Personally I would say that it was the Nazis who most strongly eroded German federalism, like everything else in the country (the military, the scientific capacity etc.) by the process of gleichstaltung turning the country into a de facto unitary state.There are historians who try to cast Prussia as something it wasn't, and who eagerly white-wash France, but that has never been my approach. If anything, my essential thesis here is that in terms of Modernity's failings, Germany was initially more or less a victim of France-- not the other way around.
I think a hurdle in clear communication may arise from the fact that you compare the centralisation of the Kaiserreich to that of France, whereas I compare it to that of the Holy Roman Empire. That is: I compare pre-Enlightenment Germany to post-Enlightenment Germany, and I conclude that -- politically, in large part due to French actions & influence -- "modern" Germany became far more centralised and nationalist and militarist and "statist" (if you will) than "historical" Germany had ever been.
Existence of A-H also means a continued existence of the German Empire, which means the conditions necessary for Hitler to rise to power and even if he does - to have absolute power like he did OTL - don't exist.And yes, existence of Austria-Hungary could have prevented the World War 2. First off, there is no way Habsburgs will have allied with a psychopathic little socialist corporal. Without that, and Austria-Hungary intact, there is no Anschluss, nor annexation of Czechoslovakia. Result of this is that even if Hitler does go on to attack Poland (assuming Poland exists in this scenario), he has a much more limited frontline to do it from - allowing the Poles to concentrate their defenses. This means that even with the Soviet attack from the east, Poland may be able to resist for longer, perhaps even long enough for the western Allies to intervene.
Yes, this is what a lot of people don't get - Hitler's socialism was inextricable from his militarism and expansionism. His solution to the "other people's money" problem was in essence to send out the army to invade and loot neighboring countries. World War Two with all its horrors was in large part a wealth redistribution scheme, which is something that has only come to attention recently with Hitler's Beneficiaries.Above scenario, I think, is not a risk Hitler may have taken willingly. Of course, Germany being a socialist state with a failing economy may force his hand anyway...
Last edited: