The Challenge of German Nationalism 1789-1919 Flashcards
‘The aims of German nationalism remained the same throughout the period from 1789 to 1919.’ How far do you agree? [25]
Plan: Aims shifted from uniting Germany, to protecting the new German Empire form foreign aggression, to dominating Europe and the world.
1) Military aims saw continuity because it was always Prussia that dominated the military. The War of Liberation of 1815 and the Austro-Prussian War of 1866 were both Prussian-led and aimed to establish Prussian dominance to rival the power of Austria. There was a slight change when Prussia aimed not just to rival Austria, but later to dominate the whole of Central Europe and rival other colonial powers in Africa and Sou-East Asia. Welpolitik was directed at different goals but the military aims themselves stayed the same as Prussia desired to increase its influence first in Germany, then on a larger, global scale.
2) There was change in political aims as at first German naitonalism was not desirable among the nearly 400 states of the Holy Roman Empire and then the German Confederation of 1815. It was only through economic and military nationalism that political aims became more coordiinated first in a failed attempt in 1848 at teh Frankfurt Parliament, where the ‘talk shop’ was unable to make any decisions over the definition of Germany (Gross- vs. Kleindeutschland). Later in the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-71, political aims changed again to protecting the new Germany not only through military means but also be tackling internal issues through the Kulturkampf and the anti-socialist movement of the 1870s-90s. The emergence of pressure groups such as the Agrarian League which had 300,000 members changed the political aims further, moving to German dominance as a means of solving internal political issues and economic demand.
3) Economic aims saw only moderate change from 1789 to 1919. The creation of the Zollverein in 1834 aimed to unite Germany through trade and through the use of universal weights and measuring systems, as well as a uniform currency for member states. However, as membership expanded from 25 states in 1836 to all the states by 1871, Germany began to dominate Europe indutrially, outproducing Britain in coal production and producing 143% more steel than Britain in 1913. As industry grew, so did demand and soon economic aims were influencing political aims of expansion to access raw materials and new German-friendly markets in Africa through Weltpolitik.
4) Culturally,
How far do you agree that industrial developments hindered rather than helped the development of German nationalism in the period from 1789 to 1919? [25]
Plan:
Introduction:
1) Economically: Zollverein 1834 united states together and encouraged the development of railways as trade pushed for better transport routes. Universal weights, measurements and currency thanks to Zollverein broke down state barriers. The extensive development of factory complexes such as Krupps also helped unity, especially in the north west of Germany as different raw materials had to be transported form different industrial regions such as the Saar, Ruhr and Rhineland. However, Prussia was the main beneficiary
2) Militarily: Industrial development helped Germany to reform its army. At the Battle of Koniggratz in 1866, the more efficient, light-weight infantry needle guns of the Prussian troops gave them a tactical advantage over the Austrian army, helping to unite the southern German states with the North German Confederation. Industrial development after the Prussian defeats by Napoleon in 1806 also helped General Scharnhorst and Field Marshall Gneisenau to reorganise the Prussian Army into a far more well-equipped fighting force to win the War of Liberation in 1815 and give Prussia a more prestigious place among the German states which would later be used by the likes of Bismarck to lead the way for Germany unification in 1871. Extensive development of military manufacture under Kaiser Wilhelm II also increased German nationalism as the push for the expansion of the navy to rival Britain in turn increase industrial production which gave Germany greater power in Europe and the world, so inspiring ordinary Germans to love their country in a patriotic sense. However, this backfired under the disastrous conflict of WWI and subsequently targeted by the Treaty of Versailles which heavily diminished German industrial output.
