Nationalism in Italian and German Unification, 1815-1871 - Essay Example

I. Introduction It has frequently been argued that modern nationalism in Western Europe was an outcome of the French Revolution and the movement ofromanticism, but this is apparently a generalization. National consciousness was existent in majority of the European countries throughout the medieval ages. In several instances it was related to an individual who embodied the nation rather than to an intangible notion of nationalism. National consciousness focused on the individual loyalty to a king or empire conveyed into the nineteenth century. Particularly in the smaller states the prince remains the embodiment of national ideals. This dynastic loyalty implied by the seventeenth century, in any case, the works of a prevalent national consciousness concentrated though it could be upon the governing divine monarch. All over Europe the mercantilist scheme put emphasis on the precedence of national consciousness and interest over those of other nations. Nationalism assumed on various forms as it infiltrated different ways of observing the world and the nation. There is no solitary nationalism; there is in its place a diversity of nationalisms. Furthermore, these nationalisms developed within the paradigm of the varied European countries. However, in this development we can make out a number of common milestones. Otto Van Bismarck of Germany, the genuine politician, approached the front, whereas in Italy the ambitious Giuseppe Mazzini was succeeded by the pragmatic Camillo Cavour, whose preferred philosopher was Jeremy Bentham, a renowned Utilitarian (llobera 1994). National aspirations were guided toward practical accomplishments through peacekeeping or military hostility. This was merely one transition in nationalism after 1848, nonetheless; there was another. This essay will attempt to discuss a comparative point of view on the form of nationalism that developed in Italy and Germany in the Unification attempts initiated in the nineteenth century. II. Overview of Italian Unification: The Making of Italians The period of revolutions that nudged the foundations of Europe in the nineteenth century brought to Italy a chain of distressing disorders that pledged to throw off the burden of outside oppression and shove the peninsula toward constructive reforms. As European rebels coerced reform in Prague, Budapest, Vienna, Paris and Berlin, so Italians tool advantage of the opportunity. Most forceful were the ‘Five Days of Milan.’ Subjected under a Council of War ruled by Carlo Cattaneo, a republican and federalist, people of the Lombard capital began fighting violently with each other to compel Joself Radetzky, the Austrian general, to command his thousands of troops to leave the city on 1848. Simultaneously, Venetians headed by Daniele Manin, an Italian Jewish lawyer and fervent nationalist, seized command of the city and, as the people of Austria surrendered, proclaimed the Republic of St. Mark (Killinger 2002, 88). The following day, reacting to popular pressures from Lombardy and anticipating assuming control of a rickety and hazardous situation, the indecisive King Carlo Alberto of Piedmont proclaimed his support for the people of Milan and relocated his squadrons into Lombardy. In retrospect, even though it was not at all times evident at the moment, these were significant events in the development of the Risorgimento. And the identical northern scheme that triggered the first stage of unification would compel political heads of the north to leave their stamp on the rising nation (Killinger 2002). It can be assumed that the unification of Italy was more as an outcome of the decisions and actions of overseas powers than those of the rulers of the Risorgimento. The Risorgimento was a rebirth of nationalism flouncing all over the European continent during the nineteenth century; the faction aspired to create a unified Italy under one flag and one regime. Merely a small Italian minority supported the concept of national unity and majority chose to be loyal to their own regions rather that to Mother Italy (Riall 1998). Italy was partitioned in 1815 into several states and was controlled by the power of Austria. Lombardy and Venetia were sections of the Austrian Empire. The monarchy of the Papal States and the two Sicily believed that Austria was their defender. Only Piedmont was autonomous from Austrian dominance. The occupation of Italy by Austria was considered one of the hindrances to the aimed unification, but insurrections in Milan and Venice ousted the Austrians. Charles Albert afterwards released a declaration of war on Austria but was subjugated. This demonstrates that the Italians could not overpower the military power of Austria singlehandedly. Piedmont surfaced as the single Italian state that has the power to challenge Austria but the Prime Minister, Cavour, thought that Piedmont would require an influential collaborator against Austria and pursued alliance of Napoleon III of France (Riall 1998). Piedmont’s involvement in the Crimean War as a supporter of Britain and France permitted Cavour to settle an agreement with Napoleon III, wherein France tendered to assist in the driving out of Austrian troops from Venetia and Lombardy. The war stimulated insurrections in other regions of northern Italy; none of this would have been probable devoid of the French support (Riall 1998). Garibaldi, motivated by the triumph of Carvour, mustered a force and after acquiring command over Naples, Sicily and Genoa. Cavour as well directed a territorial army into the Papal States. By the latter part of the 1860, Italy excluding Rome and Venetia had been occupied by Piedmont. This was a major point as the voyage of Garibaldi coerced Cavour to alter his plans and recognize the southern states as division of a unified Italy (Carrie 1950). Venetia, in 1866, became a region of Italy as an unintended outcome of the Seven Weeks War, wherein Italy went to war against Austria as the collaborator of Prussia. Rome was a burden for the reason that it had the defence of French army since 1848. Napoleon III was incapable of taking them out and Italy could not imagine a war on France. The war between France and Prussia indicated that the French army had to be removed and the Italian army had to occupy Rome to complete the Italian unification (Carrie 1950). Several would contend that the Risorgimento was indebted trivially to the Italian unification and this argument could be supported by disputing that the French headed by Napoleon III assisted in conquering major states and helped motivate rulers of the Risorgimento. The French suffered heavy losses in the war for the unification of Italy and were a priceless resource to the Italians. It can as well be argued that the Seven Weeks War and as well the Franco-Prussian War were very important to the victory of the Risorgimento (Carrie 1950). Nevertheless, others would claim that devoid of attempt, determination and complete dedication of the allies and organizers of the Nationalist movement such as Mazzini, Garibaldi and Cavour, Italy may have stayed a peninsula of small, frequently skirmishing states. III. Overview of the German Unification: The Frustrations of German Nationalists The thirty eight states of what was known before as the Holy Roman Empire, reunited in 1871 to become the German Empire in the early twentieth century, united under the leadership of the Kaiser or the German Emperor. There are several forces which resulted into the unification of the German states, namely nationalism, liberalism, Otto Von Bismarck, dread of having another Napoleon, the Prussian King William I, and lastly the three decisive wars Prussia battled (Pflanze 1971). One of the primary forces which resulted into the Unification was nationalism. Nationalism, in principle, is the idea that particular elements such as culture, race, religion, territory and language differentiate people with each other, and they could determine their interests with a society not just a local emperor. This idea generated the thought that one’s fidelity should be given primarily to the nation not the emperor. On February 1848, there was a protest staged in Paris that led to the resignation of King Louis Philippe (Pflanze 1971). Then one month later students in Vienna revolted which eventually compelled Prince Metternich to abdicate as Austrian Foreign Minister. Frederick William IV, the Prussian King, remained firm against reform and employed troops to put off protests. But on being informed of the abdication of Metternich he lost his composure and convened a Diet, providing a constitution; when a throng of masses gathered at the Berlin Palace the royal guard starting shooting civilians. The ensuing rebellion ceased fire by November of the same year as the citizens realized the dreadful consequences of continuing it. The disappointment of this rebellion, and the failure to attain national consciousness hence national unity, severed the connection between nationalism and liberalism. Finally, it was the nationalistic principles of the German nobles, not the German public that ushered in the unification of the German states in 1871 (Snell & Schmitt 1976). Therefore, the unification of the German states in 1871 was attained through a fusion of several factors; the idea upheld by the citizens of Germany of a nation, the dread felt by the German nobles of anything which may led to the reduction of their authority and power, such as liberalism and the dread for the emergence of another Napoleon, the Prussian King William I whose majority of his significant contributions were selecting Bismarck and the initiation of the army reforms, and obviously, Otto Von Bismarck. Bismarck was the key to the three important wars against Denmark, France and Austria, the repercussion of the Prussian army restructuring and he ascertained that the German states ultimately unified under the leadership of a Prussian sovereign, or German Kaiser, emperor of the newly established German Empire (Snell & Schmitt 1976). The Frustration of the German Nationalists In 1815, Germany was a confederacy which comprises thirty nine small states and was controlled by the two superpowers Austria and Prussia. Following the French Revolution the Vienna Congress made a decision to establish the German Confederation as a ‘power vacuum’ and a bulwark state to put off another massive revolution in Europe. The superpowers Russia, Austria, Prussia and Great Britain desired to establish a new European order with a balance of power in order to prevent the domination of a country over others (Gazley 1926). At the same time the case of Napoleon occupation of Germany and the aspiration to create a unified Germany were instilled in the minds of freethinking upper class and the middle classes. There were various explanations for their desire to have a unified country. First, they believe that if they were unified beforehand they could have challenged Napoleon for the reason that they that they have an opportunity to set up an organized and strong army. Secondly, they aspired to be just like the unified countries around them, which are driven primarily of the intention to gain profit from a common market. Thirdly, they fancied for autonomy from Austria because Metternich formulated rules to maintain the status quo and keep his power in the country. But there was several reasons why the concept of German nationalism failed to initiate any attempt between 1815 and 1847. A quite strong adversary of German nationalism was the chancellor of Austria and the leading personality in the German Confederation, Furst von Metternich. He wanted to preserve and strengthen his power and authority on Germany; unified Germany will be assigned of its own leadership. In order to realize his goals he allowed the lower classes, for political reasons, to live as they desire and as to live the life they had before the French Revolution. Another action he carried out was the formulation of laws on censorship and underground groups to thwart coteries of young men spreading the word of their national ideas. If educators were caught teaching their students nationalist ideas they would be removed from their jobs (Windell 1954). Generally, Metternich was an extremely dreadful personality and had acquired respects from the German people which prevented them from attempting to unify Germany due to the fear of punishments. The following point is the reality that there were several social groups against nationalistic ideas. Hence the landed gentries did not aspire to have a unified Germany due to their fear of losing their privileged status. Several of them led small states in the German Confederation and after Germany was unified they lost much of their power and land (Windell 1954). Very close to this fact is the reality of ‘particularism’ which means that the citizens in their states harbour a strong feeling of regionalization or love of one’s own locale. Thus, they preserved their traditions, language and with all this they backed up their King in his decisions and actions against nationalistic ideas (Donson 2003). Moreover, traditionalists did not like the nationalistic ideas for the reason that they desired to preserve the status quo which fortified their power and influence. They did not witness an attempt in instituting new political foundations. The pressing dilemma that nationalist was burdened with was that there were hardly any people in Germany who were concerned in politics and appreciated politics. The lower classes, which comprised the largest group of people, were mostly illiterate and uneducated. The aristocrats who were literate and well-educated were not fascinated in nationalistic ideas. One of the primary forces was the Church. People strongly believed everything that the Church taught them so they immediately espoused the opinion that nationalistic ideas were not good. The church taught the people to be committed and loyal to their God instead of being dedicated to their country. Thus the Church matched up God to Germany and made the citizens believe that they were not allowed to be loyal to both. A devoted and good Christian will not choose to be a nationalist (Dawson 1919a). The most significant fact, in my opinion, is that there has been a significant disagreement between the north and south of the German Confederation since the north was largely protestant whereas the south was primarily catholic. Hence, if they had Germany unified they have to commit themselves to one religion. But not merely had the religion brought about conflict. There were several dialects, coinages, customs and political perspectives they had to address. With a unified Germany a unification of all these components was indispensable. I believe that the unification of Germany was an extremely complicated thing to deal with because on the one hand citizens had the desire to be unified yet on the other hand there has been the apprehension of a new superpower such as France to control all of Europe. Metternich as a primary reason fancied to govern Germany and discontinue the unification but merely some years later the upheaval pushed through their motives. Generally, my opinion is that every human being has the freedom and right to belong to a unified country as the citizens in France and Great Britain did a long time ago. Even though it was an act guaranteeing the security of Europe, other countries must not choose whether several countries, which are previously integrated, are permitted to unify or not. IV. The Unification of Italy and Germany: A Comparison In 1871, Italy and Germany emerged as two newly unified countries. These two unified nations shared much of their histories together, specifically ever since they were finally unified under the Holy Roman Empire. At the time of the French Revolution and Napoleon, both Italian and Germanic states were affected in several ways. Napoleon started disseminating his nationalist and liberalist authority in Italy through his 1796 Italian Campaign, which sooner or later multiplied within the Germanic states. Following the defeat of Napoleon, things started to change; Austria reclaimed their power and influence over the Italian states, not including Piedomont-Sardinia, and the Germanic states were unified under the auspices of the German Confederation. As an outcome of these provisions from the Congress of Vienna, nationalistic and liberal sentiments started to reawaken and the people started to struggle towards independence (Dawson 1919b). The states that eventually would unite to become what was known as Italy and Germany all confronted numerous difficulties in their struggle towards independence. One of the primary elements that hinder their way to unifications was the great power Austria. Although it was paradoxical that the German Confederation had to go to war against one of its member states to attain unification, it was one of their foremost disagreements. Austria was considered as one of the most influential and powerful German states, though, it did not contributed to the leadership or aspiration in uniting Germany. Since the people of Germany desired unification, they went to Prussia to ask for assistance instead. Prussia was also one of the strongest states of Germany. To strengthen its power, Prussia founded in 1818 a German customs union known by the name of Zollverein; a union that pursued to boost trade and incomes of its member states, not including Austria. Austria attempted to challenge this through encouraging a number of the weak German states not to join in the said union. Nevertheless, by the latter part of 1853, all of the German states joined the union, still not including Austria. With Austria displaced, the Germanic states appeared to be developing and the citizens were becoming more nationalistic. The Prussian King William I had numerous ideas for reforms, such as enlarging the size of the armed forces, and reducing the importance of held back mercenaries (Snell & Schmitt 1976). After the parliament disapproved of the cost of these proposed reforms in 1862, King William I hired a Junker, Otto von Bismarck, to lead. Bismarck operated towards the goal of unification with the thought that Prussia, in order to attain considerable power, had to seize command over the northern states of the German Confederation. To accomplish this, there were three options: to go to war against Austria with allies, ban Austria from participating in all of the German affairs, or negotiate with Austria to partition the states between them. He finally made a decision that banning Austria from all German activities would be the paramount means to realize this objective, and he would carry this out by gathering all the nationalistic valour of the German states to go to war against Austria. Austria was overpowered in 1866 in the Austro-Prussian war, which merely lasted for almost two months. Prussia’s strategy was to plan a war against Austria with no intimidations of any allies forming from the rival camp. To guarantee this, Bismarck safeguarded treatises with other superpowers in Europe. At the same time as this was taking place, Prussia consented to support Austria in its war against the Danish region, Schleswig-Holstein (Pflanze 1971). When the fight turned out to be triumphant, the two argued over control of the territory, providing Bismarck a justification