William Tyler
Bismarck and Unification

William Tyler - Bismarck and Unification

- Welcome to everyone who’s tuned in, whether you’re early in the morning or in the early evening, as I am. And I hope you’ve got better weather wherever you are ‘cause it’s miserable here. It’s dark, grey, cold, windy, raining, and we’re promised snow in the morning. So, not good news from here. But we will forget all about that and enjoy a little history for an hour or so. Last time you may remember I noted how revolutions spread across the continent of Europe in the year 1848. The growing middle classes of Europe were demanding a greater say in government. They wanted reforms, they wanted constitutions, and they wanted an increased ability to vote in elections. And this was all aimed at the autocratic and aristocratic governments of the time. For a period in Germany in 1848 and 49, it looked as though these new ideas would deliver both a modern Germany and a united Germany. But as in most of Europe, that was not to be the case as the old regimes fought back to power. And indeed they did so in Germany itself. Yet, nothing was ever to be quite the same after 1848 as before 1848. This was again, as in 1815, the great powers in Europe attempting to put the clock backwards. But it was really like King Cnut standing on the shore, trying to keep the waves at bay. They kept it at bay, but only just and we all know that all of that Europe was to disappear during the course of the first World War, the German Empire, the Austrian Empire, Austro-Hungarian Empire, the Russian Empire, and the Ottoman Empire were all to fall.

So we can see the flow of history, the flow of history from the French Revolution through the Congress of Vienna, through the revolutions of 1848 and onwards does it flow. Now, concessions were made and improvements were made. In other words, social reforms were made. Now in Germany’s case, that was also true, but the big question of Germany, for Germany, was the question of unification. And that question intensified from 1848 onwards until unification was achieved in 1871, which is what, 23 years ahead. You will recall also from previous weeks that there were two visions of what a unified Germany would look like. One was what we might call a lesser Germany and that would be a Germany consisting largely of what we know as Germany today, and that would be led by Prussia. The alternative view was for a greater Germany, which would be led by Austria. We know what happens, that Austria doesn’t get the opportunity to do that. And that’s really the story of today, how Prussia unified Germany between 1840, how it moved towards unification in 1871, the journey from 1848 to 1871, and in the process to see Austria off. In parenthesis, you will remember from last time, I said that when Hitler came to power and the anxious, with Austria, Austria was incorporated as a full part of Germany, not as a country ruled by the Nazis, but a country that was entirely incorporated into Nazi Germany.

Now the situation between 1848 and 1871 is there were two Germanys. Well, putting Austria on the side, I’m now talking about Germany as Germany, that is the map of Germany that we are all familiar with today. First of all, there was the kingdom of Prussia. And then all the rest of them were in the German Confederation. You remember all of that started with Napoleon Bonaparte, back in the early 19th century. Now the German Confederation was technically under the chairmanship of Austria. They were independent states, but there was this loose arrangement with Austria. In fact, Austria is losing power from this point on until it’s collapse at the end of the first World War 1918. So although on paper Austria looks very powerful in Germany, controlling, well, not quite controlling, but having some sovereignty over the bulk of the country and only leaving Prussia on the outside of that. But because I’ve been emphasising it, even if you didn’t know it, which I’m sure everybody did, it’s going to be Prussia that creates the unified Germany and thus the unified Germany that Prussia achieves is going to be that lesser Germany. In other words, the Germany that we’re familiar with in 2021, excluding Austria. One of the interesting questions is would it have achieved it without this remarkable man, Otto von Bismarck? Well, if you were doing this at university or postgraduate level, that might be an essay I gave you. Would Prussia have been able to unite Germany under Prussian rule if Bismarck had not existed? I don’t know the answer to that and I will be interested to hear the essays that you would be forced write.

Fortunately, you aren’t forced to write any essays and so we will stick with not what might have been but actually with what is. Let me read you just a sentence from Simon Sebag Montefiore’s book, “Titans of History”. In his short chapter on Bismarck, he opened by saying, “Otto von Bismarck, son of a Junker landowner, was the Iron Chancellor who united Germany, won three wars, created a hybrid authoritarian democratic German empire, and dominated European affairs for nearly 30 years.” That’s the man we’re talking about. Bismarck himself was born in 1815, the year of the Battle of Waterloo and the year of Napoleon’s final defeat. Now interestingly, that means that, when he’s gaining real power in the early 1860s, he’s middle-aged. He’s not a young man, thrusting forward. He’s changed his career, and we’ll reach that point later on. Bismarck is a complex man. There’s two Bismarcks. There’s the Bismarck that perhaps everyone thinks of, the militarist, the man who goes to war three times in order to achieve German unification in 1871, the Prussian who reorganised, with others, the Prussian army so that it became the greatest army in the Europe of the time. This is the Bismarck we know, but there is another Bismarck, a Bismarck who was extraordinarily liberal in terms of social reform. Now there is a danger in splitting the two Bismarcks, but I’ve found when I’ve taught Bismarck that it doesn’t really help people understand if I do it all together. And, in fact, I couldn’t do it in an hour. So what I’ve chosen to do is to talk about Bismarck and unification this week and next week I’ll talk about Bismarck and home affairs.