3) Politically & socially: Industrial development did not necessarily encourage nationalism because the growth of industry did not increase social mobility or give more power to the working classes. Just as in the Frankfurt Parliament of 1848-49 was divided, with only one peasant and 4 skilled craftsmen among the 600 members, Germany was still very much divided along traditional class lines in the 1880s with the anti-socialist laws
4) Culturally:
Conclusion:
‘The most important reason why Germany was never truly united in the period from 1789 to 1919 was the dominance of Prussia.’ How far do you agree? [25]
Plan: Introduction: 1) 2) 3) 4) Conclusion:
To what extent did German nationalism lack popular appeal in the period from 1789 to 1919? [25]
Plan: 1) Economically: did have mass appeal thanks to Zollverein which united 25 states by 1836 through a universal system of weights, measures and currency. This began to break down traditional state barriers by the 1860s with the expansion of the railway. the strength of this nationalism is also shown through Austria' failure to create its own customs union in 1857. Though this was a Prussian-led union, many states were glad to be part of it for its financial benefits. 2) However, militarily, German nationalism lacked popular appeal because this was Prussian, not German nationalism. The War of Liberation of 1813 was Prussian-only while this was further encouraged with the Rhine Crisis of 1840. During the Austro-Prussian War of 1866, many smaller southern states actually joined Austria's side and were only united superficially in the war against France when these states such as Bavaria had little choice but to bow to Prussian military dominance and join forces. Mass appeal was present with Germany's entry into WWI, but this then caused the catastrophic shock that brought about the deterioration of the German Empire in 1919. 3) Politically, there was a huge lack of mass appeal due to the lack of political consciousness among the majority of the population: the working class. In the 1848-49 revolutions, the disparity between the urban middle classes and the rural peasantry and working class which still made up 2/3 by 1871 were not politically consciousness enough to desire political unity. Earlier, in 1815 at the Congress of Vienna, the 39 German states had shown no interest in uniting themselves, which suited Austria which made efforts to encourage this division. Lack of mass support for the political apsects of German naitonalism meant Prussia was defeated in its bid to create a northern confederation by Austria in 1850 at Olmutz. Therefore German naitonalism was weak and overshadowed by Prussian nationalism. The working class was later alienated and almost banished form poliitcal life through the anti-Socialist Law of 1875 and later Kaiser Wilhelm II declaring socialists the 'enemies of the state'. 4) Culturally, mass support was weak and focused more on anti-French sentiment than a desire for German unity and naitonalism itself. Fichter's Addresses to the Nation were aimed at students and its message did not spread beyond the middle class. Moreover, the Watch on the Rhine, written in 1840, was anti-French sentiment and not a purely pro-German nationalistic feeling. The nationalist festivals at Wartburg Castle in 1817 and the Hambach festival in 1832 did attract 25,000 students, but their message quickly died down and was not allowed to make a coordinated attempt to spread German nationalism under Metternich's repressive policies such as the Six Articles of 1832 and the Carlsbad Decrees. Conclusion: Economically, there was mass appeal for German nationalism as separate states were able to share the benefits of the Zollverein. Miltarily, Prussia dominated all feeling of nationalism.
How far was the development of German nationalism in the period from 1789 to 1919 dependent upon economic forces? [25]
Plan: Introduction: 1) 2) 3) 4) Conclusion:
‘Warfare divided Germany more than it united it.’ How far do you agree with this view of the period from 1789 to 1919? [25]
Plan: Introduction: 1) 2) 3) 4) Conclusion:
How far was the appointment of Bismarck in 1862 a turning point? [25]
Plan: Bismarck was a major TP as he united Germany in under 10 years. Politically and militarily he was very significant, but culturally and economically, he was less successful in uniting Germany through his own action.
Militarily: Bismarck did use warfare as a means of encouraging nationalism and creating unity through the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-71, however, this was no different from the War of Liberation of 1815 where Prussia also led the way in a way against ‘the Old Enemy’ France and the fear of war in the Rhine Crisis of 1840. Kaiser Wilhelm II also capitalised on the hatred of France later in his invasion of France in WWI. However, it was only Bismarck who was able to tie the military aspects to political aspects and so successfully bring about the unification of Germany in 1871. This allowed Bismarck, unlike Wilhelm II, to create a careful diplomatic balance to protect Germany in Europe without the need for future wars which later proved to be the death of Germany when the Empire collapsed in 1919. Wilhelm II proved unable to keep up this balance, refusing to renew the Reinsurance Treaty with Russia in 1890 which had prevented an alliance between Russia and France and so the encirclement of Germany and a two front war. Metternich had not been a comparable turning point as he used the military as a means of keeping Germany divided while Napoleon, as the occupying ruler, used his armies to impose foreign rule with the aim of also dividing the German states while also limiting the military capabilities of Prussia to an army of 42,000 men in the Treaties of Tilsit of Bismarck was the only leader who proved capable of successfully using military matters for unity.
