During the Franco-Prussian war, Bismarck united all of the German princes outside of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. This was called the "Unification of Germany," even though it didn't include the Germans living in Austria-Hungary. Bismarck of course wasn't much interested in German nationalism for its own sake and wanted Austria-Hungary to continue to exist, because he saw that the ethnic kinship of the ruling classes and the similarity of government made them natural allies.
Thus, it has been said that Bismarck's creation was really a Prussian Empire and not a united Germany and that Hitler was the first and only person in modern times to unify Germany.
What do you think? Was Germany united under Bismarck or under Hitler?

Neither unified the germans in Nebraska or elsewhere in the US midwest, either. :p It's likely a rare exception to find a leader who unified an entire ethnic group.

Originally posted by Sodak
Neither unified the germans in Nebraska or elsewhere in the US midwest, either. It's likely a rare exception to find a leader who unified an entire ethnic group.

Of course, but this is not so relevant since these peoples had moved into lands controlled by foreign peoples. The heartland of the Germans is central Europe where there is a sense of a German homeland.

Well, the lands united by Bismarck was called the German Reich and not the Prussian Reich for a reason. ;)

I voted Bismark. Austria-Hungary (the only really 'German' place that Bismark didn't control) was effectively an independant German empire. The Germans were the dominant people (although after 1867 the Magyars were also quite important).

Kohl!

Bismarck's empire didn't include Austria, one of the biggest and most important German states, therefore I think it's correct to say he didn't unify Germany as a whole.
So in a way the only almost complete unification of all states and regions with a German majority was under Hitler in 1938, with the annexion of Austria and the Sudetenland.

There are different views on what is Germany. The extreme nationalists (like Hitler) viewed every region where Germans live as Germany, while others just saw the German states as it.

Speaking about today, one could say Germany is now complete unified. Austria has so long been outside what was considered to be Germany that it can be seen as no longer belonging to it. Otherwise you could regard every country with a germanic origin and people as part of a (Greater-) Germany, including such countries and the Netherlands and England. But generally being long enough apart form the "Fatherland" counts as being some kind of independant.
So today all that remains as Germany is unified. The ethnic Germans of eastern Europe have been driven out after WW2. Brandt's "Eastern Treaties" of the 70s have accepted the eastern borders. Not many still claim parts of Poland or the Czech Republic.
So in a way the only lasting unification took place in 1990.

German(Hochdeutsch) doesn't exist naturally(only in the newspapers n TV).
Those who live in nowadays Germany are Germanic tribes.
To my mind the main difference betweeen Germany n Austria is the past.Germany's lands were little principalities whereas what constitute nowadays Austria are the Habsburger homelands.

I personally go for good old Otto von Bismarck. I guess if I wanted to be stinky I'd say Louis Napoleon. Napoleon III was great at losing wars easily, and I'd say that it was his fault that Bismarck unified all of Germany.

I suppose it depends on what you see as Germany. The Germania of the ancient Romans was somewhat larger than the Germany of today, as it included parts of France, Poland, and even tiny bits of Russia. When the Roman Empire crumbled, unconquered Germania remained as it always was, just a bunch of tribesmen, until the Franks came in and took over. The Frankish Kingdom, the Holy Roman Empire, didn't even cover all of present-day Germany.

Bismarck really did unify all of Germany, which was something that no-one ever did beforehand, not since the Middle Ages, and even then, Germany was smaller than it was when it was under the rule of Billy the First and Blood and Iron Bismarck. Germany isn't even as large as Bismarck made it now-a-days, due mainly to the Second World War. Bismarck not only took over all of Germany, adding it to Prussia, Ludwig's Bavaria included, he also took a bite out of France (conquering Napoleon III in the process) and all of Austria. Though Austria was soon independent once again, and under the control of good old Franz Josef, it was always something of a vassal state to the Germans after that, until after the wars. :king:

:viking:

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
I voted Bismark. Austria-Hungary (the only really 'German' place that Bismark didn't control) was effectively an independant German empire. The Germans were the dominant people (although after 1867 the Magyars were also quite important).

From the Eastern European Habsburg kingdom that was called Austria-Hungary only Austria was ethnic German. Hungary (that however had a historical German minority) was a simple annexed territory after the fall of the 1848-49 Hungarian freedom fight. Until 1867 all the major administrative posts in Hungary was filled with "reliable" and loyal Austrians (or we can say ethnic Germans) since Hungarians did not take any public service ('passive resistance').

After the battle of Koniggratz in 1866 that was won by Prussia over the Habsburgs and ended the rivalry about the leadership in the German unification, the Habsburgs had to turn toward the Balkan to remain a significant power. There was one way to do this: consensus with the Hungarians (it was beneficial for both sides). So in 1867 Austria-Hungary became a dual kingdom with one king (from the Habsburg family) and one public administration but two parliaments until the end of WWI.

Actually this unit incorporated Croatia also as a former part of the Hungarian Kingdom and the king was the King of Austria, Hungary, Croatia and a lot of smaller territorial units (the Habsburgs "inherited" all the titles of the former Hungarian kings).
:king:
But basically you were right. ;)

Klazlo wrote:

After the battle of Koniggratz in 1866 that was won by Prussia over the Habsburgs and ended the rivalry about the leadership in the German unification, the Habsburgs had to turn toward the Balkan to remain a significant power.

Hey - I was just in Klodzko this past summer! Klodzko (German: "Glatz") has a fortress the Prussians had to seize from the Austrians (in Austrian-occupied Poland) in 1866. My father-in-law and I spent a couple hours wandering around the tunnels from the fortress that lace beneath the city.

Back on topic:

The idea of a national "re-unification" is at best a relative concept so there's little point arguing over it. Should a completely unified Germany include every area ethnic Germans live? That would mean modern Hungary, Poland, Czech Republic, Romania, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Russia and Yugoslavia would be incorporated, as well as the obvious Austria, France and Switzerland. While most have overwhelmingly non-German populations, all have at least a small minority of Germans. Should German unification be based on historical ethnic German movements? Then nearly all of Europe should be German, because the Germanic tribes played a role in the "ethno-genesis" of modern Spaniards, Italians and French as well as the Germanic states. (Of course, by that argument nearly all of Europe would belong to Ireland because the iron-age Celts were just about everywhere in Europe, and long before the Germans showed up.) What about political heritage? Then you'd have to toss Britain, Greece, Bulgaria, Italy, Romania, and Russia into the mix because have or have had German-derived dynastic monarchies.

I think Bismarck's unification on the corpse of Napoleon III's France is about as valid and complete a unification as anyone can expect... :crazyeye:

As i said b4,Germans aren't constituted of one people but many people.What i call Germans are people living in nowadays Germany.Ur point about Russia,England etc is not valid since only culture counts(Franks took the culture of the gallo-romans n slavs of eastern germany the culture of germanic tribes).Nowadays Germany is constituted of ancient principalities.Austria is constituted of the Habsburger hereditary lands.However i understand the confusion;Austrians used Germans to settle on slavic lands;the german hymn was written for the austrian emperor;and Prussia and Austria wanted to make the german unification.So the desire of a greater germany including Germany n Austria is comprehensible.In 1919,an overwhelming majority of Austrians wanted to be German(except for an overwhelming majority of Vorarlberger who wanted to be Swiss).But Swiss people,dutch people or other germanic people never wanted to be german and are not german but germanic.
Once again there's a confusion between civ n world.The german civ is not the germanic world.

Damien wrote:

As i said b4,Germans aren't constituted of one people but many people.What i call Germans are people living in nowadays Germany.Ur point about Russia,England etc is not valid since only culture counts(Franks took the culture of the gallo-romans n slavs of eastern germany the culture of germanic tribes).

I included Britain under the political category, because the current ruling monarchical dynasty is German (George I coming from Hanover). I included Russia both because its last ruling dynasty was also partially German-born and because it still today has a significant ethnic German minority, deported by Stalin to Kazakhstan (although Putin is letting some move back to Kaliningrad/Königsberg). Old Moscow had a section called the Njemjetskij Kvartel' ("German Quarter") where all the Western foreignors, mostly Germans, lived. I was merely making the point that any attempt to argue that either Bismarck's or Hitler's unification of the Germans was incomplete was pedantic and ridiculous. The problem is that the definition of "Germany" has changed over the centuries, so any unification of Germany is going to cause some confusion.

Nowadays Germany is constituted of ancient principalities.

Most European states have a similar history, though it is true that medieval Germany was particularly fractuous.

Austria is constituted of the Habsburger hereditary lands.

