CAMBRIDGE A - LEVEL HISTORY NOTES

NATIONALISM/ UNIFICATION OF GERMANY

9489 PAPER 1: 2020-2021(SOURCE BASED)
KEY QUESTIONS
1. WHAT WERE THE CAUSES OF THE REVOLUTIONS IN 1848-49?

2. WHAT WERE THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE 1848-49 REVOLUTIONS?

3. WHAT WAS BISMARK‟S INTENTIONS FOR PRUSSIA AND GERMANY FROM

1862 TO 1866?

4. HOW AND WHY WAS THE UNIFICATION OF GERMANY ACHIEVED BY 1871?

WHAT WERE THE CAUSES OF THE REVOLUTIONS IN

1848-49?
SPECIFIED CONTENT
THE IMPACT OF THE METTERNICH SYSTEM ON THE STATES OF
GERMANY.
 Klement Von Metternich was the Austrian Foreign Minister (1814-48). He was born
in 1773, the son of a Count and later made into a Prince. He was educated from the
first for an outstanding position in the Imperial court which became fixed. He spent
all his public life striving to protect Austria from Napoleon 1 who represented ideas
associated with the French revolution that had brought, in Metternich‟s own words, “
…untold misery to Europe.” Metternich was thus determined to suppress any signs
of Liberalism and Nationalism in Europe as a result.
 The period 1815-48 was regarded as the “Metternich period” and his priority to
maintain international order was equally called, “ The Metternich system.”
Metternich‟s opposition to nationalism in Germany was therefore a part of his defence
of Austria. He used the army to maintain control throughout the country, selecting his
soldiers from different places so that their loyalty could not be challenged. Metternich
also relied on spies to bring him reports of anyone suspected of stirring up nationalist
feeling. He also used rigorous censorship hence every mail was intercepted and
checked for signs of nationalist activity.
 The Congress of Vienna, 1815 made no attempt to revive the defunct Holy Roman
Empire. The 360 states by force of circumstances, had been boiled down to a mere
39 and the Confederation (bund) into which these formed, was deliberately kept as
weak as possible. The bund was under the control of Austria, the most powerful state
in the Europe and the Bund was also presided over by Metternich.
1
  Metternich was not alone in his opposition to nationalism. In 1815, Alexander 1 of
Russia, Francis 1 of Austria and Friedrich Wilhelm 1 of Prussia signed the Holy
Alliance to safeguard the power of monarchs and Christianity in their respective
countries. In private, Metternich dismissed this alliance as a “ high sounding nothing”
but he gave it his public support because he depended on the co-operation of these
countries to prevent the spread of nationalism.

THE INFLUENCE OF LIBERAL IDEAS AND THE GROWTH OF

NATIONALIST IDEAS
 According to Roberts, “ Liberalism was a political philosophy inspired by the ideas
of the French revolution regarding freedom of thought and speech, freedom from
arrest and imprisonment without trial as among the most important rights of man.”
 Liberals also demanded a Constitution which was a set of consistent individual
freedom namely freedom of speech, worship, assembly and press; freedom from
arbitrary arrest, imprisonment and taxation. In this context, liberals favour
Constitutional or Republican government. Constitutionalists want the monarch‟s
power limited by a written document guaranteeing rights and giving the people some
say in the running of the country. In the same vein, Republicans want to dispense with
a monarchy and give the people a lot of influence in government.
 In Germany, liberalism became a battle cry of the opponents of Metternich, post 1815
Vienna Congress. Thus, liberal ideas inspired nationalist movements after 1815-
1848.
 According to T.A Morris, “ Nationalism is the belief that the natural division of
mankind is the nation.” Nationalism has roots in the national thought of the 18th
century and the French revolution. It emerged as a combination of diplomacy, war
and economic developments.
 Nationalism also implied that people speaking the same language, of the same race
with the same customs should correspond to an independent state in an independent
territorial unit. The strongest element in the 19th century was linguistic nationalism. A
common religion was also another factor found in all nationalist movements. For
instance, Germany was divided between Catholic and Protestant faith. The term
nationalism came into current usage in Germany in the 1830s with the Zollverein
movement.
 Nationalists believe that all those of the same race or background should be united in
a single country.

NB: In the 19th century in Germany, all liberals were nationalists but not all
nationalists were liberals.

2
 The term „Germany‟ had no real political significance at the turn of the 19th century.
The multitude of states, 360, which made it up were loosely linked their membership
of the archaic Holy Roman empire. According to Miller, “Both the French revolution
and the Napoleonic conquests laid the basis for the movement towards unification
which was reinforced by the economic and social pressures.
 The French provided the stimulus to the movement towards national unification.
During the period of the French wars, the French had reduced the number of states
and brought the Confederation of the Rhine under direct French rule. The
amalgamation of states had helped to improve administration and to topple out dated
laws. The growing middle classes had been particularly influenced by the French
model of representative government and had benefitted from the increased use of
French legal codes.
 Alongside of these liberal ideas, nationalism had also made some limited progress
during the period of French domination, particularly in the universities. Defeat
stimulated Prussia into modernisation which enabled her to become a leader in the
movement. A peculiarly German form of cultural and political nationalism was
germinated.
 Before 1789, there were little obvious sign of German „ Patriotism‟ Germans tended
to ape the French in language and culture. German liberals welcomed the French
revolution and even the French military successes. By 1813-14, there were signs of
German nationalism emerging German philosophers, Johann Von Herder, Johann
Fichte and Georg Hegel, all contributed theories which supported the ideas that
Prussia and Germany were destined to create a great Germanic nation. German
student groups had certainly taken the lead in local risings to expel the French.
 However, the historian A.J.P Taylor had dismissed the extent of active nationalist
involvement in 1813-15. He wrote, „the myth of the German national uprising against
Napoleon 1 was fostered by the German intellectuals.‟
 After 1814, neither the restoration of pre-1801 Germany nor its total unification were
practical propositions. There were too many rivalries and jealousies and vested
interests. The Confederation (bund) of 39 states was an attempt by Metternich to
establish stable and controllable system in control in Europe. As far as unification was
concerned, it laboured under several handicaps.
 The bund was set up in June 1815. It was not intended to promote unity in Germany
but to offer a means whereby the 39 separate German states could provide for their
joint defence and discuss matters of common interest. The terms of the Federal Act
made it clear that the independence and integrity of the individual states was to be
maintained. There was to be a diet known as the Bundesrat. This would meet
permanently in Frankfurt. It would have 17 members, one each from the 11 largest
states and six representing various groups of smaller states.

3
 The members of the Bundesrat were to be chosen by the rulers of the various states
and the President would be an Austrian nominee. The President was to be responsible
for deciding the business to be discussed and the procedure to be adopted.
 The Confederation could appoint ambassadors and make foreign treaties on behalf of
its members. Members were not to declare war on one another and could, if
necessary, organise a Federal army and Federal defences. Members could develop
commercial and economic co-operation between the states. Individual states were to
establish Constitutions within their own domains.
 Any fundamental change in the laws of the Confederation was to be considered by a
General Assembly of 69 members so as to have the full agreement of all member
states for the proposal.
 It is clear that a number of these terms placed limits on the powers of the Federal Diet.
It represented the Princes, not the people. It was subject to an Austrian Presidency.
Several other foreign countries, England, which controlled Hanover, Denmark, ruler
of Holstein and Holland, which owned Luxemburg, would be present at such a
gathering. These powers were unlikely to support any major disruption to the Vienna
settlement. According to Murphy, “ The need for general assembly for any
fundamental change made the possibility of radical reform virtually nil.”
 Furthermore, commercial co-operation was discussed in 1816 but local jealousies
meant that nothing significant was done. Similarly, a scheme to build Federal
fortresses for the defence of Germany was soon abandoned. Austria and Prussia also
ignored the demand that the states provide constitutions. Friedrich Wilhelm 111 of
Prussia was solidly conservative. He ruled in conjunction with the Junker class. He
enjoyed close ties with Austria and was a personal friend of Metternich.
 However, in the rest of Germany, some Princes did introduce more liberal forms of
government. In Bavaria in 1818, for example, a parliament was set up representing the
peasants, town folk and nobles. Baden, Wurttenberg, Saxe-Weimar and Hesse-
Darmstadt all introduced constitutions modelled on the French Charter of 1814.
 In many ways, the Germany Confederation reflected the views of the time. Although
ideas of liberalism and nationalism had begun to develop in Germany, there was still a
strong degree of state loyalty. There was a traditional respect for the rulers of the
individual states and men thought themselves as Bavarians or Prussians, rather than
Germans.
 Furthermore, although the Germans shared a common language and cultural heritage,
there were other divisions within the Confederation. For example, in the north and
east, the people were predominantly Lutheran Protestant and in the south and west,
Catholic. As Murphy argues, “ Such divisions put a brake on national developments.”

4
 EARLY LIBERALISM AND NATIONALISM, 1815-48
 The years 1815-48 have been referred to by German historians as the Vormarz years.
They are traditionally regarded as a time of political debate when the new liberal and
nationalistic ideas were spread through books, pamphlets and lectures. The evidence
would suggest that political debate was mainly confined to the young and educated,
particularly University students and their Professors, together with some of the middle
and upper classes.
 Poetry, music, history and philosophy, based on a hatred of France and the greatness
of Germany, all encouraged the growth of nationalism in the 1820s and 1830s. in the
Universities, a number of student societies advocating liberal reform developed.
These included the Gymnastic clubs for patriots (Turnvater) and the students‟
drinking clubs with vaguely patriotic aims. (Burschenchaften), inspired by the ideas
of Friedrich Jahn. The ideas spread rapidly, helped by the German system whereby
students moved from one University to another in the course of their studies.
However, there was little real challenge to authority in the immediate post 1815 years.
 The first physical expression of liberalism and nationalism post 1815 was the
Wartburg Festival in 1817. It was organised by the students of Jena University and
brought together several hundred members of the Burschenchaften. They assembled
to hear speeches and sing songs. It was officially a celebration of the anniversary of
Luther’s 95 theses, which had led to the Protestant Reformation in Europe. Martin
Luther had sheltered in this same castle. It was also the 4th anniversary of the battle of
Leipzig (1813) when the Germans had defeated the French. Thus, the rally had a part
religious and part nationalist significance.
 Through the winter of 1817-18, the students continued to push their liberal ideas.
They met in secret to draw up a manifesto demanding free speech, trial by jury, a free
press, the abolition of the secret police and censorship and the establishment of a
Federal state ruled by a German emperor.
 Another development was the murder of the anti-liberal writer von Kotzebue in 1819
by a mentally ill member of the Busrchenchaften. In response to this, Metternich
took a leading role in asserting the authority of conservative powers. Metternich
issued the Carlsbad decrees. These decrees were designed to crush agitation and to
deliver a clear message to any would be revolutionaries. Demands for reform would
be treated as treason in future.
 All Universities were to have a government supervisor. Any Professor found to be
spreading “unsound” ideas was to be removed from his University and forbidden from
teaching anywhere in the Confederation. Any student expelled from one University
for his political opinions was forbidden from studying at another.

5
 THE IMPACT OF THE ZOLLVEREIN
 The greatest monument to the economic initiative of the Prussian government was the
establishment of the German Customs Union (Zollverein) in 1834. The Zollverein
was the culmination of the creation of smaller unions throughout the 1820s. Prussia
benefited by securing its economic influence above that of Austria in German affairs.
Prussia‟s leading position in the Zollverein was recognised by those clauses in the
establishing treaty which accepted its tariffs as the norm for all, and which
recognised the right of the Prussian government to negotiate on behalf of the union as
a whole.
 In 1818, about 70 Rhineland manufacturers complained to the Prussian authorities
about the competition they faced from foreign imports, particularly Britain. As a
result, Prussia carried out a review of its chaotic internal and external trading system.
According to Morris, “ Prussia had nearly 4 000 customs duties of various kinds on
goods entering Prussia and 67 different tariffs within its territories.”
 Prussia passed the Maassen’s Tariff Reform Act of 26 May, 1818, which created the
Prussian Customs Union. In 1819, the tiny state of Schwarzburg-Sonderhausen
signed a treaty which brought it into the Prussian customs system. Between 1819 and
1826, the small non Prussian states within Prussian territory sought to enter the
scheme.
 The advantages of the scheme were soon seen by other states. In 1828, Bavaria,
Wurttemburg, Hanover, Hesse-Cassel, Brunswick, Saxony, Nassau, Frankfurt-on-the
Main, Bremen and the Thuringian states formed the Middle German Commercial
Union. In 1833, this union joined Prussia.
 From 1 January 1834, the Zollverein came into being, covering 18 states. Other
states, including Baden and Nassau, joined in 1835. By then, it covered 25 states and
some 26 million people. The Zollverein was therefore a group of states that had
agreed to abolish all customs duties between themselves. It was supervised by a
specially appointed body, the Zollverein Congress which could negotiate with other
European states on matters of trade.
 The status was confirmed in 1844 when it successfully negotiated a trade treaty with
Belgium on its members‟ behalf. By 1844, the Zollverein covered virtually all of
Germany, although Hanover did not join until 1854. Bremen and Hamburg stayed out
as well. Austria was excluded since it refused to join from the beginning, as it
preferred protectionism to free trade.
 By 1844, the German Confederation enjoyed virtual economic union under Prussian
leadership. The Zollverein bred the habit of the states working together. This example
of co-operation encouraged nationalist thinking. Its practical success gave weight to
arguments for political unity, which pointed out the savings to be made from the
number of different administrations. It also encouraged the states to look to Prussia
for leadership.
 Prussia itself developed economically and administratively, it was increasingly
capable of fulfilling this role. According to Murphy, “ Austria‟s absence and Prussia‟s
control were to be of great significance for the future of Germany.”

6
 SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC PROBLEMS IN THE 1840s
 The 1840s saw problems throughout European and the predominantly rural
populations of these central European countries were particularly badly hit. In 1845,
the potato crop failed. A serious outbreak of potato blight followed in 1846. By July
1847, prices in central Europe had as much as quadrupled. There were disastrous corn
harvests in 1845-47 and the price of cereals rocketed. The year 1847 saw bread riots
in Stuttgart and Ulm and violence in Berlin, sparked by the shortage of potatoes.
 Many people left the countryside and made their way to the towns in search of work.
Here, they added to the problems of the growing population. Townsfolk were hit by
rising prices as a result of dwindling food supplies. There was also a depression in the
textile trade in 1847. The amount of spun yarn exported by the member states of the
Zollverein fell by 40%. There was a cut in wages and the standards of living for
workers in the towns fell.
 The Zollverein tariffs did not protect native industry from British and Belgian
competition and there was the added problem of the old handicraft industries which
could not compete with the new factories. Early 1848 saw the burning of mills in
Dusseldorf, demonstrations by weavers in Chemnitz and attacks on the new railways
from wagoner‟s in Nassau.
 It was the middle and upper classes, those affected by the growing liberal and
nationalist feeling of the 1830s and 1840s, who provided the revolutionary leaders in
1848. The catalyst for the revolution in the German Confederation came from Baden
which, in October 1847, put forward plans to an assembly of liberals for a united
Germany.
 Friedrich Wilhelm 1V’s accession to the throne of Prussia was the signal for a
revival of German liberalism. He called for a Diet or Parliament in 1847 for his whole
kingdom. It consisted of representatives from the various provincial Diets which had
already existed. The new all Prussian parliament soon put forward requests for
freedom of expression, trial by the jury, an income tax and a single National German
parliament elected by the people for the whole of Germany.
 In February 1848, the French King Louis Philippe was overthrown and a republic
was established. This was the spark that was needed to ignite the revolutionary
discontent. Within a fortnight, there were revolutions in Bavaria, Prussia, Italy and the
Austrian empire. By March, Metternich and the system he had tried to uphold for so
long, been overthrown.

7
INITIAL RESPONSES OF THE GERMAN STATES TO THE 1848-49
REVOLUTIONS
 Germany did not escape the wave of revolutions in 1848 and riots spread throughout
many states. The various authorities in the various German states reacted in different
ways.
 Revolts started in the more politically advanced southern states. In Bavaria, the
uprising against Louis 1 and his domineering mistress Lola Mantez preceded that in
Paris. Disturbances spread through Saxony in northern Germany. On the whole, these
were liberal constitutionalist revolts by the „respectable‟ classes.
 Communist inspired insurrection in support of a German republic occurred in the
Rhineland, in Hanover and above all, in Baden.
 In Prussia, the King sent soldiers to suppress the uprising but ordered them to
withdraw when it became clear that this was only leading to further violence. He then
promised to introduce a new liberal constitution.

FRANKFURT PARLIAMENT AND ITS COLLAPSE

 In 1848, a step was taken towards greater unity when a parliament was established at
Frankfurt that claimed to represent all Germans. This meeting had no legal standing
and an unbalanced membership, Baden had 72 and the Metternich monarchy only two
delegates. The Federal Diet endorsed the arrangements nevertheless. It was essentially
representative of the professional middle classes, the leaders of liberal opinion at the
time.
 After almost a year, the Frankfurt parliament adopted a constitution with a monarchy.
Friedrich Wilhelm 1V however rejected it, saying that the crown of Germany was
shaped out of the „dirt and dregs of revolution, disloyalty and treason.‟ He argued that
he would have accepted it if it had been offered by Princes and Kings of Germany,
which at that time was an impossibility. Friedrich‟s decision destroyed the faint hope
of German unity.
 However, the Frankfurt parliament implemented a few meaningful reforms. Debates
became more important than decisions, with arguments raging over what Germany
meant. In particular, there were disagreements about whether or not Austria should be
included in a united Germany. There were also arguments about whether or not this
united Germany should be a monarchy or a Republic and whether Germans living
in other countries should be included.

8
 The Frankfurt parliament had minority support among the Germans. It faced violence
from republican crowds and there was always a chance that authoritarian powers
might take action against it. Historians have dismissed the members of the Frankfurt
parliament as impractical intellectuals who did not understand the real world of
politics. They were also unrepresentative of the German people. The aristocracy
opposed them and the masses had other more practical demands than those being
advanced by the assembly. In general, historians feel it was certain to fail, given the
military strength of Prussia and Austria.
 However, it should be underscored that the Frankfurt assembly was not a complete
failure. For liberals, it represented a heroic venture rather than a humiliating failure.
They continued to spread their ideas and become a significant force in the coming
years. Conservative landowners and industrialists learned that the grievances of the
people could not be ignored and were more willing to concede social reforms.

REASSERTION OF AUSTRIAN POWER

THE HUMILIATION OF OLMUTZ
 Baron Josef von Radowitz, advisor to the King of Prussia tried to propose a set of
reforms to put to a representative assembly of the German states at Erfurt in March
1850. (Erfurt Union) These proposals included the union of the north German states
under the Presidency of the King of Prussia and under the protection of the victorious
Prussian army. In general, Austria would be excluded from this Erfurt Union.
 Radowitz was moving too far, too fast. In a meeting at Olmutz (November 1850)
Friedrich Wilhelm 1V gave in once more to his doubts and to the doubts of many
Prussian conservatives and agreed to abandon the Erfurt Union in favour of the
revival of the German confederation under Austrian Presidency. According to
Murphy, “By the so called „Capitulation of Olmutz,‟ Prussia abandoned the
leadership of Germany for a decade and a half.” Prussian reaction ranged from
conservative satisfaction at the abandonment of a dangerous innovation, to patriotic
humiliation. All were aware that German leadership lay beyond Prussia‟s reach until
there was a change in the military balance of Germany and in the European system of
alliances.
 Between 1851 and 1853, Austrian statesmen attempted to consolidate and exploit the
position of supremacy in German affairs manifested at Olmutz. The Austrians
however, were overplaying their hand. Olmutz had restored the balance between
Austrian military power and Prussian economic power upon which the independence
of the lesser Princes depended. Austria had to be content therefore with a commercial
treaty with Prussia which was signed in February 1853.

9
 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENTS AFTER 1849
 Prussia became an economic hub post 1849. It was blessed with remarkable natural
resources, supplemented in 1814-15 by the acquisition of the Rhineland. The Ruhr
also had substantial deposits of coal and iron ore. Rich coal resources were also
available in the Saar valley. Iron deposits and zinc were also plentiful in Prussian
Silesia.
 Prussia also became prominent due to both private and foreign capital. Further, it was
prominent due to the degree of government interest and involvement in the
subsequent development of industry. The contribution of Friedrich von Motz,
Finance Minister between 1825 and 1830, included tax reforms and a road building
programme. P. Bouth, head of the Department of Trade and Industry did much to
foster technical education. The Prussian banking system owed much to Rother’s
reorganisation of the bank of Prussia in 1846.
 Prussia also took the leading role, within Germany, in the development of branches of
heavy industry vital to a modern and militarised state. Its iron and coal industries
benefitted greatly from the introduction of new technology. Although private capital
was of prime importance, government legislation again played a helpful role in
Prussia. The mining laws of 1851 and 1860, for instance, freed mine owners from
strict state supervision and halved taxes upon their output. The laws did much to free
mine labour from the old guild restrictions upon mobility.
 The growth of Prussian steel industry may be measured by the rise of its greatest
enterprise, the Krupp factories in Essen. Alfred Krupp‟s enterprise grew from 1826
and 1861. In all, according to Murphy, “ Prussian steel production was seven times
greater in 1864 than in 1848.”
 Both Bavaria and Saxony made earlier contribution of German railways. Prussia
constructed Germany‟s second state owned line (1847) and then sought consistently
to extend state influence over the system as a whole. According to Murphy, “ By
1860, 55% of Prussian railways were worked by the state.”
 The struggle for the control of the Zollverein was decisive between 1853 and 1868 in
reducing Prussia to secondary status. Austria‟s defeat in 1866 is less decisive than its
exclusion from the Zollverein two years before.
 Overall, in the examination of Prussian and Germany economic growth in the 1850s
and 1860s, one is reminded of the famous judgement of John Maynard Keynes that, “
the German empire was not founded on blood and iron, but on coal and iron.” The
claim by Keynes raises the question of the relationship between the economic growth
of Germany and of Prussia in particular and the political achievement of Bismarck as
exploiting economic advantages of his time to gain political ends that he sought.
 More recently, a school of historians led by Helmut Bohme has concluded that the
dynamics of the Germany economy were of greater importance than the political
priorities of the Prussian government. In this light, Bismarck might be seen, less
realistically, as the exploiter of these economic factors than as a politician whose
course was largely determined by them.

10
 BISMARCK’S APPOINTMENT AND HIS ATTITUDE
TOWARDS LIBERALISM AND NATIONALISM
 King Wilhelm 1 summoned Prince Otto von Bismarck in 1862 as a result of the
dispute (budget crisis) in the Landstag (parliament) about raising taxes to finance the
army. Wilhelm 1 was even contemplating abdication when he desperately reached out
to Bismarck. The liberals were the majority in the Landstag hence they were
unwilling to support raising funds urgently needed by the army. Wilhelm1 turned to
Bismarck because of his reputation for strength of character and ruthlessness.
Bismarck was summoned by Roon by a telegram. It read: „Pericula in mora.
Depechez-vous.' which meant danger in delay. Hurry!
 Bismarck had limited experience in internal government prior to 1862 as he had spent
time after 1848 as a farmer and an ambassador abroad but he was a Junker. (Prussian
feudal aristocracy) He was intensely ambitious and intolerant of criticism. From the
time of his marriage in 1847, he professed a simple, personal Protestant faith but was
able to divorce personal from political morality. From the experience of events in
1848-49, he derived on intense hostility towards radicalism. This was matched by his
disdain for parliamentary „talking shops‟ and contempt for policies that were based
upon abstract romanticism. Bismarck famously said, “ Germany has its eyes not on
Prussia‟s liberalism but on its might. The great questions of the day will not be
decided by speeches and resolutions of majorities, as this had been the mistake of
1848-49, but by blood and iron.” For the next four years, Bismarck ignored the
opposition majority and collected taxes illegally.

BISMARCK’S WARS, 1864-71

 There were three main steps by which Bismarck achieved his end. Each was
marked by a war, in turn against Denmark, against Austria and against France.
There has been much debate about how far Bismarck conceived this whole
programme in advance and how far his success came rather from seizing
opportunities as they arose. There is no reason to doubt that the broad outline was
in his mind from the mid- 1860s, certainly that Austria and France would have to
be dealt with if Germany were to be unified under Prussian domination. (Master
planner interpretation) The actual steps however, which led to these wars owed a
great deal also to chance, to the seized opportunities of the moment and to the
mistakes of opponents. (Opportunist interpretation) Bismarck, though constant in
his aim, was always very flexible in his tactics. Bismarck used three key
strategies:
 Isolating the enemy from allying with a major power.
 Making the enemy the aggressor or‟ putting the enemy in the wrong.‟
 Attacking and defeating the enemy.

Overall, Bismarck used both diplomacy and war to achieve his ends.

11
 WAR WITH DENMARK, 1864
ORIGINS OF THE CONFLICT
 This was Bismarck‟s first great opportunity. In 1863, a question which had
troubled German nationalists became once more acute. The King of Denmark had
for centuries ruled over two Duchies, Schleswig and Holstein, not as the King but
as their Duke. Further, the Congress of Vienna had denied him the right to control
the Duchies as punishment for having supported Napoleon Bonaparte.
 The northern Duchy, Schleswig was inhabited by people of Danish origin in the
north but in the south the majority were German speaking. The other Duchy,
Holstein was largely German in character, was a member of the German
Confederation and was resented by the Danish connection.
 Danish nationalists wanted to absorb the two Duchies but German nationalists
wanted to avert this. A German claimant in 1848, the Duke of Augustenburg,
challenged the rights of the heir to the throne. His claim however would not come
through since it was through the female line, a practice not accepted in the
Duchies. In 1852, Augustenburg resigned his claim in return for a monetary
payment.
 The London treaty (Protocol) in 1852 also settled the matter of the succession in
favour of the King of Denmark. However, the two Duchies were not subject to the
laws of the Danish kingdom. Unfortunately this did not satisfy either the Germans
or the Danes. By 1863, the intricacies of the situation were such that Palmerston
(British Prime Minister) maintained that only three persons in Europe were
completely acquainted with the truth: the Prince Consort, who was dead; a
German Professor who was in a lunatic asylum and he himself, who had forgotten
all about it.
 In 1863, the Danes came up with a Constitution which linked Schleswig with
Denmark but treated Holstein separately. The Danes were undoubtedly breaking
the London treaty of 1852. The new Danish King, Christian X also annexed the
two duchies and all eyes of Germans turned to Prussia to act as a leader of
Germany in the matter. (OPPORTUNITY)
 In Holstein, Augustenburg was now claiming to be Duke and the Confederation
voted to send in troops support him. Bismarck wanted neither to break the Treaty
of London nor to tie himself too firmly to Augustenburg. He sent Saxon and
Hanoverian troops, not Prussians. (Bismarckian diplomacy)

12
 BISMARCKIAN TACTICS
ISOLATING DENMARK

 Bismarck‟s handling of the question was consummately skilful. He first secured the
friendship of Russia by supporting the Tsar in every possible way short of war during
the Polish rebellion of 1863. He then concluded an alliance with Austria, the terms of
which were that the two powers would intervene unless Denmark withdrew the new
constitution and that the future of the Duchies should be settled by joint agreement
between Austria and Prussia. This made the Confederation powerless in the matter.
 Bismarck had seen that France and Britain were not on good enough terms to co-
operate in stopping the invasion, had encouraged Napoleon 1 to abstain by hints of
future compensation for France in the Rhineland. Lord Palmerston had once
remarked that, “ If Denmark had to fight, she would not fight alone…” Bismarck had
called this bluff because Britain was in a Splendid isolation hence her intervention
was unlikely.

MAKING DENMARK THE AGGRESSOR

 Bismarck demanded that Denmark should submit the whole matter to a European
congress. Encouraged by Britain, Denmark refused and the Austrian and Prussian
armies promptly invaded Schleswig.

ATTACKING THE ENEMY AND OUTCOME

 Denmark was soundly defeated and she duly surrendered her rights to Austria and
Prussia. Bismarck carefully calculated the outcome to his advantage. He proposed that
Austria should administer Holstein and Prussia, Schleswig. The agreement became
known as the Convention of Gastein (1865). Bismarck intended to use the agreement
to pick a quarrel with Austria. (Bismarckian diplomacy)

WAR WITH AUSTRIA, 1866 (SEVEN WEEKS WAR)

BISMARCKIAN TACTICS
ISOLATING AUSTRIA

 Bismarck secured French neutrality by talk of future compensation. Bismarck hinted

that Prussia would not mind if Napoleon 111 would think of acquiring Belgium and a
possibility of ceding to France German territory along the left bank of the Rhine. On
the other hand, Napoleon 111 welcomed the Austro-Prussian conflict for another
reason. He imagined that it would exhaust both combatants and that he could step in
at a later stage to reap big advantages. Further, Bismarck set up a free trade agreement
with France, knowing that this would anger Austria.
 Bismarck was still assured of Russian neutrality owing to Prussian support during
the Polish rebellion of 1863.

13
 Bismarck also secured an alliance with Italy. Italy was promised Venetia if they assist
Prussia militarily in the conflict. The Italian army then was small but Bismarck felt
that it might still provide a useful distraction during a war.
 Bismarck won over the Liberals by proposing a reform of the Confederation by
which Austria would be entirely omitted from German affairs. He suggested a new
German parliament to replace the Confederation Diet which was to be elected by
universal suffrage.

MAKING AUSTRIA THE AGGRESSOR

 Austria naturally objected to these proposal and moved that the members of the
Confederation should jointly attack the insolent Prussia. Most German states agreed
as they had doubts in fighting Austria. Prussia stubbornly left the Confederation
and declared it dissolved and this sparked the Austro-Prussian war.

ATTACKING THE ENEMY AND OUTCOME

 The course of the Seven weeks war astonished Europe. The battle of Sadowa, also
known as Koniggratz, became part of the Bismarckian legend as it ended in victory
for Prussia. The peace terms were established in the Treaty of Prague (1866). Prussia
annexed Holstein, Hanover, Nassau, Hesse-Cassel and the free city of Frankfurt. She
also retained Schleswig.
 The Treaty of Prague also recognised the abolition of the old Confederation and set
up the new North German Confederation from which Austria was excluded. However,
the main south German territories notably Bavaria, Baden and Wurttemberg were left
out owing to strong local feeling and the attitude of Napoleon 111.

WAR WITH FRANCE, 1871 (FRANCO-PRUSSIAN WAR)

BISMARCKIAN TACTICS
ISOLATION OF FRANCE

 Relations between Prussia and France deteriorated after the Austro-Prussian war.
Many of the South German states were predominantly Catholic hence they saw
Catholic France as a potential ally against Prussia‟s growing power. Bismarck
diplomatically won over the South German states by signing a military alliance with
them. He revealed to them Napoleon‟s plans for expansion at their expense. He also
induced them to link up with the North Confederation in a new customs parliament,
elected by universal suffrage which replaced the old Zollverein. Thus, by the
arrangements following the war, Bismarck achieved the remarkable feat of expelling
Austria from her old leadership and uniting most of Germany under Prussia without
making permanent enemies of any of his victims. As Richards explains, “ Like a good
chess player, Bismarck thought several moves ahead.”

14
 Austria had been displaced from her supremacy and the North German
Confederation formed. In Prussia, the old liberal opposition had died as it had been
dazzled by Bismarck‟s success. Austria too had been weakened by being merged with
Hungary in 1867. (Ausgleich) meaning compromise.
 Bismarck first turned down Napoleon 111‟s demands of compensation in the
Rhineland by encouraging Napoleon 111 to put her demands in writing. The war with
Austria had been too swift that Napoleon 111 had failed to reap advantage. Even the
French Foreign Minister, Thiers had remarked, “ It is France that is beaten at
Sadowa.”
 Bismarck became aware of French negotiations to build an alliance against him so
when Napoleon 111 attempted to buy Luxemburg from Holland, Bismarck made the
news public. (Luxemburg crisis) This frightened the South German states who then
turned against France. (PLANNING)
 France was relatively isolated by 1870. Britain was alienated from France by
Bismarck‟s publication at the critical moment of the French proposal of 1866 to annex
Belgium. The Italians also refused to come to French soldiers were still present in
their country. (garrison in Rome) Austria and Russia declared their neutrality. Austria
had been treated leniently by Prussia at Prague and the Mexican adventure in which
Napoleon 111 had unwittingly caused the death of an Austrian heir Maximillian also
prevented Austria from sympathising with France. According to Williams, “
Ultimately, France was seen as the aggressor while Prussia claimed only to be
defending itself.”
 The immediate cause of the Franco-Prussian war was the Hohenzollern candidature in
Spain. The throne of Spain became vacant in 1870 when the Spanish queen, Isabella
11 was forced to abdicate by politicians who wanted an end to Bourbon rule in their
country. They selected Prince Leopold of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen as their
candidate. (OPPORTUNITY) Leopold was from a South German state and a Catholic
like the Spaniards and he was related to the Prussian royal family. In essence, King
Wilhelm 1 was the head of the Hohenzollern family. Encouraged by Bismarck,
Leopold accepted the offer, a move that was certain to incite French anger as a further
example of Prussian expansionism. The announcement of the news caused the
reaction in France that Bismarck had expected, intense indignation and a demand that
the candidature should be withdrawn. (PLANNING)
 Wilhelm 1 was doubtful about the wisdom of Bismarck‟s policy and persuaded
Leopold to withdraw his acceptance of the Spanish throne. Unfortunately, France had
had experience of Bismarck‟s double dealing and was suspicious that the Prince‟s son
might become the candidate instead. Thus, the French decided to seek an undertaking
from Wilhelm 1 that Hohenzollern candidature would never in any circumstances be
renewed. Wilhelm 1 brushed aside this demand as a reflection on his good faith and
sent Bismarck a telegram describing a meeting he had just had with the French
ambassador. (OPPORTUNITY)

15
 MAKING FRANCE THE AGGRESSOR

 Bismarck used the Ems telegram to his advantage. (OPPORTUNITY) He changed

the original wording of the telegram to make it appear that the French were
demanding a humiliating reversal of Prussia‟s decision to support Leopold‟s rights in
Spain. (PLANNING) The result of this manoeuvre was public outrage in both Prussia
and France hence resolving the situation became a matter of national honour.
 In the face of the fury of France, Bismarck persuaded Wilhelm 1 to order the
mobilisation of the Prussian army. In the face of mobilisation of the Prussian army,
France declared war.

ATTACKING THE ENEMY AND OUTCOME

(CREATION OF THE GERMAN EMPIRE)

 The Franco-Prussian war, 1870-1, astonished Europe by the ease with which the much
vaunted French military prowess crumpled before the ruthless efficiency of the
Prussian troops. This was partly due to the organisation of the Prussian troops, the
work of Roon, Moltke and the King but mainly due to Bismarck‟s requisite political
conditions.
 The North German Confederation was united into a German Empire. The South
German states were also united after negotiation. Special concessions were given to
Bavaria and a secret payment was made to the Bavarian King, Ludwig 11 who in turn
invited Wilhelm 1 in the name of the Princes to accept the Imperial crown of the new
Germany. Wilhelm 1 was proclaimed the first German Emperor on 18 January 1871
in the Hall of Mirrors at Versailles. Thus, a triumphant Germany rose against the
backdrop of the humiliation of France.
 Napoleon 111 abdicated and was replaced by a republican government. The French
provinces of Alsace and Lorraine were conceded to Germany and France was required
to pay heavy reparations. A German army was posted in northern France until they
were paid.

9489 CANDIDATES [ 2021 OCT/NOV A-LEVEL PAPER 1]

16