And after all, he served as chancellor of the New Empire for a couple of decades or more after the unification of Germany. He had, he’s a strange man. He would’ve been an excellent candidate for one of those programmes on radio or television where a psychiatrist analyses you and God only knows how you would analyse Bismarck. Just to say that some of Bismark’s and Prussia and, subsequently, German’s reforms are actually ahead of Victorian Britain. Perhaps that’s why we were never, in Britain, taught about Bismarck at school. The story of Bismarck’s rise begins in the year 1862, by which time he’s 47 years old. 1862, 47. 47 is not a bad age in mid 19th century Europe. In that year, there was a problem for the King Wilhelm I, king of Prussia, later Kaiser Wilhelm I. He introduced, his ministers introduced an army bill. Now in the parliamentary structure, the parliament, in British terms, the members of parliament, the MPs, were distinct from the ministers. The ministers were appointed by the crown. This is much more like the American system and the Secretaries of State who do not have to be members of Congress, whereas ours have to be members, well, today, of the, basically, of the House of Commons, and technically they could be members of the House of Lords. But this is the king’s ministers introducing an army bill.

Now this is very Prussian because this is Prussia and they are militaristic in their outlook. And let me just read you this little piece from Cole, short circuit what this army bill is about. And the army bill is about this, “The bill called for extending the term of service.” These are people who are conscripted to do a term of service, something not existing in Britain and not existing until 1916 in Britain, “Called for extending the term of service and increasing the military budget by 9 million Thaler per annum. Sorry, yes, per annum. Oh, yeah. 9 billion Thaler per annum is the problem. They don’t mind, the parliamentarians don’t mind about conscription who’s, that’s not the issue. The issue is the money. It’s always the money. And, in Clinton’s famous words, "It’s the economy, stupid.” And here it is. And there’s a standoff between the king and his ministers and the parliament. Now remember, the king and his ministers have got 1848 in mind, as indeed do many, not all, but many in the parliament. And it was an impasse. So cross was Wilhelm I that parliament wouldn’t do what he wanted that he threatened to abdicate and give the throne to his son, Frederick William. Now that’s another if of history. Had he given the throne to Frederick William, the son-in-law of Queen Victoria, then the history of Germany might have been different. But Frederick wouldn’t take it and Frederick gave advice to his father, Wilhelm. And Frederick William said to his father, “Look, there is a man that could sort this out. It’s Bismarck.” Now at this stage, Bismarck was a career diplomat and he was in Paris. And, incidentally, by being in Paris as a Prussian diplomat, he knew personally Napoleon III and that’s going to be important later.

But the Crown Prince said to the king, “Get Bismarck back.” And so Wilhelm in the end said, “Okay, we’ll bring Bismarck back.” And so he came back from Paris and was appointed what in Britain would be the Prime Minister. And it doesn’t relate in American terms, obviously, because this is a monarchy. He’s made, by Wilhelm, Minister President, Minister President. That was the title. In English, Prime Minister. But Bismarck said, “No, I’m not going to do it. I’m not going to do it unless I have total control of foreign affairs.” And Wilhelm didn’t like that. It gave too much power to Bismarck, but he was in a tough spot. And so, in the end, he concedes and Bismarck becomes both the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary. You can see where this is leading because Bismarck is about foreign affairs at this point. He’s got unification, he’s absolutely centred on unification, I didn’t do that very well, on unification. He was also, despite being a liberal in social reform, a conservative when it came to the monarchy. And he needed to find an answer to the impasse. Now in the 1850s, he’d been a member of what today we will describe as a right wing think tank. And the right wing think tank had come up with, it had come up with many ideas. One of the ideas that it’d come up with was a theory and this theory was that the king could, in a crisis, when parliament and the king could not agree, the king could overrule parliament.

And this right wing think tank said, “And that is entirely, that is entirely legal.” Now, it is very questionable whether it was or was not legal. It doesn’t really matter because the result was Bismarck honed in on this and said to the king, “You don’t have to do it. We can do it and overrule parliament.” “Yes,” but the king says, “How do we pay for this army bill?” Because parliament, as in Britain, under King Charles I, parliament has to agree the budget. “Oh, that’s no problem,” said Bismarck. “We’ll use the budget of last year. So we use the figures of last year and use that budget.” And that is precisely what they did. And this is Robert Cole in his “Short History of Germany”, “The theory of the gap as it was called, which was if there was a dispute arose between King and parliament and no rule existing in the German constitution regarding the dispute, then the king could do as he chose.” And so that is how Bismarck solved the impasse between King and Parliament, how Bismarck paid for running the country without needing parliament at all. This is like 1640s England rather than 19th century England. In less than two years in office, in 1864, in February, 1864, he’d come to power in September, 1862, Bismarck launched the first, but what will turn out to be three wars at the end of which the German empire, the Second Reich will be born. So he’s quick off the mark, as it were, to move forward. He is, I think, a consummate politician, even if he is, as we shall see, an ex, well we’ve seen it in one sense already, a devious politician.

Personally, I have nothing against devious politicians, provided they stay on the right side of the law and provided they’re clever enough, clever, devious, charismatic politicians. This is a question you might ponder about, charismatic, but devious and clever politicians is what liberal democracies require. You could think, well, in American terms, you could think of LBJ, in British terms, you could think of Harold Macmillan. It’s an interesting thought, but I’ll leave it at that. “By 1863,” says Cole, “Bismarck’s policy for Prussia’s future was clear, achieve Prussian dominance in Germany and achieve Prussian and German security within Europe.” Let me emphasise, absolutely, underlined, three-star emphasis, Bismarck is not Kaiser Wilhelm I and Bismarck is certainly not a proto-Hitler. He is not. He’s not looking to expand Germany, he’s looking to create Germany. And in creating Germany, he wants to create a secure Germany. You could argue that’s Putin’s argument about a secure Russia. It’s not entirely an apt comparison, but Bismarck is not looking to create a German empire which crushes neighbours. He’s looking to create a German nation which is secure within its borders. “So interestingly,” I read on, “In this era, European colonialism peaked in Asia and Africa.” French Empire, British Empire, Belgium Empire, Portuguese Empire. “Bismarck regarded colonies as a waste of time and money. What mattered was Prussia within Germany and Germany within Europe.” He’s certainly not proto-Hitler, but he might be proto-EU. He’s more interested in trade internally within Europe and internally within Germany than he is, and I’ll talk about that next week, than he is about colonies. He sees it as a waste of money and certainly you can well argue that that’s what happened to Britain’s empire and indeed France’s, that it just cost too much to keep going.

Now before the war comes, well sorry, after the war has come, or he’s moving towards war, a week after he’d been appointed, on the 23rd of September, 1862, the war comes in 1864, but a week after his appointment on the 23rd of September, 1862, as the Minister President of Prussia, he made this speech. And it’s a very famous speech and it’s known as the Blood and Iron Speech. And the key words in this, in English, are, and this is Bismarck’s words, “Prussia must concentrate and maintain its power for the favourable moment, which is already slipped by several times. Prussia’s boundaries, according to the Vienna Treaties, are not favourable to a healthy state life.” In other words, it’s threatened principally by the two great powers of Austria to the east and France to the south. That’s what he means. “The great questions of a time,” Bismarck went on, “Will not be resolved by speeches and majority decisions,” which is what the Congress of Vienna hoped they would be. “That was the great mistake,” he says, “But will be resolved by iron and blood.” Hence his title of the Iron Chancellor. What he’s arguing here is that a unified Germany will come about by iron and blood, by war. By war. And so it was to come to pass. Bismarck is fixated on a unified Germany and a Germany that does have nothing to do with Austria and a Germany which is secure from both Austria and France. Then he will concentrate on the development of Germany as a modern state, economically and socially. And that’s what we’ll talk about, as I said, next time that we meet. I divided my talk in my head into two bits. That was the first bit because we now come to the Danish War. Prussia with Austria, allied with Austria at this point. In other words, Prussia and all the German states under the power of Austria, so Austria and Prussia invade Schleswig-Holstein in February, 1864.

