Why Did Nationalism in Germany Fail? 1815-1850

Why did Nationalism Fail!
In 1815, at the end of the Napoleonic wars the Deutscher Bund was created which include all 39 German states, but this was not a united Germany. By 1850, there had been several attempts to united Germany but all failed and Germany remained divided. WHY DID THEY FAIL- LINE OF ARGUMENT – FACTORS
Austria opposition
Prince Metternich (Austrian Minister) was strongly opposed to German nationalism and was a major obstacle to the unification of Germany, as Austria was one of the leading German states and Austria held the Presidency of the Bund. Metternich was a conservative and therefore strongly opposed to liberal ideas. The Austrians were keen to keep a ‘lid’ on nationalist sentiment in the German states, as, if it was left unchecked, nationalism could lead to the disintegration of Austria’s vast empire in south-east Europe. If a Kleindeutschland was created, Austria would be excluded from German affairs. An example of Austria stopping Nationalism in Germany is the Carlsbad decrees where they banned student nationalist organisations in 1919. In addition at the meeting in Olmutz in 1850 the Bund was re-conved as it had been before 1848 and Prussia was forced to dissolve the Erfurt union. Overall Austria opposition played a integral role in the failure of Nationalism in Germany as they kept a close eye on German affairs and blocked any attempted of nationalism in Germany.
Divisions within the Nationalists
The nationalists themselves were divided on whether ‘Germany’ should be a Kleindeutschland or a Grossdeutschland. An example of this is the failure of the Frankfurt in 1848 union as delegates disagreed on what Germany should be and the meeting was dissolved. There were also divisions about whether a united Germany should be a monarchy or a republic. If it was to be a monarchy, there were divisions over who should take the throne. If there was to be a constitution, there were divisions about who would be entitled to vote and how the new German parliament would be structured. This also played a major role in why nationalism failed in Germany as the Nationalist wanted different things which slowed nationalism down when it had a chance to succeed for example the 1848 revelations.
Religious differences
The northern German states were mostly Protestant, and tended to look to Protestant Prussia for leadership, help and protection. Whereas the Southern German states were mostly Catholic and tended to look to Catholic Austria for leadership, help and protection. Overall this created a divide within Germany as they had conflicting interested
Opposition from the Rulers of the Individual States
The rulers of the individual states were obviously opposed to nationalism, as a unification of Germany would result in a reduction of their power and prestige. They also felt a sense of paticularism and loyalty to their individual state’s

Nationalism Limited to middle- classes
Nationalism only appealed to intellectual people, the growing middle classes like the student nationalist society called the Burschenschaften ”talkers and dreamers with no real plan of action” (McKichan). 500 member of the Burschenschaften attended the Wartburg festival in 1919 where they burned anti nationalist books. It did not appeal to the working class who were not educated enough to see any advantages in nationalism.

German Unification
In 1850, Germany was still not unified despite attempts in the 1840s to do so, but this changed in January 1871 when Germany was unified in the Hall of mirrors in Versailles after the Franco- Prussian war. LINE OF ARGUMENT------ OTHER FACTORS.
Prussian Military
The Prussian Military played a huge role in unifying Germany in 1871. Albert Von Roon the Prussian minister was determined to improve Prussian military strength so he came up with the idea of military reforms. However these reforms were rejected by the Landtag due to the taxation needed to pay for these reforms. To try and resolve this crisis Albert Von Roon persuaded Wihelm to appoint Otto Von Bismarck, Bismarck successfully resolved the problem by finding a loophole in the Prussian constitution allowing him to collect taxes for the military reforms by bypassing the Landtag. These military reforms were very successful and as a result the Military went from strength to strength. The Prussian military defeated the Danish in 9 months and Austria in 7 weeks they also quickly mobilised there army and invade France in 187-, this was largely due to the military reforms as Germany had better commanders and strategy. Bismarck said “Not by parliamentary speeches and majority vote are the great questions of the day determined ... but by blood and iron”. Bismarck is saying that Germany will not be unified by democracy but by going to war and fighting for it. Prussian Military strength was a massive factor in German unification as without a strong army Germany would off struggled in the war of unification.
Prussian Economy
The Prussian economy was growing rapidly and started to outstrip that of Austria. McGonigle stated “ This would have far- reaching political, economic and military consequences for both powers” The Germans produced twice as much pig iron than Austria and had over 5,800 km of railway compared to Austria’s 1,500 km. The vast amount of Railway Germany had lead to quick mobilisation of the German army during the wars of unification. It could be argued that without a strong Prussian economy they would have struggled to raise the taxes for the vital military reforms J.M Keynes said; “by coal and iron”. He is trying to argue that Germany would be unified down to the strength of the economy so it could be a major power in Europe. Also without a strong economy there would have been fewer railways so slower mobilisation and a weaker army. CONCLUSION------ LINE OF ARGUMENT
Bismarck’s role
Bismarck played an important role in German unification. Bismarck was famous for his opportunism and Realpolitick. Hitler described Bismarck as “the smith who forged the Reich” this is saying that he was responsible for German unification. It can be argued that Bismarck planned to go to war with Austria as he made an alliance with Italy and a secret alliance with France promising them land if they stayed neutral. Bismarck then isolated Austria by making them look like the aggressions and provoking them into mobilising their army However Mckichan states “He did not control events but was influenced by them” This quote is arguing that he did not plan event but he used them to his advantage. Bismarck also used opportunism to his advantage this is shown when he used the Spanish throne problem to create tension between the north German confederation and France. Bismarck then cleverly edited a telegram from Whilelm II which he leaked to the press. This outraged the French and left them with little option but to declare war on the North German confederation. CONCLUSION--------LINE OF ARGUMENT
Decline of Austria
In the 1850s and 1860s the balance of power within the German states began to swing away from Austria towards Prussia. Austria’s political power began to decline in the 1850s as they failed to support Russia in the Crimean war so they lost an alley who in the 1840s helped them put down revolutions in their own country. Austria also lost chancellor Schwarzenberg after this there was no strong leadership and they politically lost their way.

