Let's say that in 1837 when William IV died the nobility of Hanover and the Holy Roman Emperor decided that Victoria could inherit the throne of Hanover after all. When the HRE ends around 1866. Victoria gets a permanent Act of Union passed and we go into Franco-Prussian war much the same way. This sets the stage for World War I, however the Germans must fight through a fortified Hanover before getting to Belgium and the von Schlieffen plan. This makes the British logistic task easier and the British and Germans are now fighting on their own soil (Hanover and Saxony) instead of mainly French soil.

I think that this would result in the British demanding more (maybe all of Lower Saxony) and the Dolchstoss not arising. In this climate the Nazis (since surely disgruntled Bavarian unemployed soliders would still form the NSDAP) would be not focused on the Jewish (and hence by the inaccurate association with Communism) and Bolshevik "threat" but on the "betrayal" of the half-german United Kingdom of Great Britain, Ireland and Hanover. In this case the Socialist tinge of the early NSDAP may end up in a NSDAP/Communist coalition led by Hitler sparking a war between the SU and Germany first versus Czech and Poland, then against UK and France.

Any comments. How would such a war turn out? Would the UK and France have a chance? Would a Maginot line from Hamburg Alsace-Lorraine and down to Switzerland have improved the defense of the West?

But then wouldn't Hannover been turnd from the inside with a local nazi party? It worked to perfection in Austria, so you would have another Anschlüss.

__________________

But would the British government be as idle with an Anschlüss in their sovereign lands as they has been with Austria. Look at South Africa the Boer Nazis where never suffered to become powerful enough to challenge British rule. And there are still the difficulties with the fact that the local monarch would be George V. And Nazi policy was to leave the local monarch intact (Norway, Denmark, and the Netherlands)

I cant see Bismarck as tolerating Hanover outside the Imperial Germany he was forming. The Pope might approve one thing but the "Pilot" would have worked hard to ensure otherwise. Bismarck instigated wars with the Austrian & French empires to gain a few small provinces. He may very well have done the same in the case of Hanover. In the 1860s or 1870s could Britian have provided a realistic defense of Hanover?

This loss of the Royal English crown Hanover territorys would lead to a much earlier alliance between France and Britian and possibly a earlier start of WWI. If the loss of Hanover occured before the Franco Prussian War then a possible alliance between Britian & France for that event would be possible

But would Bismarck have considered Hanover a German state after 200 years of a union between GB and Hanover? Especially since 1/3 of Prussia's imports were from the UK in the 1860s.

He was happy enough to take places like Alsace or Holstein... and there were wars with both the Austrian & French empires which were also economically important to Germany, and after the shooting stopped trade went on much as before. In the 19th Century many politicians were using 'limited' warfare as a diplomatic or political tool and were more than a bit cynical about it. Nationalism & ethnicity were exploited for gaining their objectives and Hanover would be a good target.