Nationalism in German History - Essay Example

During the years 1815-1848 the forces of Liberalism and Nationalism were weak, and the risings in Germany 1830-1832 were easily suppressed1. Yet underneath there were strong currents of discontent and a new idealism based on the growing influence of the European middle class. The supremacy of Austria in Germany had been reestablished by the Treaty of Olmitiz, which was humiliating both to the national idealists represented by the Frankfurt Parliament and to the Prussian monarchy (Martin 2000, pg. 51). Yet between the years of 1850 and 1870 one of the most remarkable changes in European history in the nineteenth century took place. And this was the nationalism period of Germany. The Congress of Vienna restored a Germany comprising thirty-nine states. Before 1789 these states had numbered over two hundred. At first glance it seemed that the 1815 arrangement was a move towards simplification and unity, but this was only an appearance (Hagen & Sarah 1991, pg. x). For one thing, many of the thirty-nine states were in possession of more territory after 1815 than they had ever had before, and they were far more interested in maintaining these gains than in any schemes for a single German government in which their own identity might be lost. Germany after 1815 was still a much divided country (pg. xi). This division of Germany exactly suited the aims of the Austrian Chancellor, Metternich, who had a decisive voice in the settlement. Austria could control a disunited Germany far more easily than a united one. While the German princes were divided by political jealously and distrust, the Austrians would have no united opposition to their policies and could exert a decisive influence in the affairs of Germany. An assembly for the whole Germany was created after 1815, but this was by no means an effective German parliament. It represented the princes, not the people, of Germany, and was not in any way elected by popular vote (Martin 2000, pg. 49). The Diet of the German Confederation met at Frankfurt and consisted of 17 members (pg. 50). Eleven of the big states had one member each, and various groups of the smaller states each had one member. Metternich secured the permanent presidency of the Diet for Austria, a position to be discussed and the procedure to be adopted (pg. 39). The Diet did discuss in 1816 the creation of a single Germany, but nothing came of these discussions, mainly because of jealousy between the states, and especially between the two largest states, Austria and Prussia. A scheme for the building of Federal fortresses for the defence of Germany was also abandoned. Lastly, whenever fundamental laws of the Confederation or the Federative Act itself were to be enacted, the Diet was expanded into a General Assembly of 69 members (pg. 30). Those elements in Germany who had looked forward to real unity, the Nationalists, were intensely disappointed by this state of affairs. The Liberals, who had hoped at least for elected parliaments and governments responsible to the people in each of the German states, leading on to a united Liberal Germany, were also frustrated. A certain number of the German princes did introduce more liberal forms of government, especially in Bavaria where in 1818 a parliament was set up which represented the peasants, townspeople and nobles, and also in Baden, Wurttemberg and Saxe-Weimar (James 1990). But the great majority of thirty-nine states were governed by their princes in alliance with a highly privileged class of nobility, and politically the middle and peasant classes were ignored (James 1990). It must not be thought that the majority of German people were clamouring at this time either for Liberalism or Nationalism in Germany (James 1990). There were scarcely interested. Liberalism had its strongest hold amongst the intellectual class of writers, poets, scholars, university professors, lecturers and students. In the universities of Germany a number of student movements developed in these years, such as the Gymnastic Clubs and Students' Unions or Burschenschaften2, many of which advocated liberal ideas. It was this situation in the universities of which Metternich was particularly afraid (James 1990). The German system of university education, by which students moved from one university to another during the course of their studies, greatly aided the spread of these liberal ideas. In the year 1817 the conflict between Metternich and Liberalism came to a head over the Wartburg Festival, held at Wartburg in Saxony and organized by the students of Jena University (James 1990). The festival was a celebration of the German Reformation of the sixteenth century and also of the battle of Leipzig in 1813 which had been a decisive defeat for Napoleon. Besides celebrating these events, however, the students threw a bonfire a number of Prussian jackboots, reactionary pamphlets and other symbols of anti-liberalism, including an effigy of Metternich himself (James 1990). Metternich used these demonstrations as evidence of a widespread conspiracy. This was a deliberate exaggeration on his part of the importance of the students' celebration. He succeeded in playing upon the fears of the princes in Germany, and in 1819 another occurrence gave him even opportunity for these tactics (James 1990). The revolution against Charles X in France in 1830 stimulated a number of liberal protests in Germany. At a celebration in the castle of Hambach the flag of the Burschenschaften was unfurled and revolutionary speeches were made, demanding the nationalism of Germany and a liberal form of government (Theodore 1967). The same results followed as in the case of the Wartburg Festival thirteen years earlier. Metternich secured the imposition of decrees which went even further than those of Carle-bad. All political meeting were made illegal and it was a crime for Burschenschaften colours of red, black and gold to be worn even scarves or neckties. Repression in Germany was stronger than ever (Theodore 1967). The liberals had succeeded in gaining a constitution in Hanover, but this was suppressed in 1837 by the Duke of Cumberland, who was King of Hanover. Several prominent professors of Gottingen University, including the brothers Jacob and Wilhelm Grimm, the famous writers of fairy tales and historians of German folk-lore, were expelled, to the accompaniment of student riots and protests (Theodore 1967). Under the Metternich system political progress in Germany came to a standstill. One significant development of these years which was to have great future significance was the Zollverein or Customs Union3. This originated in Prussia itself, where an extensive reform of her internal and external trading system was undertaken in 1818. Up to that time Prussia imposed customs duties on nearly 4000 different kinds of goods entering the country4. By 1854 the Zollverein included the whole Germany except Austria and one or two small territories. Thus a uniform free-trading system developed for the whole of Germany under Prussian leadership. For a time in 1840, with the accession of Frederick