Why did liberals pass social reforms?

In 1906, poverty in Britain was widespread and there was no welfare state to tackle the problem, But there was a growing acceptance of the idea of social reforms to help the ‘deserving poor’. When the Liberals came to power in 1906 they had no great plans to introduce reforms, but between 1906 and 1914 they introduces a series of social reforms to help the ‘deserving poor’. Refer to isolated factor and outline my argument. Explain other factor as well.
Threat of the Labour party
The labour party had just been established in 1900 and quickly started to win over voters with its campaign for social welfare policys such as old age pensions and unemployment benefits. This made the Liberal party recognise the threat of labour in many working class communities. The Liberals realised that had to introduce social reforms or risk losing the support from the working classes so it could be argued social change was done to try and counter-act the labour party. At first the liberals tried to win the votes of the working class by introducing smaller reforms to try and avoid big ones e.g. offer pensions but raised the age limit to 70 year old. Overall the threat of the labour party was important in the liberal reforms as without reforms the liberals would of lost votes of the working class to the Labour party.

Changing Attitudes to poverty
It was becoming increasingly clear that the poor could not deal with circumstances beyond their control. The assumption that poverty was in some way the fault of the individual was being question more and more as people started to realise that they needed help. At the end of the 19th century there were two main investigations into poverty by Booth and Roundtree. Booths reported showed that 30% of London’s population were living in extreme poverty; he argued that poverty was such a big problem that only the government could really help the poor. The second report by Roundtree showed that almost 30%of York’s population lived in extreme poverty this showed if a relative small English city had such problems then so would other British cities and that the problem of poverty was therefore a national problem. These two reports provide politicians with evidence to suggest that no matter how hard people tried they could not lift themselves out of poverty. After theses reports there was the concept of the ‘deserving poor’, those who were poor through no fault of their own, this was an important theme in the Liberal reforms.
Worries about National Security
In 1899 the Boer war broke out involving the British and the Boer republics. The British took 3 years to defeat the Boer republics using 400,000 troops compared to the Boer forces that totalled 35,000. This was a huge shock to British confidence and people demanded answers to why it took so long to win the war. It could be argued that the quality to solider was to blame for the poor British performance, almost 25% of volunteers were rejected as they were physically unfit, In Manchester around 2/3rds were rejected. As a result of these concerns there were two committees set up to examine the problem of ill health in Britain. These recommended free school meals, school medical inspections and training in mother care. Many people argued that the poor British economy and the Boer war were proof of British decline and one response to this problem was to argue for social reforms. These reforms would make for a health population more efficient as a workforce and soldiers.
Concerns over National efficiency
By the end of the 19th century Britain was no longer the strongest industrial nation and was facing serious competition from new industrial nations such as Germany and America. It was argued that this was mainly due to the health and education standard of workers in Britain. If this was to get any worse than Britain position as a strong industrial national would be threatened. There was also concern that in times of economic depression unemployment soared in some areas. Politicians such as Winston Churchill that part of the problem was that the unemployed did not know where the jobs were. This, he argued, was an example of inefficiency weakening Britain’s industrial output.

New Liberalism
Within the Liberal party were a group of Politian’s who were interested in the problem of poverty, they became known as the New Liberals. The two most important ‘new liberals’ were Winston Churchill and David Lloyd George, they were willing to use the power of the state to intervene in society and try to end poverty. As a result the ‘old liberalism’ was declining as there was a growing realisation that poverty was not the fault of the individual.