I sent a map out, which I hope you managed to look at, but basically, you know, Germany goes along like that and Denmark sticks up. And the bottom bit of the sticking up bit is Schleswig-Holstein, Schleswig in the north, Holstein in the south. And in this war of 1864, as it begins, there is a duke of Schleswig-Holstein who is responsible to the Danish crown, not to the Prussian crown, not to the Austrian crown. But, so why did the problems start? Well, the problems kicked off when the Danish king died without an heir that the German Confederation felt happy with. And they passed a new constitution in Copenhagen, which said that Holstein would be go on as it was, in other words, as a dukedom under the auspices of Denmark. But that Schleswig would be incorporated within Denmark, totally incorporated, the reason being that the original Viking capital of Denmark that Hedeby was in Schleswig. So this is nationalism, Danish style. So the Danes, that was led by a Lutheran clergyman called Gudwig, hence the Gudwig Award in Education of the EU. But leave that aside, what Denmark is saying is that Schleswig is entirely Danish and Holstein is under our control. They’ve incorporated Schleswig within Denmark and neither Prussia nor Austria were happy about this. The Germans said, “Look, you can’t have Schleswig separated from Holstein in this way. Schleswig-Holstein is one and not two. There’s one Duke of Schleswig-Holstein.” “If Demark treats these two separately,” said Prussia and Austria, “Then Denmark must leave both. We must get rid of it.” Now, Denmark is hardly a threat.

It certainly isn’t a threat to Austria and it’s barely a threat to Prussia. So what is this about? I told you Bismarck is devious and he sees this as an opportunity, even though he was allied to Austria when they went to war, he sees this as an opportunity to break with Austria. The war ended in the October of the year it began, in February, 1864, and a treaty was signed in Vienna. And the end result of the war was pretty straightforward. That is to say the two powers, Prussia and Austria, would replace Denmark as the sovereign path. The duke of Schleswig-Holstein continued, but Schleswig would go to Prussia and Austria would have Holstein. So Denmark has being defeated and the argument over Schleswig and Holstein is over, as far as Denmark is concerned, at least for now, and they divide, Prussia and Austria, the winnings. Prussia takes Schleswig, Austria takes Holstein. And Bismarck said, “The bonding of cracks does not answer the German question.” The German question is, will it be Prussia or will it be Austria that unites Germany? He says this bonding is papering over, we’re retaining, papering over the cracks and Bismarck wants the crack burst open. They had a meeting and they talked about what they might do, Austria and Germany and Prussia, but Prussia didn’t really have any interest in toning down the difficulties between Berlin and Vienna.

On the 1st of June, 1866, Austria asked the Federal Convention, this is the German convention of all those states which weren’t Prussia, which in a meeting, Austria is chair. It asked for a resolution of the problem. And Prussia said, “You can’t do that because they’ve got no role in this. This is between us in Berlin and you in Vienna.” And then Bismarck said, “You’ve broken the agreement that we will deal with this ourselves.” And nine days later, Bismarck sent the Prussian army into Austria in the so-called Seven Weeks War. Now Austria Hungary, now Austria, it was then had incorporating Hungary, the Austrian empire, the remains of the old Holy Roman Empire, may be, as we know, on a path to disaster in 1918. But at the time, it’s a major, it’s a major, major European power. It’s rather like Russia invading Ukraine. Russia expected to take Ukraine within a week. Austria did not expect to lose to a Prussian invasion in seven weeks. How could it? Prussia had endless men and one of the largest armies in Europe. But before we leave Schleswig-Holstein’s story, there’s two PS-es. The first PS is after the German defeat in World War I, in 1918, the Danes persuaded the Allies at Versailles to give it back north Schleswig. Now today, look at a modern map. North Schleswig, in other words, the bit nearest Denmark is now Danish, whereas south Schleswig and Holstein are German. So there’s no way that that question can be open again. The Danes got what they wanted, which was the homeland of Denmark, of Viking Denmark, in north Schleswig and the Germans got Holstein and south Schleswig, originally as part of a buffer to Denmark, but subsequently not.

There will be no change unless there’s totally unforeseen circumstances arise in the future. Incidentally, what they did was to hold a plebiscite, a referendum, and north Schleswig, it voted to go to Germany, to Denmark. The others voted to go to Germany. So in the end, it was a happy settlement at the end of the first World War. If you’re interested to know more about the war of 1864, there’s a Danish film. I’ve watched it on, I think I’ve watched it on Netflix, actually. It’s called, simply, “1864”, easy to remember. The film, it’s a fictional, it’s called “1864” and it was originally a Danish TV series. If you are interested and you can get a hold of it, it’s well worth watching. I’ve got here, if you’ve been trying to follow me and you are about to write on the questions and answers, “William, you were totally, I couldn’t understand really what the hell you were on about.” Well, may I say you are in good company. Lord Palmerston, Prime Minister of Great Britain, once said, “The Schleswig-Holstein question is so complicated, only three men in Europe have ever understood it. One was Prince Albert who is dead, the other was a German professor who has gone mad. I am the third and I’ve forgotten all about it.” I always read that at the end. I feel if you haven’t understood what I’ve said, at least you are in the good company of Lord Palmerston. All in fact we need to remember is at the start of the war, Prussia and and Austria, representing the German Confederation, wanted to put Denmark in its place. They won the war, but the peace settlement was never really likely to succeed.

