indeed a tragedy for the german nation. Compared to france, britain, russia, etc, their inability to unite and compete relegated germany to a 2nd rate nation forever and the german nation has little say in world affairs compared to britain, france and russia. There is a reason why britain, france and russia are permanent members of the security council while germany isn't.
> And it likely would’ve meant no WW1
WW1 was a result of interests outside of germany. WW1 happens regardless of where germany exists or not.
Maybe. It would’ve been a very different war between different nations for probably very different reasons, though.
> WW1 was a result of interests outside of germany.
I don’t see how can that be even remotely true.