to wage war against Austria. Hence, instigating the Austro-Prussian War, in which Austria was overwhelmed by Prussia’s commanding armed forces. The war’s ending was peaceful, as Prussia did not inflict any sanctions on Austria; no damages were paid, and no territory was sequestered by Prussia. Nevertheless, Venice was surrendered to Italy as a consequence of their coalition with Prussia, and the German Confederation became inactive, while Austria gave up the fight, pulling out from German affairs (Pflanze 1971). The newly integrated northern states became known as the North German Confederation, and then the focus moved to the south. Because of the reality that the southern Germanic states had dissimilarities in political and religious customs, Bismarck realized that they were hesitant to unify. To remedy this problem, he prepared to place the southern states in a situation where they would eagerly unite with the northern states of the German Confederation as an outcome of nationalism. He in so doing informed William I that it was guaranteed that a Hohenzollern would never be welcome in the Spanish throne. This motivated France to declare war against Prussia, just as Bismarck had prepared. The southern Germanic states had afterwards completely supported Germany in the war. In 1871, France gave up to the inconsiderate peace provisions and Germany was unified (Pflanze 1971). At the same time as this was occurring in Germany, Italy had to cater to their concerns with Austria. Before any actual feat had transpired, underground factions such as the Carbonari were established in Italy as an outcome of nationalism that was to be scrutinized. Again and again, they attempted to revolt against the states of Italy, but were thwarted by Austrian power. One of the primary rulers in the unification of Italy was Giuseppe Mazzini, who had a firm resolute to unify Italy and form a republican government. In 1831, he formed an organization named Young Italy for the objective of disseminating and supporting concepts of unification as well as nationalism. Count Camillo Benso di Cavour stepped into the picture in 1852 (Carrie 1950). Initially, he merely desired for the northern, and perhaps central, Italian states to be united under the empire of Sardinia. In order to realize this goal, Cavour fortified Piedmont into a laissez-faire constitutional state, and planned a project of infrastructures such as highways. He as well thought that in order to realize this objective, he had to collaborate with a powerful country that could support him against Austria. As a consequence, he selected France, which was at the time under the regime of Napoleon III. France had previously been an adversary of Austria, and the reality that Napoleon advocated a liberal unified Italy made it more and more a better selection of ally. In 1859, Sardinia was assaulted by Austria; hence France got involved and assisted at the expense of the Nice and Savoy states (Carrie 1950). The war was triumphant, enthusing nationalism and motivating other states to start preferring the concept of a unified Italy. Engulfed by the war and its allies, Napoleon III made a decision to pull out from the alliance and terminated the war, which gained Sardinia of Lombardy. Feeling discontented with the outcomes, Cavour abandoned the campaign. Nevertheless, this did not alter the outlook of the Italians, who still dreamed of a unified nation. Under the rule of Giuseppe Garibaldi, in 1860, a considerable portion of the Papal States were appended to the empire of Sardinia. Italy was only moderately united in 1861 since it did not incorporate Venice and Rome. The latter was under the leadership and defence of Napoleon III, whereas the former was protected by Austria. Though, in 1866, at some point in the Austro-Prussian War, Italy acquired Venice as section of a treaty between the allies. France participated in the Franco-Prussian War in 1870 with Germany, abandoning Rome and the other Papal States in an unprotected condition. Rome was afterwards effortlessly subjugated, and they eventually consented to join the other Italian states, hence in 1871, the unification of Italy was confirmed (Riall 1998). It took several years for both the unifications of Italy and Germany to come about. Each of them had distinct intentions and goals, and employed various strategies of attaining their goal. Both Italy and Germany were motivated by nationalists who possess a strong yearning for their regions to be unified under one flag. Prussia got the supports of the nationalists through the Zollverein, at the same time as Italy gained them through personalities who strongly influenced them (Llobera 1994). Prussia as well made use of more mighty armed forces, in contrast to Italy. Nevertheless, both required the assistance of allies to acquire the land they considered necessary. Otto