Prussia took the sovereignty of Schleswig, Austria Holstein, both recognised the Duke of Schleswig-Holstein and when they fell out, war came between the two, between Prussia and Austria. And that takes us to this, that’s a sideshow. But for Bismarck it was the opportunity he manoeuvred, deviously, to get to war with Austria. War with Austria is the important bit. Why? Because he needs to crush Austria and demonstrate that Prussia is going to lead Germany to independence and unification and not Austria. There is, of course, a religious element, Prussia being Protestant, Austria being Catholic. Bismarck finally asked for changes to the Schleswig-Holstein settlement and Austria refused and that played into his hands. Bismarck then demanded that Austria be thrown out of the chairmanship of the German Confederation. And while he was doing all this, he did a secret deal with Napoleon III in France that, if war came between Prussia and Austria, France would remain outside the war, which they agreed to. Because there’s tension within the Austrian empire between Austria and Hungary, Bismark approached the Hungarians and he said to the Hungarians this. “I want,” and this is Bismarck’s own words, “I want to secure for Prussia the position which is her due in Germany as a purely German state. If we win, Hungary will get her freedom. You may count on me,” he said. I wouldn’t count on Bismarck for anything. But the Hungarians said, “Okay, we won’t get involved with Austria with the war.” Because Austria wouldn’t negotiate with Bismarck. not that he wanted to, Bismarck sent troops in Hanover, Saxony, and Hessen in the south.

And because Austria is the last resort for these states, it’s still got the German Confederation hat on, Austria declared war in Prussia in spring 1866. Much better to get your enemy to declare war on you and you are seen as the poor victim than to be seen as the aggressor by declaring war, a mistake, incidentally, that Putin made. Austria declared war in the spring of 1866. The war lasted a matter of six, seven weeks and led to the humiliating defeat of the great power Austria at the Battle of Koniggratz, or sometimes known as Sadowa. This battle is now, it was in Bohemia, which is now in the Czech Republic. The battle was lost by the Austrians on the 3rd of July, 1866. One unexpected result, I think unexpected, actually, to Bismark as well, that the Prussian parliament that had refused to pass the army bill now agreed to pass it and opened up the monies to do all of that. Another victory, I think a slightly unexpected victory, after the victory in battle over the Austrians for Bismarck. Austria’s Germany is now, to all intents and purposes, gone. Only Prussia is now left in the picture to push towards German unification. As for Hungary, what happened there? Well, quite interestingly, Hungary, let me just read a short bit from Cole. “Bismarck kept his promise to the Hungarians and in 1867,” one year after the war, “In 1867, the Austrian empire became the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Hungary had only to recognise the emperor Franz Joseph as its king and submit to the authority of the Austrian General Staff in time of war.”

This is often presented by Austrians as a diplomatic triumph for Franz Joseph. In actual fact, it was a diplomatic triumph for Bismarck in the peace negotiated after the Prussian-Austrian War of 1866. Now he wasn’t, as I said, Bismarck wasn’t intending to extend Prussian empire into Austria. That was not his concern. His concern is to sideline Austria and allow Prussia to create this Germany that he has in his mind and in the minds of many Germans. German unification, to hell with Austria. We’ve now defeated, Austria is a broken reed in terms of what it can do against Germany, a totally broken reed. After 1866, the north German states joined Prussia in what’s called a North German Confederation, leaving the others in the south, if you want, in a South German Confederation. In other words, there’s still a part of Germany which does not accept Prussian rule. But in the north, they accept Prussian rule. So Prussia is now really pushing forward, in territorial terms, to claim not only a unified Germany, but a unified Germany under Prussian control. As peace comes in 1866, 67 with Austria, Bismark is triumphant. He now has only one enemy, one enemy, and that enemy is France. France is influential in the south of Germany, it’s Catholic country and Catholic country. Whereas the North and Bismarck are Protestant, and the French have always looked to the Rhine area as an area, those of you have done both French and German with me will know that, right back in Celtic Roman times, there’s this issue about where the border is and he needs to deal with this, does Bismarck. He needs to pull all the states together, that’s the southern Catholic states, as well as those he’s already gained, and he needs the sideline France so that France is not a threat on his southern flank.

