Printable View
Does anybody like to discuss German history between Napoleon and WW1. I know it seems to a bit Germany focused but I find it amazing that a powerless, peaceful and civilized nation turned into a nation that fought twice against the whole world within 50 years and killed millions of innocent people. And I think other nations were efected too.
I do not want to have a discussion at the 'Bismark was great! level, but go more into detail. I think this is what the MONASTERY is made for.
Honestly do you find Prussia to have been a peaceful nation?
It was the most militarized nation in Europe (the highest soldier to civilian rate). And Germany was at the time formed by Prussia and her arms. Bismarck was not a German nationalist, he actually spoke against them, he was a Prussian through and through. Thus his policies were aimed at Prussian lines, not German.
Great, we actually started the discussion.
Germany was not only Prussia. If you look at Baden or Bavaria or even Austria you will not say that these were militaristic. Most of the German territories were simply too small to have military ambitions.
Bismark - he wasn't there right after the Napoleon age. He was an essential part of the development towards a nationalistic and militaristic nation.
Well, much of Germany was pretty placid. With the dissolution of the HRE and the end of the 30 years war, many of the German petty states were quite peaceful (burnt out a bit too). Others provided numerous mercenaries to foreign powers (both for revenue and to get "extra" young men off the streets). Only Prussia can be though of as "war-like," and the highest ratio of soldiers you note was a result of the Landwehr effort coming out of the Napoleonic era, Frederick didn't have the system set up to be that sweeping.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kraxis
The stunning transformation of Germany in the period from 1848-1871 is a powerful story. The loose confederation of German States formed at the Congress of Vienna was wracked by the revolutions that swept Europe in 1848. A new confederation was constituted (in a vote that had nearly as many abstentions as yes votes) that gave the title Emporer to the King of Prussia. By 1851, the rebellions had been squashed or side-stepped.
3 External wars were then utilized to add territory to Germany and to unify all of Germany into one state (albeit with a federally separate Bavaria). These were the 2nd S-H war of 1863, the Austria war of 1866, and the Franco-Prussian war of 1870-71. Militarily, the Germans were among the first to adopt breech loading rifles, the first European power to emphasize rail transport, and the first to emphasize heavy artilllery at the divisional level since Rome. This wave of success allowed Bizmarck, Moltke, and others to take Prussian ascendency in a Confederation and institute the Imperial Germany of the pre WW1 era.
Seamus
If you are interested in this we should start with the Congress at Vienna, then do the revolution of 1848, the first SH-war, the restauration, Prussia before B, Bismarck age, time after Bismarck.
Bavaria and Würtemberg were not that strong perhaps, but they were not unknown to war, and to aggressive wars. Both had allied with Napoleon (and abandoned him at Leipzig).
But as I said, Prussia bullied the others into their place. So that Germany became a super-Prussian state. Just like Bismarck had wanted it. Everything he did was for Prussia, nothing was for Germany (in itself, but it did happen that what was good for Prussia was good for Germany).
And prior to this, there was no German nation. All the small principalities were quite adamant that they were different.
Actually, in light of the current situation in the Balkans, the effective knitting together of Germany between 1849 and 1914 might hold some important lessons. You are quite correct that many of the petty states were adamant about their sense of difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kraxis
I never argued against your point about Prussia's supremacy in Imperial Germany. A simple review of the "power players" in German government from 1867 through WW1 indicates a high percentage of Junkers vis-a-vis the others. I'd never read that Bizmarck was anti-German, but his efforts to keep the Prussian monarchy and aristocracy in the catbird seat were obvious.
Seamus
Kraxis,
there was a German nation even though they were seperated in different states. There was one culture and even economy was getting closer and closer.
And you are right, Bismarck was anti-German. He could have managed to create a German state without war (in fact it was almost impossible to prevent the creation of a German state sooner or later). But without war it would not have been a Prussian antidemocratic state.
Me love Germans , me love them....oops , sorry , wrong thread...(?) :embarassed:
I don’t know much about history of Germany but it seems to have followed the same path different nation-state had in Europe since the late XV century Spain.
After an active military era, those nations formed as politically centralized states, with a different dose of federalism, very important in Spain, very low in France.
This led to strong political entities that where able to absorb the smallest entities around them and that became very active, aggressive and dominating powers.
This had been done in the XVIII century for all major European countries to the exception of Germany.
The only specificity I find for Germany to explain this late centralization is the thirty years war : it took about two centuries for the different German entities to regain the demographic and politic regression they suffered during this blood bath.
It happened during the XIX century just like it had been for other nations, with main powers, both from a political, demographic and militarist point of view, emerging and eating or dominating smaller powers to unify them under their own rule and form a nation-state.
I think geographic conditions prevented countries such as Bavaria to take this ruling role as they where bordered by powers more important than themselves, as well as historical conditions blocked Austria’s potential rising.
The French revolutionary and Napoleonic wars certainly had also a huge influence upon German nationalism.
Once united, Germany had the same behaviour other powers had : aggressiveness, boldness, self confidence, contempt of other nations and military domination attempt over Europe.
Spain attempts of a European domination happened during the XVI-XVII centuries, for France it was during the XVII-XVIII centuries, England was unable to do so in continental Europe so she went far away during XVIII-XIX century, for Germany it was the XX century.
Nothing really different for Germany I think, as it is too soon to see if it’s militarism will not grow again for further ruins – let us keep hope in the European community, without it Europe will completely shatter in ashes on the next flag waving blood bath.
The German race has always been agressive and expansionist. This isn't to say that other cultures haven't garnered the exact same traits - but that Germany has been able to, since the invading tribes which swept the Roman Empire away, maintain some sort of organised unit of tribes. Though they might not have always been together in their endeavors, but they have a history of supremacy and a conquering spirit which only rarely is able to sustain itself over the centuries. Notable compatriots of recent history are the Hellenes and the Romans. Someone might dub the Anglo-American domination of language and military power in modern times as their "time in the sun" as it were. Of course that would be forgetting that the Angles, Saxons and Jutes were Germanic tribes.
You mean Prussian history? ~;)Quote:
Does anybody like to discuss German history between Napoleon and WW1.
Really though, Prussia was the power player and the most important unifying force. The reason Germany of 1914 was the way it was is directly due to Prussia, which overshadowed all the other states.
eh panzer when di du get warnings?
Panzer, that is just the kind of discussion I wanted to avoid. This is not pro or contra Prussia. Let's just collect the facts and dive into them a little bit deeper.
What do you all think of the Congress of Vienna, which ended the Napoleon Wars, gave Europe a new order (well in fact almost the old one)?
Kraxis, you wrote: It (Prussia) was the most militarized nation in Europe (the highest soldier to civilian rate)
Where do have this from. What time. Directly after the Nap Wars or later?
That was mainly due to a rapid industrialisation that took off in the 1840's in Saxony, not Prussia, and resulted in a clear German lead in iron and steel, chemical industry and pharmaceuticals as well as significant advances in mechanical engineering. These advances were were put to military use as much as for civilian purposes, because of the continuing predominance of a warrior aristocracy, the Junker. The result was a nation where capitalist development was geared to the needs and policies of a feudal caste.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Exactly how this skewed situation led to aggressive German policies and finally to national socialism -- also known as the 'German exception' -- is open to much debate.
According to Ralf Dahrendorf for instance, the bungled German revolutions closed the road to full democratic development. Whereas a truly liberal society regulates conflict through compromise, Germany suppressed social conflicts in the name of social and national harmony. As a result, a society emerged in which men oppressed women and children; teachers glorified the unifying national ‘whole’ at the expense of personal freedom and liberal individualism; trade unionists and social democrats avoided industrial and social conflict and preferred accomodation with authoritarian leaders.
Barrington Moore contended that Germany was not a unique exception and that its development shows many similarities with that of post-1853 Japan and its increasingly aggressive policies. Moore claimed to have located an illiberal ‘social tradition’ in both nations which he contrasted to the alternative systems of ‘Western’ and Communist countries. In both Germany and Japan a relatively weak bourgeoisie allied with the old ruling elite in order to create authoritarian regimes. Nazism in particular responded to the instinctive search of such classes for a return to the pre-industrial world of obedience, rooted-belief and hierarchy.
There are many more theories - take your pick.
Link
Peaceful...Prussia!?!?!?... As i've read it they were far from it. But they are the ones who helped defeat Napoleon (Blucher) and united Germany. Quite stubborn.Quote:
Originally Posted by Franconicus
The Austrian Empire was also not so peaceful. It's government was the exact opposite of Napoleon's freer nation. Austria was an agressor just like Napoleon. How did they acquire such a chunk of land?
Let others go to war, you, Felix Austria, marry!Quote:
Originally Posted by Derfasciti
Colovion: The German race has always been agressive and expansionist.How can you say that. What is the German race? Do you assume that Germanian tribes and Germans are the same? I can tell you that from the pure heritage there Germans are probably more Celticromans with Slawian and Scandinavian elements than Germanian.
From Germania to Germany you talk about 2,000 years history. You can hardly say that Germans were more agressive and expansionistic than Spanish, English or French. Or Arabians, Turkish, Russians.
Before and after the Napoleon wars the German nation in total war far less agressive than the European neighbors. England established the empire, France invaded all most of Europe, Russia conquered the east. Germany was more self focused, playing with literature and philosophy.
P.S.: Colovion, many people still think that Germans are agressive and militaristic. Bush and his fellows still do not understand why the Germans did not happily join his crusade. They were so amazed that they even forgot to boycot us ~:cool:
The old fashioned royalties won the battle and maintained their power over the masses. It was quite a step back, when you consider what Napo achieved a few years earlier.Quote:
Originally Posted by Franconicus
Meneldil,
from a democratic point of view you are right. However, Napoleon did not manage to establish a durable situation. The congress at least established a stable equilibrium. There were no big losses or needs for revenge.
Read my post again, especially:Quote:
Originally Posted by Franconicus
Don't go and jump to conclusions that I'm ridiculing the Germanic people, for I"m merely giving credit where it's due. As a whole the Germanic culture has been riddled with successful military endeavors over the face of Europe which struck fear into the hearts of their neighbors. From the Roman times to Barbarossa to the Teutonic Knights to the Prussians, Habsburgs, WW1 and WW2...etc. You even mention the English and French - which were composed of Germanic Tribes being the Franks, Angles/Saxons/Jutes. Was there other blood in these nation's viens? Yes. Who ended up winning the war for leadership? Germanic tribesmen.Quote:
The German race has always been agressive and expansionist. This isn't to say that other cultures haven't garnered the exact same traits
Your post seems rather defensive - in no way was mine intended as an assault on the dignity of the Germanic people.
:bow:
1871-1918, Germany's greatest period.
Kaiser, can you give a explanation, why you think so? Please!Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaiser of Arabia
Here is a small summery of what I know about Prussian history:
Originally Preußen was the name of an area outside of the German Empire. It was divided between the Polish king and the Teutonic Order (1466 - 1772). During reformation the Teutonic Order converter and disappeared and Prussia now was ruled by the Hohenzoller Albrecht von Brandenburg-Ansbach. He was under the authority of the Polish king.
Brandenburg was part of the German Empire (one of seven electorates). It was ruled by the Hohenzoller since 1415. Since 1618 both countries were in personal union, although still separated territories. So the Duke was under the authority of the German Emperor and the Polish King. During the 30 Years War Prussia fought for the Protestant Union. After the war it was war-ravaged and depopulated. Prussia had a poor economy and a weak military. Friedrich Wilhelm I. policy (economic and military reforms, religious tolerance and absolutism) developed the country. He acquired additional territories. In 1657 Poland was weakened by a conflict with Sweden and had to accredit the sovereignty of the Hohenzoller over Prussia. Friedrich III von Brandenburg was then called King Friedrich I in Prussia (not King of Brandenburg, because this was part of the German Empire and not King of Prussia because the Polish King still ruled over a part of it). After a while people called the whole territory Prussia.
King Friedrich Wilhelm I (1713-1740) built the most powerful army of Europe and settled many refugees in the eastern parts of his country. He also bought some parts from the Swedish. Although he was called soldier king he did not make war. His son Friedrich II did. He made three wars to get Schlesien. Together with Austria and Russia he devided Poland and was now called King of Prussia. He abolished torture, gave compulsory education and complete religious tolerance.
During the Napoleon Wars the Prussian army was not on a par with the French (Jena and Auerstedt). After Napoleons Russian campaign the Prussians fought again. Due to the reformation of the army and administration, the militias and volunteers Napoleon could be defeated.
My resume:
- Prussia was not a great power before Friedrich II.
- It had not a big military before Friedrich Wilhelm I.
- It fought to gain new territory of Poland and within Germany.
- Even though the army was big then the country was neither militaristic nor aggressiv.
Do you agree?
.
Franconicus,
Your history apparently ends before 1871, in which Moltke's armies dramatically defeated the Second Empire in France and invaded Paris, Wilhelm being coronated emperor in Versailles. From then on, Germany, which was practically Preußen + her unnamed vassals, became a world power. Under Bismarck's political direction, they switched alliances with Russia and Austria (at some point with both, hence the Dreikaisernbund), gathered colonies in Africa, built up relation with the Ottoman Empire etc. In 1918 they were defeated in WW1, which they should have evaded in that setting, ie both England + France and Russia on the same side, and the story was over --until 1933.