von Bismarck was the single ruler in the unification of Germany, whereas there were three rulers in the unification of Italy. Before the unification of the two countries, both were acquired in pieces. First integrating the north, afterward the south, and ultimately unifying the two regions as a whole. Italy and Germany as well had to struggle against the conflicting forces of Austria, which did not wish for either of the insecurely- added states to be integrated. Though, after a number of wars, coalitions and agreements, the Italian states as well as the German Confederation had shared a significant portion of their histories with one another and shared the same period of unification. V. Conclusions Europe in 1871 took on a whole new different structure with the emergence of the two newly unified nations, Italy and Germany. The unification efforts of both nations occurred at just about the same time in the middle of the nineteenth century and were encouraged by the same perspectives, nationalism and liberalism. Prior to the French Revolution and the spoils of Napoleon Bonaparte, Italy and Germany shared identical aspects. Italy was partitioned into several of independent states which were headed by tyrannical kings. Nevertheless, the Italians have a common history and a common language, or known as the Roman Empire. Several of them still remember these ancient harmony and grandeur. Germany on the other hand was more disparate than Italy. The country had hundreds of small autonomous states, and they had failed to establish a common government. Nevertheless, the Germans, just like the Italians, had a common language and shared several recollections of harmony in the medieval ages. The French Revolution and Napoleon Bonaparte influenced the two countries heavily. Italy was specifically inspired by the vocation of Napoleon who initially rose to popularity with his Italian movement in 1796. Napoleon and his conquering militias, at first, were seen by Italians as heroes who introduced them to the ideas of nationalism and liberalism. As a matter of fact, Napoleon initiated a number of reforms in Italy and established a unified Kingdom of Italy. These bolstered the effect of nationalism and liberalism. Though, when Napoleon turned out to be progressively more of a despot, he was resisted by Italians who rebelled against Napoleonic control (Carrie 1950). In the case of Germany, the French Revolution and Napoleon provided the initial force to nationalist and liberal groups. Conversely, Napoleon lessened the population of German states from hundreds to thirty nine and classified them into a Confederation of the Rhine. Alternatively, both Prussia and Austria, the powerful German states, were decisively crushed by Napoleon in a number of battles. Their cruel treatment stirred a resolute patriotic sentiment among the German people. Particularly, Prussia improved her armed forces and administrative mechanisms in order to effectively challenge Napoleon. This was victoriously accomplished in the Battle of Leipzig in 1813 when Prussia organized some German states to conquer Napoleon (Snell & Schmitt 1976). In other words, nationalist and liberal feelings in Italy and Germany were similarly rekindled by the French Revolution and Napoleon. Italy after 1815, majority of the Italian states, such as Sardinia, Duchies and the Papal States were robustly influenced by Austria; as an empire characterized by racial diversity and occupying the provinces of Venetia and Lombardy, Austria had no desire for a unified Italy. Mettemich attempted to hold back whatever nationalist and liberal goals that emerged in Italy, and he was effective until 1848. Meanwhile, three perspectives materialized on how to attain Italian unification. As incidents unfurled, the aristocratic idea that promoted the rule of Piedmont-Sardinia turned out to be the majority (Killinger 2002). That country had the determination and power to pilot the movement for the unification of Italy. She turned out to be the milestone of Italian nationalist. In Germany, akin to Italy, Austria was the primary barrier to unification. Nevertheless, within the Confederation, Austria had to confront the adversary of another strong German state, Prussia. Both countries debated after 1815 for headship of the Confederation. For a number of decades, when Prussia was disgraced by Austria in the Treaty of Olmutz, the rule of Austria was unquestionable. However, Austria pursued only to rule, but never to unite the states. As nationalism gained momentum, even more German people mislaid hope in Austria and resorted to Prussia for headship in the movement for unification (Donson 2003). Revolutionary sentiment endured in Italy since 1815, as seen from the series of rebellions all the way through the decades. In 1848, rebellions took place in all Italian states for the hope of freedom