He’s done that with Austria on his eastern flank, you could say done it with Denmark on his northern, but I don’t think that’s important. But he’s got to deal with France. Queen Isabella II of Spain died in 1868 without a immediate successor or a obvious successor. It was suggested that a nephew of Wilhelm I of Prussia should become king of Spain. The French were pulling their hair out in Paris 'cause it meant they’d have Germans south of them and Germans north of them and the French weren’t going to tolerate that. But before that issue could boil over, the Spanish found its own candidate, an Italian prince, called Amadeo, who becomes king of Spain. So that tends to weaken the position. But Bismarck isn’t having any of that. He sees this as an opportunity to go to war with France. Let me just read a little bit here. “The French were not prepared to just let it rest. The French wanted cast iron guarantees that no German prince would become king of Spain. The issue resolved or would be as soon as Napoleon III was given assurance that never again would there be a member of the Prussian Royal House, a candidate for the Spanish throne. In July,” this is where it gets interesting. “In July, 1870, Count Benedetti, who was the French ambassador to Prussia went to Ems, the spa in Germany, where Wilhelm I was taking the waters. As they were walking on the promenade, Count Benedetti made sure that he bumped into, as it were, the king of Prussia.” Bismarck wasn’t there, he’s back in Berlin, but he has his sources, shall we say, around the Prussian king in Ems.

And one of them, Count Abeken, wrote to Bismarck and said he was approached by Count Benedetti, but would not commit himself for all time to an obligation not to put a German prince on the Spanish throne. But the king said to Benedetti, quote, “Prussia is now clearly out of the affair.” Really? All over, then? No, no, no, no. Bismarck rewrote the dispatch when he received it to make it sound as if Benedetti had made unwarranted demands on the King, who in turn refused to had submit to them and insulted the Count in the process. This sounds very modern. Bismarck then released the story, the Ems Telegram. He then released the story to the German press and it spread across Europe and, of course, into France. It hit the fan in Paris as well as in Berlin and led directly to France declaring war on Prussia. Bismarck is manoeuvring in a deeply devious way by altering a meeting that took place, which was innocuous, to alter it in such a way to insult the French, that they couldn’t do anything but declare war. It’s real politique, with a vengeance. Paris came under siege, the Commune was established, the French were utterly defeated at the Battle of Sedan on the 22nd of May, 1871.

Napoleon III had to abdicate and flee into exile into Britain. And when the Commune finally was brought to an end, it was brought to an end by the French army under Marshall MacMahon. But in between those two events, Prussia reached Versailles, outside of Paris, and at Versailles in January, 1871 in the Hall of Mirrors, in the presence of the German princes, all the states, Wilhelm of Prussia was acclaimed as Wilhelm, Emperor of Germany. Why, some people ask, did Bismarck not conquer France? Well, because France was too big for the Prussians to conquer. That would have to wait till 1914 when they failed and 1940 when they succeeded. But he didn’t want that. Bismarck doesn’t want to erase France. Why would he? What he wanted to do was to sideline France so that France could not cause trouble in southern Germany as he pushed towards unification and France would not pose a military threat to Germany. And of course, in all of those things, did he succeed? Bismarck planned a great enthronement of Wilhelm King of Prussia as Emperor, the first in German, the First Reich in German history was the Holy Roman empire. This is the Second Reich. And it was to be held in the Hall of Mirrors. And this is Katja Hoyer’s book, “Blood and Iron: The Rise and Fall of the German Empire.” And she begins with this occasion in the Hall of Mirrors. “To my people,” sorry, find the right page. “On a bright cold winter morning of the 17th of January, 1871, Wilhelm I, King of Prussia, had a moment of crisis. Eventually the old man lost what self-control he still had and began to sob, 'Tomorrow will be the unhappiest day of my life.

We are going to witness the burial of the Prussian monarchy and this, Count Bismarck, is all your fault!’ The 73 year old king,” says Hoyer, “Was an unlikely candidate to assume the mantle of the mystical Kaiser who would one day unite all Germans, yet this was precisely what was now expected of him. The next day, on the 18th of January 1871, around noon, several hundred Prussian officers, members of the nobility, and representatives of all the German regiments that had fought in the Franco-Prussian War gathered in the Hall of Mirrors of the Palace of Versailles. The sound of marching bands drifted into the magnificent room through the tall windows and mingled with the excited chatter of the waiting crowd. Then the large double doors,” some of you have been, I’m sure, to the Hall of Mirrors. At the far end, the double doors opened. “And Wilhelm I, Crown Prince Frederick, and the representatives of the German states entered in a ceremonial procession. A strained, expectant silence fell. There was a sense that those present were witnessing a historical moment, one of mystical proportions.” Wilhelm is proclaimed emperor by acclimation of the princes gathered there. The Second Reich is born in the very room built to glory the success of the Sun King, Louis XIV.