William IV, the possibilities of liberal change seemed greater. It was thought that he would give the middle class some voice in political affairs, for with the development of big industries, especially in Berlin, and with the growth of the railway system, the middle trading class was becoming increasingly important, and was beginning to demand some part in the government of the state. But it soon became obvious that the new king had no intention giving way to liberalism or democracy. However, in 1847 an elected parliament was called. The circumstances were that the government needed money for railway development and thought it advisable to consult the monied classes for from whom they wanted the cash. But even now the assembly was still divided into two houses, one consisting of the middle class and peasants and the other the nobility. The assembly was only allowed to vote taxation and present petitions to the King. It had no real law-making powers. This was most unsatisfactory to the liberals, to whom the king remained stubbornly opposed. However, a representative assembly had at least met, and this encouraged the liberals to hope that more political rights could be obtained from the King. The year 1847 was one of considerable agitation in Germany and saw the revival of nationalism demands. It was the revolution of February, 1848, in France against Louis Philippe the stiumuated renewed activity among the liberals of Germany (Justine 1999). Risings quickly followed in most of the smaller states of Germany, and their rules were forced to grant the typical liberal demands for freedom of the press and of speech, representative government, and trial by jury. But it was in Prussia that the most important movements occurred (Justine 1999). The man most responsible for this remarkable change was Otto von Bismarck. He was a Prussian aristocrat, a Junker. One the great landed estates of East Prussia the noble's word was law, and in this environment Bismarck gained his own ideas of authority. In 1851, when the German Confederation had been revived on Austria's terms, the King appointed Bismarck as a Prussian representative in the Diet. Bismarck soon came to a conclusion that Prussia itself could never be strong in a divided Germany controlled by Austria, and Germany must be united by force, but on Prussia's terms5. This situation of judicious isolation imposed on Bismarck was, however, suddenly changed when Frederick William went mad in 1858. In the Prussian Parliament in Berlin the Liberals succeeded in gaining a majority against the proposed taxation, and the King's demands were rejected (Frank 2003, p. 125). The reason for this was not any opposition by the Liberals to militarism, but their demand that the Prussian Parliament should control the King and not merely accept the demands of himself and his military advisers (p. 126). They therefore proposed certain amendments to the military laws as a condition of their accepting the new taxes. Then Bismarck called to office (p. 127). If William I gave in, he would be accepting what was to him the loathsome principle that King of Prussia should be controlled by the representatives of the Prussian people. A very tense situation now developed between the King and the liberals' opposition, and at one point William I contemplated the King to recall Bismarck from Paris and appoint him head of the government as Minister-President (p. 127). Bismarck's now showed no compromise with the Liberals whatever. He had a growing Prussian army at hand officered by Junkers who were men after his own heart. Might was to decide the issue, not right. "Germany", declared Bismarck, "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, but by blood and iron" (Hagen & Sarah 1991, pg. 89). Bismarck had calculated correctly the Liberals in Prussia would no more make an appeal to force to gain their end now than they had done in 1848 at Berlin and Frankfurt. This made his ruthless measures all those more certain of success (Frank 2003, p. 128). But he now had to justify these measures by carrying through to success the policy of uniting Germany under Prussian control. To achieve this he had firstly to defeat Austria and expel her from the German Confederation. Secondly, to consolidate such a position and make Germany the strongest state in Europe he would have to defeat the France of Napoleon III, for the latter would never allow German unity without a struggle. But before these two stages were reached there occurred a Bismarckian "curtain-raiser" of the war against Denmark (p. 128). Bismarck had no intention of standing aside from this controversy. It was, in fact, a most convenient development as far as his personal aims were concerned. Firstly, he saw it as an opportunity to gain the support of the German Nationalists who wished to incorporate the two duchies into Germany. Secondly, by ultimately waging war against Austria and gaining complete control of the two duchies for Prussia he would drive home the lesson that the future of German nationalism really lay with Prussia, and not with Austria. And after some minor disputes, the Convention of Gastein was arranged by which Prussia was to administer Schleswig and Austria administer Holstein. This Convention was signed between Austria and Prussia in August 1865 (Hagen and Sarah, 1991, p. 94). By the 1866 peace treaty of Bismarck annexed to Prussia the duchies of Schlesqig and Holstein. The small North German states who had supported Austria were also annexed, and this resulted in the Rhine territories gained by Prussia in 1815 being joined with the Eastern land in a continuous territory (p. 95). In this way Bismarck consolidated Prussian territory and added another 4,000,000 inhabitants to the state (p. 96). Finally, he handed over Venetia to the Italians as promised. Bismarck now formed all the states north of the River Main into the North German Confederation which had a Federal Assembly for the discussions of matters common to all the states. The President of this Confederation was the King of Prussia and the Chancellor was Bismarck himself. The German Empire was proclaimed by Bismarck at Versailles in 1871. He had achieved not only the complete unification of Germany but its nationalism as the most powerful state in Europe. References: Martin Polley, 2000, "A-Z of Modern Europe Since 1789, Published by Routledge, Inc NetLibrary. Hagen Schulze, Sarah & Hanbury Tenison 1991, "The course of German Nationalism: From Frederick the Great to Bismarck" Cambridge University Press Nationalism/ Germany / History/ 19th century James J. Sheehan, 1990, German History, 1770-1866 (Series: Oxford History of Modern Europe), Oxford: Oxford University Press. Theodore Hamerow, 1967, Restoration, Revolution, Reaction: Economics and Politics in Germany, 1815-1871, Princeton: Princeton University Press. Justine Davis Randers-Pehrson, 1999, "Germans and the Revolution of 1848-1849" (Series: New German-American Studies/Neue Deutsch-Amerikanische Studien), New York: Peter Lang. Frank B. Tipton, 2003, "A history of Modern Europe since 1815", Continuum International Publishing Group Read More