and unity. The empire of Piedmont-Sardinia as well proclaimed war on Austria to struggle for the unification of Italy. In spite of some preliminary victories, the revolutionary movement was frustrated as rebellions were decisively repressed by tyrannical monarchs and Piedmont was overpowered by Austria. Nevertheless, Piedmont remarkably boosted her reputation among Italian nationalists and liberals for her courageous combating against Austria and her broadcast of constitution in 1848 (Killinger 2002). Germany was mutually impacted by the dramatic revolutionary movement. The two key German states, Prussia and Austria, were upset by rebellions in their central cities. A number compromises were given to the revolutionaries, such as the abdication of Metternich, the summoning of constituent conventions, and the formation of liberal governments. Even so, counteracting revolution dominated in the end when tyrannical regime went back to majority of the German states, normally after the repression of rebellions by dedicated imperial forces. Amidst the early revolutionary victories, German nationalists convened at Frankfurt to plan for German unification through the constitutional way. Their infinite discussion on fundamental ideals and also on Greater and Lesser Germany, accompanied with their lack of genuine authority, added to their decisive failure in 1850 (Pflanze 1971). As such, the revolution of 1848 was unsuccessful to bring liberation or harmony to Germany, as it had been unsuccessful in Italy. Just in Prussia did the King award a constitution, yet it was beyond from what the liberals had aimed for. While the reputation of Piedmont among Italians had been brought into the picture after the event of 1848, no German state elevated her status in the perception of nationalists and liberals (Llobera 1994). What varied mainly between the unifications of Italy and Germany were the strategies and causes underlying them. In Italy, numerous rebellions established the country as antagonistic, and coerced a military occupation, which maddened the natives even more. These unbearable movements towards the Italians infuriated them, hence the rebellions carried on until Sardinia got involved to help shape the condition politically. In the case of Germany, the key factor behind unification was resolve by the Prussians that unification should take place on their own terms, and subjected under their regime. From this point, political manipulation and quick, well coordinated wars resulted into coalition after coalition until the country was again unified. The dissimilarity to be noted clearly is this, with a mainstream rebellion that was supported by strong domestic political assistance the Italian kingdom was instituted, in spite of the foremost resistance from foreign superpowers. German unification was ushered in by fanatical political strategies that were sustained by a powerful military force. This fusion was effectively employed to express the power of Prussia and to astound other German states that coalitions would be both indispensable and quite advantageous. References Carrie, Rene Albrecht. Italy from Napoleon to Mussolini. New York: Columbia University Press, 1950. Dawson, William Harbutt. The German Empire, 1867-1914 and the Unity Movement, Vol.1. New York: Macmillan, 1919a. —. The German Empire, 1867-1914 and the Unity Movement, Vol.2. New York: Macmillan, 1919b. Donson, Andrew. "Fatherlands: State-Builidng and Nationalism in Nineteenth Century Germany." Journal of Social History (2003): 521+. Gazley, John Gerow. American Opinion of German Unification, 1848-1871. New York: Columbia University , 1926. Killinger, Charles L. The History of Italy. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2002. Kiss, Endre. "A Typology of Nineteenth Century Concepts of Nationhood." East European Quarterly (1996): 47+. Llobera, Josep R. The God of Modernity: The Development of Nationalism in Western Europe. Oxford: Berg Publishers, 1994. Merriman, John M. Consciousness and Class Experience in Nineteenth-Century Europe. New York: Holmes & Meier Publishers, 1979. Noether, Emiliana Pasca. Seeds of Italian Nationalism, 1700-1815. New York: Columbia University Press, 1951. Pflanze, Otto. Bismarck and the Development of Germany: The Period of Unification, 1815-1871. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1971. Riall, Lucy. Sicily and the Unification of Italy: Liberal Policy and Local Power, 1859-1866. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998. Snell, John L. & Schmitt, Hans A.The Democratic Movement in Germany, 1789-1914. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1976. Windell, George G. The Catholics and German Unity, 1866-1871. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1954. Woolf, Stuart. Nationalism in Europe, 1815 to the Present. New York : Routledge, 1996. Read More