Talk about rubbing French noses in it. This is revenge for the Battle of Jena in 1806, it’s revenge against Napoleon Bonaparte, and it secured the borders. And, by securing the borders and defeating France, those southern German states have come on board and are now part of Prussia. And the history of modern Germany, fraught though it will be, as we know, in the 20th century is born, not in Germany, but in France, in the very heart of the glory of France. The Hall of Mirrors, Louis XIV and all that. You can begin to see the hatred between France and Germany and Germany and France. And the story today has been of aristocracy and kings, of armies and top politicians. But other things are going on at the same time. And in a letter written in 1879, sorry, in 1870 by Karl Marx, by Marx, Marx wrote this, “What the Prussian jackasses don’t see is that the present war,” that’s the war, the Franco-Prussian War. “What the Prussian jackasses don’t see is that the Prussian War leads just as necessarily to war between Germany and Russia as the war of 1866,” with Austria, “Led to war between Prussia and France. That is the best result that I expect of it for Germany. Prussianism as such has never existed and cannot exist other than in alliance and in subservience to Russia. And this war, number two, will act as the midwife of the inevitable revolution in Russia.”

And, of course, Marx was right. The first World War, when the Kaiser, Wilhelm I’s grandson, Wilhelm II, takes Germany to war, Russia is one of the major enemies that they intend to defeat. But, as we know, because Russia did so badly in the war, revolution broke out in 1917, the second of which was a Marxist revolution and Trotsky negotiates a peace with Germany. And Russia is left humiliated by its defeat by Germany, even though a year later Germany is defeated by the Western Allies. But Marx had read it right. In Marx’s view, if we had Marx here to ask him, he would say, “Well, look, you’ve been told,” all of you who are listening, he’d say, “Well, look, Bismarck intended to make Germany secure. And he’d beat Denmark, he beat Austria, and finally he beat France. But what he didn’t do was to beat Russia. And that is a war that Germany has got to fight at some point.” That’s what Marx would say. And as a result of that war, revolution will break out in Russia. Of course, Marx and later, Lenin, expected the revolution to spread not just in Russia, but to spread into Germany. And it, you know, of course, that it did, it Munich, for a brief while and there was a real chance in 1919, 1920 that it would indeed go Marxist, which of course it didn’t and instead in 1933 went fascist. It’s a warning to all of us who study history and are interested in history that whilst we’re concentrating on one thing, something else is going on. And the other thing that’s going on at this stage is Das Kapital and the communist movement, not just in Russia, but in Germany and indeed across Western Europe. That, as they say, children, is a story for another history lesson. I’ve come to an end today. I’m sure there’s lots of questions. I hope you enjoyed it as much as I enjoyed preparing it and talking about it. Next week is, let me repeat, is Bismarck on the home front. Please don’t think it will be boring. It really isn’t, it is fascinating. Let’s see if I’ve got any questions. I have.

Q&A and Comments:

Q: Who is this? Jenny. “Hi, I heard an excellent lecture on the history of Russia at Jewish Book Week yesterday, really clear about the different worldview from the West. Just wondering if you might want to invite Orlando Figes to give a talk for Lockdown.”

A: Personally, I wouldn’t want Orlando for this. There is a problem with him, which I’m not prepared to say publicly, but there is a problem with him as a historian.

Sandy says, “I’d like to say a word in praise of history teachers. Mine was Ms. Swamp who never missed a chance to note the position of the Jews at whatever point in history we studied. A lot of what I’ve learned in lockdown was a reminder rather than a revelation.” Wow, weren’t you lucky, Sandy? I take it, I don’t know, I can’t tell. Look, I can’t tell whether, which country you are sending me that story from. If you’ve got a moment, you might, Sandy, just put up where you were a child and went to school.

John, “You omitted Alsace and Lorraine, which Prussia seized from France.” Yes, I did because I was going to talk about that when I get it, you are absolutely right, when I get to the First World War. I didn’t want to go down that route because that takes, that’s a long answer to the question about Alsace and Lorraine.

Q: “Are not most politicians devious?”

A: Well, Rodney, I couldn’t possibly comment.

Q: “What about the raw materials from the colonies? What were they?”

A: The Germans don’t have colonies at this point. Later they do.

Q: “Was William looking for unification like Bismarck was?”

