To what extent was Prussian military strength responsible for the Unification of Germany?
...ple”. The later war with France gave Prussia an excuse to take control of the southern states that were not already under her control war in the interests of their ‘protection’. In the words of Bismarck it was “Blood and Iron” that unified Germany but only to an extent. Without the “Iron”, the strong economy, there may never have been a modern Prussian army. Was it then, as Bohme puts it, “coal and iron” that lead to the birth of Germany. Prussia always had been a relatively wealthy nation but with the creation of the Zollverien customs union her economy boomed. This new fortune was ploughed back into the economy and crucially into the military. This made all the conflicts fought later on possible. William Carr agreed when he called the Zollverien the “mighty lever of German Unification”. It also let the Industrial revolution flourish, created a middle class and helped create new railways and cause urbanisation. This led to the spread of nationalist ideas as David Blackbourn expressed when he stated that “Nationalism was the product of the print and communications revolution”. However others point out that if it was the economy that unified Germany why didn’t it unify before 1871, after all it had been strong for a many years before. This argument can be countered, however, by saying that it took time for this nationalist movement to spread, even with the trains. The foundations of this movement had originated from the nationalistic poets, composers and great thinkers of the era. German nationalism first became a widespread when Napoleon invaded the Germanic states in 1806. This grew until it led to his upheaval in 1815. This is sometimes called a major factor and can be seen as the beginning of Unification. This is belief of Fichte but AJP Taylor disagrees, saying early German was not “anti-French”. From here it is said that the artists took this strong passion and began to string together ideas which led the creation of the mould for Germany. David Blackbourn contradicts this by saying the “German Romanticism of the late nineteenth century cannot be seen as a reflection of life in German speaking Europe”. Although it is under constant debate, it is generally said that the growth of nationalism was a relatively minor factor, acting only as the starting point for other factors, chiefly because of it’s failings to achieve one nation in 1849. One factor it had little effect on was the role of Bismarck. Otto von Bismarck was a very strong political leader. Described by Hitler and “the smith who forged the Reich” he is often attributed as being the key reason for German unification. He rose to power by helping the King obtain taxes from the Prussian parliament for the army reforms. He had previously worked at the German Confederation of states where he had come to the Austrians and their control over the other states. This later led to the Austrian war which asserted Prussian power. He can be seen as both a master planner and an opportunist. His engineering of the three wars and the way he makes everyone else appear to be the aggressor are clear evidence of his ingenuitative planning. His use of the Ems telegram and of Duke Augustenburg both show his optimistic side. O Pflanze believes like many others believe that “Only under the simulation provided by Bismarck – did German nationalism begin to move the masses”. It is also said that he was the catalyst and Unification could till have happened but not at the same time. This is supported by D. Williamson when he says “Bismarck did not fashion German unity alone. He exploited powerful forces which already existed”. Others like Bruce Waller agree he was just lucky; “Bismarck was indeed lucky”. However importan...