Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
NJ ... I still don't understand as to why after the Franco/Prussian War that victorious Prussia dropped it's name and called it'self Germany? Isn't Germany a ''Roman'' etymologic term as the ''Germanic'' peoples didn't call themselves that during the days of the western empire. Maybe this stemmed from the Holy Roman Empire who's germanic emperor's thought of themselves as successor roman emperor's who were crowned ''Romanorum Inperator Augustus'' early on.
The people and culture of the various territories that incorporated the Holy Roman Empire and that area of Central Europe had long identified themselves as "German". In 1512 the name of the Holy Roman Empire was officially changed to "Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation". The many territories that made up the Empire were called the "German States". However, there was really no strong central authority that bound these territories together.
Throughout much of history the various German States allied themselves with different factions and there was extensive warfare between them. Generally France and Austria were always attempting to influence one group or the other for their own gains.
The French effectively ended the Holy Roman Empire in 1806 and began forming their own blocks of German States. Following the Napoleonic Wars the Congress of Vienna decided that there should be a more formal alliance between the German States to help balance threats by France and Russia. This led to the creation of the German Confederation. The Confederation was rather weak poltically but provided a unifying identity within the German States through trade and political dialogue.
The two premier states of the Confederation were Prussia and Austria who both aggressively maneuvered to become the dominant state. In 1848 the Confederation was briefly dissolved following a revolution attempting to create a singular German nation. The revolution failed and the maneuverings of Prussia and Austria continued. This dispute culminated in the Austro-Prussian War of 1866 that guaranteed Prussian dominance of the Germans.
However, there was one last influential player on the German States, France. France had long held sway over the German States along their borders. These states were largely Catholic and nominally pro-French. The Franco-Prussian War essentially sealed the deal that Prussia was the only dominant state in Central Europe.
Feeding into the desires for the creation of a formal German nation, the Prussians used their influence to create the German Empire. The name was important as it showed that it was the entity that represented all of the German people, not just a single state.
Ok NJ, i think i got it ..... so in otherwords when Prussia joined with the other germanic states (except Austria) in the new ''confederation'' if they had insisted on calling it Prussia or Prussian Empire then the other german states would have balked as they would have felt slighted and so they decided on the name ''Germany'' as that was acceptable to all states involved.
Ok NJ, i think i got it ..... and so in otherwords when Prussia joined with the other Germanic states (except Austria) in the new ''confederation'' if they had insisted on calling it Prussia or Prussian Empire then the other german states would have balked as they would have felt slighted and so they all decided the name ''Germany'' as that was acceptable to all states involved.
Pretty much. The other states wouldn't have necessarily been willing to cede their soveriegnty to a "Prussian" state, but a "German" state was acceptable as it represented all the German people. Throughout this time Bismarck was very concerned with framing everything that happened, from the wars to the treaties to the political talk to be in the interest of the German people, not the Prussian state.
austria - IIUC the original poster asked about survival for a few more decades, not indefinitely. While there were definite contradictions in the Empire (as AJP Taylor said, the germans and magyars only needed the empire as long as it preserved german/magyar dominance, and the slavs/romanians only needed it as a barrier to german/magyar dominance) in fact the empire had managed to navigate them pretty well, and by 1905 to 1910 transnational ideologies - social democracy and christian democracy - were rising in importance. The hungarian army appropriations were a source of regular crisis, but Vienna always managed to muddle through. So I would say the moment AH coudnt survive was July 1914 - it couldnt survive the war. No war, I think AH might well have muddled through some more decades - if no WW1 is a plausible scenario.
austria - IIUC the original poster asked about survival for a few more decades, not indefinitely. While there were definite contradictions in the Empire (as AJP Taylor said, the germans and magyars only needed the empire as long as it preserved german/magyar dominance, and the slavs/romanians only needed it as a barrier to german/magyar dominance) in fact the empire had managed to navigate them pretty well, and by 1905 to 1910 transnational ideologies - social democracy and christian democracy - were rising in importance. The hungarian army appropriations were a source of regular crisis, but Vienna always managed to muddle through. So I would say the moment AH coudnt survive was July 1914 - it couldnt survive the war. No war, I think AH might well have muddled through some more decades - if no WW1 is a plausible scenario.
I think it is unlikely Europe could have got through the first half of the 20th Century without a major war. Everyone from the bottom to the top of society wanted war, and the world pie had been pretty much divided up at that point. There were really only a handful of punching bag nations left for the big boys to devour so they were left having to take aim at each other if they wanted to significantly grow.
That said, I wonder about Austria-Hungary. They certainly had one last good shot at Prussia had they chosen to enter the Franco-Prussian War (but for some reason they refused to do so without Italian help). It isn't a sure thing, but with Prussia mobilized against France AH would have had a better chance than they had in their last war with Prussia. It seems a Germany led by AH instead of Prussia or a greater Austria built on annexing a lot of Prussia's minor allies might have put AH in a stronger position going forward than it was in reality. At the same time their was a point in time during WWI when they had accomplished their war aims, but they chose to stick by Germany instead of trying to make a separate peace. I don't know that AH coming out victorious in WWI would have given it more decades, but surely it would have lasted a few more years at least.