A: It’s very difficult to say. I think he was because in 1848, he refused to accept the crown from the gutter when it was offered to him. I don’t think he would’ve refused it, he just found Bismarck difficult. Bismarck is like the dreadful school boy who knows far more than his teachers and you really just want to strangle. And I think Wilhelm couldn’t cope with Bismarck. And I’ll say something about that next week as well.

Q: “Did anti-Catholicism have anything to do with Bismarck not wanting Austria?”

A: To some extent, the answer is yes, but the bigger question is the rest of Austria, east of Vienna. It’s that he doesn’t want, he doesn’t want all of that problems in the Balkans and in Hungary. He doesn’t want that. He doesn’t see it as being useful in any way whatsoever.

Q: “What about the threat from Russia?”

A: Yes, that is absolutely, I think we sort of talked about that at the end. There is a threat from Russia, but as Marx said, it will come. And it did come, but it was thought to come. Remember that Russia at this stage is a beaten beast. It was defeated in the Crimea, badly, in 1855-ish. And so Russia is not a threat at this moment. It isn’t really a threat even in 1914, 18. But the Germans thought they could cut into Russia very easily, which they did, and of course reach Moscow, but it didn’t help them.

Q: “Why was he dead set against joining with Austria?”

A: Because of all the Austrian possessions to the east.

Q: “Was he concerned Prussia would be a junior partner?”

A: Yes.

Q: “Did he think he’d be a junior?”

A: I don’t know, that he may have done, but he was concerned about Prussia being a junior partner in such a relationship, yes. Military innovations. There’s a use of balloons in this war.

“Interesting in Pennsylvania highly German called King of Prussia,” says Myrna. There’s lots of pubs called King of Prussia or there were before the First World War and they changed their names. I think you’re referring to Bismarck, there, Myrna.

Q: “Was Frankfurt agreement that applies severe compensation on France to pay the newly Germany maybe the first cause of the rise of Hitler?”

A: I think that’s stretching it a bit. No, I think that’s stretching it a bit. But there’s a wider issue about this leading towards, oh, that’s a very difficult question. I can’t, I’m not, I’m not easily answering the question. No, because I think the basic answer is no, but there is, there are other more complex answers which would lead you towards an answer of yes. History is never always crystal clear.

Q: “Why did Marx think Germany would have to fight Russia?”

A: Because of the threat of Russia to Germany and because of the old Chuton-Slav divide in Europe. It’s the old division and that was, a united Germany would reignite that old division between Chuton and Slav in a way that a Prussia couldn’t, but a Germany could in terms of numbers and men, in terms of resources and so on.

“The capital city of North Dakota is Bismarck,” says Dennis. I live and learn a lot about America doing this course. So if I’m ever asked the capital of North Dakota for one million pounds in a TV quiz, I promise, Dennis, I won’t send you any money, but I’ll send you a letter saying thank you very much.

I think I got through the questions tonight. I hope that means everyone was okay with what they asked. Let’s just check, double check. I think there may be some that have come in that I didn’t get to. No, I’ve dealt with that. Dealt with that.

Q: Oh, “Would you comment on Chancellor Schulz reluctance to send tanks to Ukraine,” says Clive.

A: Well there are two problems, there are three problems. One that Germany is still living through the Hitler years and doesn’t like to be seen as militaristic. Two, it doesn’t want to antagonise Russia because it’s a potential target for Russia, certainly in the Baltic states and down. Yeah, it’s, remember that Kaliningrad is between two EU pieces of land. It doesn’t want to, so Schulz does not want to antagonise Russia and he doesn’t want to antagonise his electorate, and more than that, he doesn’t want to deploy tanks which might need to be deployed on Germany’s northern border, against France, against Russia, I mean. Some of you may have seen in the British press today that the RAF and the German Air Force are combining in activities on behalf of NATO. This is to prevent any, of course, Russian attacks from a distance by air on Germany. Did I say anything about Jews? No, I didn’t. I will do that next time in terms of home policy, definitely do that, but I think, I don’t want to tread on Trudy’s toes, so I’ll have to check what she has told you. But I will do that next time. It fits with what I wanted to do. I said I had to divide it, I’m sorry, but there isn’t, if we were doing a day, I would’ve done this in the morning and the home affair thing in the afternoon. As it is, I’ve got to do it in the way that I’ve talked about ‘cause it’s the only logical way to do it.

Oh, I love this. These are Americans arguing. They’re between North and South Dakota, I love it! It’s wonderful. I love adult education. You never know what’s going to happen. So I’ll metaphorically pull apart the North and South Dakotans and say, I can’t, I can’t judge between the two of you.

So I think probably, Judi, I’ve come to an end with the questions for tonight. Bye-bye everyone, bye-bye.