It is not hard to see how the Austrians were easily beaten by the Prussians in 1866; their old-fashioned, Imperial army did not progress at all throughout the 19TH century, whereas Prussia’s reforms, like Moltke’s War Academy, and economic growth helped to modernise their army to produce the desired effects. However I believe that the Prussian army would not have been able to reform at all is it had not been for economic prosperity, something that Austria also lacked.
Unlike Prussia, Austria lacked raw materials in its Empire, something that obviously could not be helped. However, this lack of materials meant that industrialisation was non-existent for the most part of the 19TH century. This meant that no railways were built, which disadvantaged the army hugely, as it took a whole 45 days to mobilise because there was no quick way of travelling. Austria’s conservative government was another obstruction, as it made no attempt to encourage trade with other countries, which meant there was no chance of economic growth, and only decline was possible. The fact that Austria did not have much to export anyway was a problem, as many countries in Europe were producing these products themselves meaning there was no need for trade to take place. In fact, in 1811, Austria had to declare itself bankrupt, and so for many years after this 39% of its whole revenue went to paying back loans that they had borrowed from other countries. With only 61% of its revenue to spend, it is no wonder why Austria did not industrialise or modernise; it could not have, even if it had tried to.
In 1815, Prussia looked weak, but it had a brilliant stroke of luck. After the Congress of Vienna, Prussia obtained the Rhineland, which bordered France and the Netherlands. At first glance, this did not look like a great territorial gain, but in fact the Rhineland is probably the area in Europe with the biggest supply of natural resources, namely iron and coal. This is how economic prosperity for Prussia started. The Rhineland became an area of heavy industry for Prussia that kick-started industrialisation in the whole of the Empire. Steam engines and of course railways were being built for the transportation of the extracted raw materials; by 1860, 55% of the Prussian railways were state owned and by 1890, there was over 15,000 km of railway track around the Empire. As well as transporting iron and coal, the railway was used for shipping soldiers to the front line, and in 1870, the railways through the Rhineland were ideal, as they placed the soldiers right on the border with France, meaning supply and communication lines were never stretched or destroyed, because the trains were used instead of trucks and road vehicles. This huge spurt of industrialisation in the Rhineland led to more economic reforms around Prussia, for example serfdom was abolished, but the most important one was the Customs Union, the Zollverein.
The Zollverein, which encompassed 25 states and 26 million people, was an area of the Prussian Empire where internal trade tariffs had been abolished, meaning it was a free trade area that encouraged and promoted industrial trade. It was governed by the Zollverein Congress, which administered trade agreements with foreign countries. The Zollverein was probably the most important economical advance for four reasons. The first was that it promoted internal trade, which meant industrialisation spreading to the whole of the Empire, which in time would mean more railways would be built for transportation. Secondly, Prussia gained more territory in Germany, as many of the states in the Zollverein were not part of the Prussian Empire before 1818. Thirdly, through the Zollverein Congress, trade agreements were made with countries like Belgium and Britain in 1844, which increased Prussian exports of their heavy materials. Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, it was a huge help in the gradual overtaking of Austria as the most powerful Germanic power. Austria was not part of the Zollverein from the start, and was not allowed in at the Zollverein renewal in 1865, so that they could not even start building up their own economy. By keeping them out of it, Prussia helped keep Austria as a ‘stagnant kingdom’, and so confirmed their position as an economic giant, and Austria’s position as a struggling power.
The conservative Austrian government and the lack of funds due to debt were the main reasons why Austria never started to industrialise. In 1865 Austria did try to join the Zollverein, but Prussia wisely kept them out, confirming their dominance. I believe that the growth of the Prussian economy was the main reason why they could become the leading Germanic power by 1870, just because of their total dominance. Both the Rhineland and the Zollverein provided Prussia with excellent resources that lead the way for mass railway production, which was vital for the transportation of soldiers when fighting Austria and France, but also helped modernise the army, as the steel made could be used to make the two new Prussian guns. The heavy industry meant that exports, and therefore the number of trade agreements increased, which also helped the economy. However, this exceptional economy also helped Bismarck and his contribution to German unification, as he had the ability to firstly spend money on whatever he needed, but also helped in get the upper hand over his enemies. If the Prussian army could mobilise in five days, and their enemies, namely Austria and France, took much longer, it would look as if they had been the aggressor, which would create a spirit of patriotism among the Germans, making Bismarck look like a hero. So the economy not only helped Prussia’s military, but also its politics. This is almost reversed in Austria’s case, as the political system and government completely stifled any chance of economic growth.
Austria’s government was slow and very inefficient, largely because it was conservative. Emperor Francis I’s motto was ‘rule and change nothing’ and his successor, Ferdinand I, was much the same, as was the Prime Minister, Metternich. The conservative nature of this government meant that reform was almost impossible, especially through the German Confederation, which was run by the Austrian government. By ruling the Confederation in this way, is meant that change anywhere in Germany was unachievable because the confederation was just so reactionary to reform and modernisation. Because of this reactionary stance, Austria’s economy suffered, as industrialisation and modernisation was frowned upon, and so could not take place. The 1848 and 1849 uprisings show that no-one in Austria was happy; the uprising mobs contained not only peasants, but also middle class liberalists and nationalists, who were sick of the lack of freedom of speech and of the press. Although the Austrian army could crush the revolts, it shows that there were big problems inside Austria that prevented it from growing as a European power. The Magyars in Austria were opposed to the government, and revolted on several occasions, the biggest one being in 1848. They wanted nationalism, but Ferdinand would not let them go, because it would be seen as the weak thing to do. These internal pressures meant that the government became more reactionary and conservative, and the Karlsbad Decrees and the Six Articles in 1830 increased censorship and banned all political meetings, which meant more revolutionary feelings in Austria. These problems can perhaps explain why and how the Austrian Empire was falling apart; racial groups wanted nationalism, the middle class wanted liberalism, yet the conservative government was not prepared to change, unlike the Prussian government; this difference in political stances gave Prussia the edge over Austria.
In 1860, Wilhelm I came to the Prussian throne. He was also a conservative like the Austrian leaders, but the vital difference was that he realised the need for change, and that Prussia had to adapt to the modern world. His father had already made a good start with the construction of railways of the creation of the Zollverein, and Wilhelm knew he had to keep these things up and running. He allowed more modernisation and more industry grow, which obviously led to more prosperity. Whereas Austria was conservative and reactionary to change, the Prussian leader was conservative, but allowed change to take place for the benefit of the Empire. Another important feature of Wilhelm and his father’s reigns was that he gave Bismarck as much freedom as he needed so that in effect Bismarck was almost running the country. This liberalist attitude to change let Prussia progress further, and become more powerful than Austria, whose government was far too reactionary.
Bismarck became Chancellor of Prussia in 1862. He was a middle class junker, who was naturally conservative, but like Wilhelm, he realised the need for change if Prussia was ever to become a major power. He was very loyal to Prussia, and was not a German nationalist; all he really wanted was for Prussia to prosper. Historians agree that Bismarck was able to exploit modern economical ideas for his political advantage, like using the railways for army transportation, but they disagree when arguing on the subject of how important he was for the unification of Germany, and the emergence of Prussia as more powerful than Austria. Some historians, like Craig and Waller, believe that Bismarck was absolutely vital. They argue that Bismarck had a blueprint for his years in power that he stuck to throughout. The plan was to slowly gain territory through small wars, like with the Danes for Schleswig, then make peace and non-intervention treaties, like with Italy and the small states in 1866, before attacking his main enemies, France and Austria, to become the most dominant power in Europe. They also argue that without Bismarck’s political genius, shown in such examples as the way he dealt with the Luxembourg crisis and the editing of the Ems telegram, unification of Germany and therefore Prussian dominance, would not have taken place in 1870 in the manner that it did. Waller says in his biography of Bismarck:
Bismarck must be given credit for the unification of Germany. An empire of similar size and shape may well have emerged sooner or later, but the constitutional design was his. The delicate balance between centralism and federalism, between the forces of conservatism, liberalism, democracy and even state socialism between the army and the civilians, which allowed him such scope and freedom of action, were all his doing. A German state was made and German citizens were being created…the emperor, aristocrats, middle-classes and workers all benefited to a certain extent from Bismarck’s approach to politics. He had given each of them something.’
Many historians agree with Waller, in that Bismarck’s way of using European relationships as well as the Prussian economy to his advantage shows how important he was for Prussian dominance. However, other historians disagree.
Some historians argue that Bismarck was in the right place at the right time, and instead of having a set plan for proceedings, he was swept along like the rest of the population. Although no-one can really argue against the fact that we was able to use the growth of the economy effectively, one can argue that he had nothing to do with the creation of this situation, an so in effect, he was just do what any educated politician would do in his situation. Historians like AJP Taylor would argue that it was not his political genius working at the Luxembourg crisis, or while editing the Ems telegram, but in fact he was simply taking advantage of what was given to him to work with. AJP Taylor even goes as far to say that all he wanted was a peaceful agreement with Austria, and that really he was a conservative at heart who was simply being swept away by events going on around him, and only wanted to maintain the prestige of the Prussian royal house. My opinion is that Bismarck cannot be ignored; he obviously was a good politician who could manipulate the public to get them on his side, but as Waller says, Germany most probably would have unified sometime without him. I have to disagree with Taylor, but I do not think that he ever had a set plan. He may well have being making the plan up as events unfolded, and he was definitely looking ahead to what might happen in the future, but to say he had a blueprint is going too far. With the subject of Prussian dominance, I think he was very important, as he kept Prussia one step ahead of Austria; he did not let them in the Zollverein, he embarrassed them over Luxembourg, and easily defeated them in 1866. However, one cannot say he achieved this on his own, as he only came to power in 1862, and by that time industrialisation was in full swing, and the army had already started reforming.
Clearly, Austria’s government was too conservative; they were reactionary to any change, meaning they were constantly dealing with interior threats from nationalists. However, even after revolts, the government refused to change anything, and simply became more reactionary. This is the fundamental difference between the two governments; they were actually both conservative, but Ferdinand I was not prepared to change, whereas Wilhelm I was. His and his father’s more liberal attitude meant that industrialisation could take place in the first place, and the fact that he gave Bismarck the freedom he wanted meant that Prussian dominance was becoming more apparent in the 1860s.
Overall, it is clear that Prussia replaced Austria as the leading Germanic power through its dominance in the military, the economy, and politically, with the help of Bismarck. Wilhelm’s more liberal attitude meant change, especially industrial change, could take place, which in turn helped the military with the construction of thousands of kilometres of railways. Moltke’s reforms in the army also helped, as can be seen in the wars with both Austria and France. Although I do not believe he was the most important factor, Bismarck used this economic and military growth to his advantage politically, and in the end united the whole of Germany in 1870. I believe that the most important reason for Prussian dominance was their economic prosperity, due to the Rhineland and the Zollverein. Without this, the army would not have been able to mobilise as quick as they did and they would not have the same modern technology such as the ‘needle-gun’, and without the Zollverein, Bismarck would not have had something to show Prussian dominance over Austria to the German people, as well as the rest of Europe.
