Hacker News Reader

Comment by ffhhttt | Hacker News Reader

Germany being divided in South and North Germany (or eventually forming a somewhat loose federation) wouldn’t exactly have been a tragedy for the German nation.

And it likely would’ve meant no WW1

View on HN

It was not the Prussians and Germans that declared war first in WW1, that honour belongs to Austria-Hungary. 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. Some French wanted Alssace-Lorraine back. Austria wanted the Balkans. Germany wanted to settle tensions with Russia before the latter cought up enough to make that impossible (again, history showed the reasoning was largely correct), Russia did want Austria to get the Balkans and Britian was bound by alliances they needed to maintain their colonies. Not to forget the Ottomans, they and the Russians wanted the same patches of land along the black sea. And the Ottomans and British wanted the same land across North Africa.

WW1 was almost guaranteed to happen, if anything Bismarck's treaties might have delayed that.

> It was not the Prussians and Germans that declared war first in WW1, that honour belongs to Austria-Hungary

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.

No unified Germany, which it only became after WW1, would have meant the German states were up for grabs by what ever large powered had territorial ambitions. And how something like that plays out was demostrated by the 30 Years War.

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.

> German states were up for grabs by what ever large powered had territorial ambitions

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 you said yourself that in your scenarion Austria would be allied with South Germany. And you conviniently forget the Ottoman Empire. Sure, WW2 history is much better known, and the Ottomans didn't exist by then anymore. But still, the Ottomans went to war against Russia by themselves, and were actually allied with Germany and Austria in real life. Also not to forget, not that long before WW1 Britain and Russia went to war over Crimea.

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.

> Britain and Russia went to war over Crimea.

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 being divided in South and North Germany (or eventually forming a somewhat loose federation) wouldn’t exactly have been a tragedy for the German nation.

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.

> WW1 happens regardless of where germany exists or no

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.

To be fair, had Germany not become unified, the next big war would likely have been between Russia and A-H, earlier than 1914. It's hard to imagine what history would have become after that, especially whether a WW1 would have happened.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com