I think that's what Kaiser refers to.
.
Well, Germany was finally united into a powerful juggernaut of a nation rather than 5,000 feuding states (3,300 I know...). They had been able to challenge the greatest Empire on Earth, the UK, had one of the strongest militaries and one of the best governments the world has ever seen. This period marked the begining of the rise of such great modern generals and leaders such as Bismarck, Tirpitz, von Moltke, and later Guderian, Rommel, Doenitz, and von Richtofen. Germany was proud to be German, yet they had no desire to expand outside of what is rightfully German. No genocidal maniacs either.
Mouzafphaerre,
you are right. I wanted to show that Germans (or Prussians) are not agressive and militaristic 'by nature'. Compared to other nations they were quite peaceful before the Napoleon Wars. I agree that this changed significantly. The goal of this whole thread was to discuss how the German nation changed from a peaceloving country of poets and philosophers to an agressor. Obviously I could make my point.
Kaiser,
what makes a great period or a great nation. The number of genius generals? Or the number of enemies you can deal with at the same time?
I think the time before Bismarck was much happier. Germans were proud because they defeated Napoleon. (I hope you do not believe this Wellington tale ~;) ) They had national heroes like Blücher, Gneisenau. But also Kant, Goethe, Schiller, Humbold ... . The German Federation was strong enough to defend itself but too weak to threaten any other nation. And Germany was on its way to democracy (the British model). Econimy was fine.
In the end all those Tirpitz, von Moltke, and later Guderian, Rommel, Doenitz, and von Richthofen, the fleet and the colonies did not make Germans more happy!
Franc':
I'd say the militaristic potential had always been there, especially in Prussia. This was the land of the Teutonic Knights, of Barbarossa, of the struggles of the 30-years war every bit as much as it was the culture of Delbruck and Beethoven.
France's levee en masse set a new standard for armed conflict and Prussia's development of the Landwehr system, and its success in re-establishing Prussian independence, positioned them as a nation in arms in a way that was foreign to most European powers in the relative quiessence following the Treaty of Vienna. Prussia correctly recognized that the loose union of German states left them exposed against the increasingly large and well populated states of Europe and they pursued a consolidation of Germany that would secure vital resources etc. The rest is history.
Had Germany bagged its luxury fleet idea, the world may well have been very different. Britain's alliance with France may well have been less entente and a bit less cordiale. Germany would have had at least 4 more active corps, and 2 more with Von Kluck and 2 more with the 8th Army may well have given Germany the win in early September 1914 -- before the vaster resources of Britain, the Kitchener armies, the Italian betrayal etc., condemned the Central Powers.
Kaiser:
I would not label Manfred Albrecht a great leader. His command of a Jasta and later of a Geschwader was adequate, but not inspired. He may well have been the deadliest hunter of that war (and certainly was in the hyper-elite crowd with Fonck, Bishop, McCudden, Udet, Voss, brother Lothar, Rickenbacker, Guynemer etc.), but if you are looking for leadership in the air you need look no further than Boelcke. Boelcke established the Jasta, and Geschwader concept -- including formation attack, worked to establish practical combat training, and literally wrote the book on air combat (a book that is still valid in the missile age).
Seamus
Seamus,
I think that Prussia did not have much military potential for a long time. Its countries were depopulated after the 30 Years war. The Prussian Duke or Kings had to attract refugees from everywhere to fill their countries and they had to force (and sometimes steel) young men to fill their armies.
Situation changed with industrialisation. Prussia had a very liberal economy and industrial production was outstanding compared to the rest of Germany. (I guess only Britain was better). And due to the improvements in agriculture (Germany was leading there) the population figures expolded.
On the other side military potential or power is not the same as militarism. Militarism means that you organize your nation like an army.
A strong Germany was then a threat for Europe, even without being aggressive. Germans population is twice as big as the French. Also much bigger than the British. German industry was much stronger than the Russian. Due to its geographic position this was an explosive mix. If Germany allied with Russia it can easily dominate the rest of Europe. If Germany allied with France - same picture. So the only way for the French, British and Russian to live in peace was to isolate Germany. So one cause for the situation before WW1 was the economical and military strength of Germany. So this is an example against the thesis that a strong army guarantees a peaceful life.
After WW1 the winners tried to isolate Germany again. And failed again. After WW2 they were smarter. They devided Germany and integrated the parts in their military organisations.