> Nevertheless, it is true that Prussian imperialism ultimately was a disaster for Germany.
As long as Germany had a competent leader, they could engage in smart offensive moves and improve its standing. And they could have continued doing so.
The problem was strategic leadership fell into the hands of idiots and they backed the Austrians without a clear strategy beyond 'our armies smash'.
> In fact, the 2nd reich was illiberal, with a parliament which was mostly powerless.
Not really. Bismark had to spend huge amount of effort on managing the parliament. And they were constantly pushing into things and increasing their own power.
Even during WW1 the importance of the parliament is underestimated.
Here is the deal. Good diplomacy you have to back and forth. Make both feel like you want to support them if only they did X/Y. But what Germany did was not even trying to preserve the relationship.
There is a balance there. Not allowing the Austrian to make war in the Balkans is pretty basic, and that's all that was needed. What was Austria gone do, not like they have other options. Worst case Austria and France make a deal, but given the terrible state of the Austrian army this isn't a thread, and it would open up better relations with Russia.
German had all the cards and simply played them in a bad way.
As long as Germany had a competent leader, they could engage in smart offensive moves and improve its standing. And they could have continued doing so.
The problem was strategic leadership fell into the hands of idiots and they backed the Austrians without a clear strategy beyond 'our armies smash'.
> In fact, the 2nd reich was illiberal, with a parliament which was mostly powerless.
Not really. Bismark had to spend huge amount of effort on managing the parliament. And they were constantly pushing into things and increasing their own power.
Even during WW1 the importance of the parliament is underestimated.
Adam Tooze has some good research on that.