Apartheid South Africa was doomed from the moment it formally existed, when the National Party won the 1947 election and formally created apartheid. There were segregation laws already on the books and all sorts of other discriminatory legislation, but Smuts was planning to gradually relax segregation and give Africans the vote. His fellow Afrikaners wanted to rachet up the racism to preserve their power. (Anglo South Africans supported Smuts' United Party, not Malan and Strijdom's National Party.) The end of white rule in Africa was inevitable - apartheid just made South African society far more screwed up and increased tensions that would eventually make things far worse. Somehow it managed to last far longer than many thought, though. Laurens van der Post wrote in the late 1950s that the collapse of apartheid was imminent due to the end of colonialism and the lack of feasibility of a government blatantly based on racism. The question here is how did it manage to last as long as it did? No surprise it collapsed as a result of the end of the Cold War, but one would have expected it to collapse sooner. Did US and UK support keep it going?
I think it is unlikely Europe could have got through the first half of the 20th Century without a major war. Everyone from the bottom to the top of society wanted war, and the world pie had been pretty much divided up at that point. There were really only a handful of punching bag nations left for the big boys to devour so they were left having to take aim at each other if they wanted to significantly grow.
That said, I wonder about Austria-Hungary. They certainly had one last good shot at Prussia had they chosen to enter the Franco-Prussian War (but for some reason they refused to do so without Italian help). It isn't a sure thing, but with Prussia mobilized against France AH would have had a better chance than they had in their last war with Prussia. It seems a Germany led by AH instead of Prussia or a greater Austria built on annexing a lot of Prussia's minor allies might have put AH in a stronger position going forward than it was in reality. At the same time their was a point in time during WWI when they had accomplished their war aims, but they chose to stick by Germany instead of trying to make a separate peace. I don't know that AH coming out victorious in WWI would have given it more decades, but surely it would have lasted a few more years at least.
From the end of the Austro-Prussian War the French, Austrians and Italians were working to create an alliance between them against Prussia and the new North German Confederation.
The Austrians feared two things more than Prussia, the rising power of Italy and their own internal issues related to the rising tide of nationalism within their empire, particularly in the Balkans.
The main sticking point to getting an alliance done was the fact that France had a 20 year military occupation of Rome for the purpose of defending the Pope. The Italians wanted the French to leave, so they could occupy their capital. While Napoleon III was open to an extent even going so far as lobbying the Pope to accept various proposals (all were rejected by the Pope), he was heavily lobbied by the conservatives and clergy that put him in power to maintain the defense of the Pope. France afterall was a Catholic nation first and foremost and would not turn its back on the pontiff.
The Austrians could not enter an alliance unless the Italians were a part of it to ensure the integrity of their southwestern borders. The Italians wouldn't enter the alliance unless they got Rome. The French couldn't cede Rome do to public pressure at home and the Pope's refusal to compromise.
The sides sat in this deadlock constantly going back and forth attempting to reach a compromise when the Franco-Prussian War broke out. At the beginning of the war there was still hope that Austira and Italy would enter the fight and they were in fact beginning to lean that way. However, the rapid Prussian advance and successive victories made entering the war for the Italians and Austrians a moot point. It would have taken the Austrians over a month just to assemble their armies. It only took the Prussians a month 4 August 1870 - 1 September 1870 to crush the Frnech armies and lay siege to Paris.
The final reason is one that ties back to my initial point of decline, the Austro-Hungarian Compromise. The Compromise created a dual crown, one of Austria and one of Hungary. It also create and invested power in two Parliaments, one Austrian and one Hungarian. When the war broke out the Hungarian Parliament was "vigorously opposed" to joining the war on the side of France. Their refusal to support the war and the rapid Prussian advance together led Austria to remain an observer and not take an active role in the war.
Apartheid South Africa was doomed from the moment it formally existed, when the National Party won the 1947 election and formally created apartheid. There were segregation laws already on the books and all sorts of other discriminatory legislation, but Smuts was planning to gradually relax segregation and give Africans the vote. His fellow Afrikaners wanted to rachet up the racism to preserve their power. (Anglo South Africans supported Smuts' United Party, not Malan and Strijdom's National Party.) The end of white rule in Africa was inevitable - apartheid just made South African society far more screwed up and increased tensions that would eventually make things far worse. Somehow it managed to last far longer than many thought, though. Laurens van der Post wrote in the late 1950s that the collapse of apartheid was imminent due to the end of colonialism and the lack of feasibility of a government blatantly based on racism. The question here is how did it manage to last as long as it did? No surprise it collapsed as a result of the end of the Cold War, but one would have expected it to collapse sooner. Did US and UK support keep it going?
Some excellent points in here. I would attribute the beginning of the end of apartheid to the black nationalism sentiment which rose across much of the continent during decolonization efforts. With the mass exodus of whites from Kenya, Angola, and Mozambique, it was becoming ever more clear that the winds of change were blowing across Africa. Rhodesia and South-West Africa were essential buffer states which took some of the strain from guerrilla forces off of the South African defense forces, but by the late 70s and early 80s it was evident that more and more resources would have to be allocated towards fighting the infamous Border Wars. To the South African's credit, they were pretty innovative and efficient even in the face of economic sanctions from the international community. A few miles out of Pretoria lies a former aviation tech plant where military aircraft were built during the height of the border wars. Ultimately though, the end of apartheid though can only be attributed to those outspoken members in the white community who fought during the height of the regime to make April 27th 1994 possible.
Interesting perspective in regards to its ending being conjoined to the phase of euphoria surrounding the end of the Cold War. I haven't really thought of it too much from that perspective...
Location: New Albany, Indiana (Greater Louisville)
11,974 posts, read 25,486,476 times
Reputation: 12187
Ancient Greece and the Mongol Empire - both were too dependent on one great military leader and collapsed soon after both died
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