Politically: Bismarck was a major turning point as he was able to harness the power and might of Prussia to unite Germany and unlike during the Revolutions of 1848-49 where the failure of the Prussian king Frederick Wilhelm IV to fully support the Frankfurt Parliament with his army led to political stagnation and the victory of the reactionary forces. The ‘talk shop’ of the revolutionary parliament of 1848 had been unable to decide on the nature of Germany, Kleindeutschland or Gorssdeutschland, while Bismarck seized the initiative through the Wars of Unification and managed foreign policy to suit a long-term plan. Unlike the German Confederation of 1815, Bismarck made long lasting reforms which overcome the petty differences between the German princes and broke down state barriers, not only partly thanks to the long term impact of the Zollverein, but through the German Constitution and the declaration of the German Emperor, the king of Prussia, so establishing a more centralised form of government. Though Napoleon had started this process by dissolving the Holy Roman Empire and creating 39 new states, the only ‘national’ body that followed after his defeat at the Congress of Vienna, the Diet of Frankfurt, was controlled by Austria which desired German division.
Economically: Bismarck’s appointment was less significant economically, especially when compared to the long lasting impacts of the Zollverein. Not only did this customs union provide the first economic unity through a universal system of weights and measurements as well as a currency, but encouraged the expansion of the railway system well into the 1860s and 1880s. However, Bismarck was unable to produce such a drastic change because of pressure form the Junkers who campaigned for more protectionist policies which meant Bismarck could not replicate the successes of the Zollverein on an international scale. His Tariff Bill of 1879 increased the price of bread in Germany as cheaper grain from the USA was heavily taxed, so possibly limiting further trade of German goods and so the growth of industry as other counties responded to the bill in similar fashion, closing German markets in their colonies, which later drove Kaiser Wilhelm II’s Weltpolitik with disastrous consequences for the Empire.
Culturally: Bismarck did little in this sphere, encouraging disunity more than he did unity through the Kulturkampf. In doing so, Bismarck effectively alienated 1/3 of Germany’s population while also encouraging nationalist and anti-German sentiment in predominantly Catholic Alsace-Lorraine and East Prussia where 30,000 Catholic Poles were forced to leave in 1886.
Conclusion: Bismarck united Germany politically and militarily, though not economically as it was the Zollverein was provided a greater TP while culturally his efforts were more dividing than uniting.
Assess the reasons for Prussia’s changing relationship with the other German states in the period form 1789 to 1919. [25 marks]
-INTRO:
Economic development in Prussia was the main reason for its eventual dominance of the German states and the alienation of Austria from German affairs after 1866.
-POLITICALLY:
Austria dominated the German states since 1789, but after the Napoleonic wars and the growth of the Prussian military through the ‘Wars of Liberation’, 1813-1815, Prussia’s influence increased with territorial gains which would later give it an economic advantage by providing a strong industrial base. The ‘Metternich System’ of repression and censorship until 1848 subdued Prussian nationalist aspirations, but even after the March Revolutions, Austrian political influence was strong enough to humiliate Prussia at Olmutz, preventing the Erfurt Union.
The appointment of Bismarck
-MILITARILY:
However, after 1866, Prussia replaced Austria as the dominant German state after its annexation of Northern Middling States to create the NGC. Military success had changed Prussia’s relationship with other states, as its role at the Battle of Waterloo resulted in significant territorial gains.
-ECONOMICALLY:
The Zollverein, established in 1834 as Prussian-led customs union not only gave Prussia an economic advantage, but also started the slow brake down of particularism and localism which would later help Prussia to unite Germany
-SOCIALLY:
-CONCLUSION:
