Bismarck’s actions during the Danish war of 1864 were intentionally manufactured to manoeuvre Austria into open confrontation with Prussia as a way of settling the problem of leadership in Germany. Bismarck knew he could pick a quarrel with Austria over Holstein any time he wanted. This put him in the position of being able to incite war between Prussia and Austria when he felt the Prussian army was strong enough, in order to swing the balance of power in Germany to Prussia’s side.
After signing his secret treaty with Italy, Bismarck pushed the matter of Holstein and his proposals for the extreme reform of the Confederation heavily into the limelight in order to provoke Austria towards mobilisation. He knew that Austria would be forced to take the aggressive step of mobilising unilaterally, as she was afraid of a surprise attack by Prussia. Crucially this would allow Prussia to mobilise as a means of ‘self-defence’ to Austria’s actions. Bismarck needed this false image of Prussia being a pacified state in order to incite nationalist feelings against Austria and justify Prussia’s involvement in a war against Austria. This eventual development was crucial to ensuring the unification of Germany. If Bismarck had not engineered Prussia’s innocent image then it is likely that not only would the Prussian people not have supported him (Prussia’s wrongful image would have given them no impetus towards patriotism), but Prussia might have also been faced with the threat of war with other European powers. We ………..
Conclusion
It is possible to argue that Bismarck did not make Germany: rather Germany made Bismarck. A variety of factors e.g. German nationalism, Prussian economic growth, the international situation in the 1860’s and the Prussian army, were such that Bismarck was able to take credit for bringing about a unification which may well have developed naturally, whoever had been in power. However, whatever view is taken about the ‘inevitability’ of German unification, it is clear that it happened as it did and when it did largely as a result of Bismarck’s actions.
PAGE 28
3.
Whatever view is taken about the ‘inevitability’ of German unification, it is clear that Bismarck’s actions had a definite influence on its nature, but what actions did Bismarck take in order to contend for responsibility for German unification?
4.
I believe that German unification was inevitable, sooner or later it would occur, however it is clear that it happened as it did and when it did largely as a result of Bismarck’s actions; Bismarck was to a large extent responsible for German unification, however
However I have chosen against proclaiming Bismarck to be the only main influence, as there is also the factor of inevitability acting as a worthy claimant.
Otto von Bismarck was a Prussian patriot who inherited the traditions of love of king, army and country from his family. Bismarck believed that Germany should be united under Prussian leadership and that Austria should have nothing to do with Germany. Bismarck was chosen as chancellor by the Prussian king as he had a proven record as a monarchist and had little time for liberal and excessive parliamentary ideas. Bismarck helped his long term plan to unite Germany and to be the ruler by getting in a strong position with the king. The king owned Bismarck a ‘favour´ as Bismarck had solved the king´s constitutional crisis.
Bismarck played a crucial part in the unification of Germany as he helped to set up the Northern German Confederation after defeating Austria in the second of three wars. The first war was a bit ‘weird´ as Bismarck´s goal was to get Austria out of Germany but it was the start of a long plan, he teamed up with Austria and together they quickly defeated the Danish. The duchies of Holstein were to be controlled by Austria and the duchies of Schleswig were to be controlled by Prussia. This was to be a major decision to let Austria control Holstein.
Bismarck overcame the barrier that was the threat of Austria. Bismarck was very clever in the way that he provoked war with Austria he complained that Austria was not running Holstein properly. The German confederation backed Austria so Bismarck had what he wanted an excuse to attack the small German states which he quickly defeated Prussia with. He held off Italy, which Bismarck planned, defeated Austria. In the treaty were the terms that Austria was to take no further part in German affairs which Bismarck needed in his unification plans step towards another major step towards the formation of the northern German confederation in the treaty. Germany was not unified, yet, as the southern states were still separate.
Bismarck´s` most opportunistic point was when he provoked a war with France he done this by editing a telegram from essaybank.co.uk from the King to the French. He edited it so that it sounded as if the king insulted the French. This made the French declare war on Prussia just as Bismarck had wanted. The southern states declared their support for the Prussians. The Prussians won the war and made the treaty harsh on the French as it was a hard fought war and he wanted to weaken them.
Bismarck then pressured the southern German states into unification by saying that if any Kings or Dukes opposed it then they would be overthrown. The last thing he had to do was persuade the King William, he done this by getting King Ludwig of Bavaria to offer Bismarck the throne and he in turn allowed King William to remain King of Prussia.
However Bismarck was not solely responsible for the unification of Germany. Nationalism in Germany with cultural and nationalising was the reason for the creation of the Zollverein, which was in many people´s views a major factor in the unification of Germany. The Zollverein allowed trade between the 39 German states by lowering the tax, which was set by the country very high. This brought the German states closer and with more unity.
Prussia had increased its military power by increasing its army and when the northern German confederation was created. The Prussians had an army fit to face any European force. This lead to a unity between the northern German states. Since Prussia was in control of the northern German confederation then they were in a greater military position to unite Germany. Prussia also had a great economic development. Their money was getting greater and greater by the Zollverien, which made Prussia a very wealthy trading country. It also made all of the other countries tag on to Prussia, as they also wanted to be wealthy
The proclamation of the German Empire in 1871 was the climax of a long process, to which several factors contributed. The growth of nationalism brought about the demand for a united country. Prussian economic development, aided by the Zollverien, allowed the build up of its military power and strengthened its influence, at least among the northern states. Together, these developments made possible unification under Prussian leadership, but they did not make it certain. What made Bismarck´s contribution decisive was his ability to exploit this potential for unity and to overcome the barriers, which still lay in the path of unification, especially the opposition of France and Austria. His diplomatic skills in isolating his enemies and his willingness to seize opportunities turned the possibility of unification into reality.
When one considers the founding of the Germany as it is known today, we cannot fail to realise the most influential nation was Prussia. However, in looking at the great Prussian Empire, which became the cornerstone of the Unified Germany, one must inevitably ask, who truly was the most powerful man in Prussia, the Kaiser or his chancellor, Bismarck, and what power did they have on founding the "Modern German Nation"?
Without any doubt, the real power can be said to have been held by Bismarck, as indeed, Kaiser Wilhelm I is quoted as saying "It isn't easy to be an emperor under a chancellor like this one [Bismarck]". Politically, he was undoubtedly a force to be reckoned with, with an aggressive foreign policy.
However, one must look at how much of the foundation of the German Empire can actually be attributed to people other than Bismarck. Indeed, one must ask, would the numerous German states have been in a situation in 1871, fit for unification, if it were not for the actions of Napoléon at the beginning of the 19th century? The legacy of the Napoléonic Wars, in which the great number of various states (over three hundred) were reduced to a mere thirty nine, must surely have been the ignition for the road to unification, for indeed, much unification had already taken place through the merger of various states into the thirty nine.
Others may just as equally have been responsible as Napoléon for the founding of Germany as we know it today, especially with the founding of the German Confederation in June 1815, just two months after Otto Eduard von Bismarck- Schönhausen was born on the 1st of April, 1815. However, it was clear that the Confederation was little more than a 'talking shop' in terms of unification, for one of the aims of the Confederation was "the defence of independence of the member states", and unification was not the aim in any case, merely to give some stability to all of the German states with such actions as the creation of the Zollverein, the unification of currencies across all of the German states.
However, it was not until Bismarck came to power in Germany that any real sense of German nationality came to being, as indeed the Revolution of 1848 - 1849 showed, when there was no unified attempt to change much, rather separate groups in each state attempting, but failing due to the lack of unity across the German Confederation.
Bismarck, however, could easily merit the title of dictator. Indeed, he is quoted as saying to Benjamin Disraeli, then leader of the opposition in Britain in 1862: "I shall soon be compelled.... with or without the help of Parliament, to reorganise the army.... to declare war on Austria.... and give Germany a national union under the leadership of Prussia." There was no doubt that Bismarck was loyal to the might of Prussia in all ways, whilst his Kaiser he may only have seen as the one who would 'rubber stamp' his decisions. Austria and Prussia had long been rivals, but perhaps his words to Disraeli were a little rash, for war was not immediately declared by the militarian Prussia on Austria.
It can be easily argued that Bismarck saw the only means of progress for his beloved Prussia as expansion, even though Prussia possessed territories as far east as Königsberg (today Kaliningrad in Russia), an argument which can be supported by his actions as chancellor of Prussia, and it is unsurprising that only two years after his words to Disraeli, in 1864, a war occurred, not with Austria, but with Denmark, wherein Prussia gained Schleswig and Nordfriesland, and Austria, an ally in that war, gained Holstein.
A war also occurred with France in 1870, but it is the war itself with Austria in 1866, previously promised by Bismarck, which changed the course of German history forever. Talk had been considered of a united Germany, but little came of it, as discussion could not decide whether Austria should be included, leading to the theoretical ideals of Großdeutschland, inclusive of Austria, and Kleindeutschland, excluding the Austro-Hungarian Empire. The dual administration of the territories gained from Denmark caused strain between the two nations, culminating with Prussian occupation of Austrian territories in Holstein, and mobilisation of Austrian forces against Prussia.
It is somewhat historic, that before the declaration of war, Bismarck said to the French ambassador, the Duke of Gramont: "We Berliners do not now look upon Vienna as a German city." War was declared, and within three days most of the northern German states had been taken over by Prussia. The battle at Königgrätz took place between Austria and Prussia, and Austria was not the victor.
Many saw Bismarck's next action as foolish, for the populace dreamed of a triumphant Prussian army marching into Vienna, but Bismarck evidently knew which decision to make to ultimately gain more power for Prussia. The course of action which he did take, namely letting Austria simply crawl away to lick its wounds, gained more influence for Prussia through the North German Confederation, than would have occurred had Prussia actually invaded the Austro-Hungarian Empire. It would have taken more man power and time to have kept Austria under control, than it did to form the North German Confederation. Indeed, if Prussia had have pressed on to Vienna, one might wonder how the German State would be structured today, for it would surely have a vastly different shape. Hypothetical questions can be raised: Would Prussia have collapsed under the strain of controlling two kingdoms at once? Would Austria then have pressed for German unification?
Such was Bismarck's manipulation, that the war took place in the first place. Such an action of exclusion of Austria from what would follow, due to its defeat, clearly had great influence on what became Germany as we know it today. Although Austria and Germany were unified under the Nazis, Austria is still not a part of the Germany with which we are so familiar, the Kleindeutschland.
Prussia's dominance was assured in Germany, founding the North German Confederation, an essentially Prussian controlled union, and as chancellor of Prussia, controlled by Bismarck. It was only a matter of time before unification occurred, the southern states conceding to the union, under the rule of Prussia, with Bismarck at the helm until his resignation in 1890.
What legacy however, does Bismarck's work and character leave behind? The character of Bismarck clearly helped form the Germany of the beginning of the twentieth century, but how much of this was purely Bismarck and purely Prussia is open to debate. This naturally leads to the question, was Bismarck a product of German society, or was German society a product of Bismarck? To some extent, one can clearly argue that German society is a product of Bismarck, for clearly it would not have existed in such great unity if it were not for Bismarck. However, such was Prussian society, that Bismarck was undoubtedly influenced by it, in particular in his military attitude. If Germany were to have had a weaker leader at its founding, naturally the character of Germany would not be so strong as it is today.
However, what actually remains of Bismarck's Germany today? Geographically, the great German Empire stretching from Königsberg in the east to Alsace-Lorraine in the west is hardly as vast today as it was before 1914, due to so much having been given up due to the first and second world wars. Even ten years ago, one could not have even argued that any geographic form of Germany representing the Empire under Bismarck's chancellorship even existed, but the Reunification of the two Germanys has restored the shape to some extent. Not even the Kaiser remains at the helm of the German Empire, showing exactly how little of the Germany of Bismarck remains. Indeed, in 1948 in the wake of the Third Reich of the Nazis, it was written by Richter: "history has completely destroyed his [Bismarck's] work." However, so much has been done to rebuild, particularly in the Reunification of East and West Germany by Helmut Kohl.
Perhaps it was inopportune that Bismarck was born in Prussia, a very regimental and military society. Were some other nation to have been the founding strong nation of the unified Germany, perhaps such a military model would not have been impressed into the German identity of the early part of the century, and then perhaps the two world wars would not have occurred, particularly the second world war, wherein the population, recalling the 'glory days' of militaristic stability of the Prussian Kaiser, voted the militaristic NSDAP into power.
However, it may justly be argued that a militaristic society would have been the only state possible to have brought about any sort of unity to Germany, for a military society was likely to be the strongest in Europe of the time. Indeed, stability was greatly sought by the German people through unification, and a military society would have been most able to maintain that stability.
Bismarck, of course, must be honoured for his achievement of uniting Kleindeutschland. His was the first stable power to be found uniting the land, and although it may have been dictatorial, with him first engaging in a Kulturkampf against the Catholics, and then against the Socialists, his was, above all, unifying.
The spirit of Bismarck does not lie in the politics of the nation, the borders, or even the culture. His legacy was simply a strong united Germany, with a new sense of identity for all persons within the borders of his Kleindeutschland. He truly was the father of modern Germany, but like all children, it has grown up, and, though it may look fondly back upon Bismarck, the nation perhaps must be a little glad to be free of Bismarck's iron grip as it now modifies its identity within the European Union.