The eastern Habsburg hereditary lands, and only the core ethnic German ones. I don't think Vienna is claiming Spain, the Netherlands or Belgrade anymore...

However i understand the confusion;Austrians used Germans to settle on slavic lands;the german hymn was written for the austrian emperor;and Prussia and Austria wanted to make the german unification.So the desire of a greater germany including Germany n Austria is comprehensible.In 1919,an overwhelming majority of Austrians wanted to be German(except for an overwhelming majority of Vorarlberger who wanted to be Swiss).But Swiss people,dutch people or other germanic people never wanted to be german and are not german but germanic.

I didn't confuse the Germanic peoples with Germans in my post, as indeed I used different terms to distinguish between them. And yes indeed, Austrians in the Habsburg dual monarchy clearly distinguished between the ethnic Germans and the non-Germans. The question of whether Swiss Germans, Alsace-Lorraine Germans or German minorities living in the Netherlands or Schleswig-Holstein in Denmark, or anywhere else wanted to live in a united Germany is irrelevant to your question; the question was whether either the 1871 or 1940s unifications were the more complete without them. I know for instance that a sizeable number of "Schwabian" Germans living in Baranya County in southwestern Hungary were not happy with Hitler's Germany in the war and had to be forcibly drafted into the Wehrmacht and SS. For this reason the post-war Hungarian government opposed their deportation by the ACC to Germany, and cooperated only under protest (while Poland and Czechoslovakia happily deported their respective German minorities).

Once again there's a confusion between civ n world.The german civ is not the germanic world.

Perhaps you need to be clearer in your question.

1)Dynasties,settlment etc is irrelevant;only culture is.A nation is a group of people reckoning themselves the same history,values and who wanna live together.

2)I was referring to the german hereditary lands.

3)My point about Germans is that Austria had for centuries control over the german principalities since the Habsburger ruled over the Holy German Empire over centuries n sent germans from these principalities.German culture is actually more austrian(Mozart n other musicians,mendell,the german hymn etc).German n austrian history n culture are the same till the 19th century.German minorities in slavic countries are counted as germans n called"Aussiedler".That confusion in history n culture makes many people think that Austria is german.That confusion can't be made with Switzerland,The Netherlands or any other germanic countries(except Luxemburg) because they do not have the same values,history n culture.That's why they can't be considered as german.

4)The question actually is:Can Austria be considered as german?
I tend to think that Germany is actually Austrian.Germany was actually the austrian Commonwealth and the War between Austria and Prussia can be seen as a "War of the 2 Roses".Germany(Deutschland) was set to unify the Holy Roman Empire(which didn't exist anymore since 1806),then came the bad confusion between german civ(the Holy Roman Empire) n the germanic world(peoples who took the germanic culture).Austria(Österreich) wasn't meant to be a nation but a multinational empire in which the Germans ruled and spawned most of the german culture.When Austria fell in 1919,Austria hadn't any reason anymore to be and most Austrians(except Vorarlberger) wanted to be German.

5)Now the difference between Germany n Austria is both historical n religious(a bit like the difference between the Netherlands n Flanders).Austria is constituted of german hereditary Habsburger lands,catholic(like Southern Germany) and therefore more conservative and got only 8,2 million people, not 83 million like Germany.

Austria Hungary was a true German nation and exerted great influence whithin the empire and in a few cases even succeded accasionallin in uniting them ( the treaty of augsburg for example).

Recently I've been reading a biographie of Bismarck and more and more I see how his succseses were not so much because of his great inntelect but due to the falibilities of his opponents.

What I don't get is why Bismarck when already having crushed the Austrians in the 7 week war, didn't go and conquer German Austria? I understand not wanting Hungary or the rest of the Austrian Empire, as the nationalists would get in the way, but the Austrians were Germans. Would they really be that upset being ruled by their own people?

Bismarck said that he wanted to leave Austria alone so that he could use them as allies for a later war, (WW1). Why not conquer German Austria, and have a larger empire, but also more men, which meant that Germans could do a better job in fighting. The Austrians were bad allies anyways, and got beaten by the Russians.

Originally posted by God
What I don't get is why Bismarck when already having crushed the Austrians in the 7 week war, didn't go and conquer German Austria? I understand not wanting Hungary or the rest of the Austrian Empire, as the nationalists would get in the way, but the Austrians were Germans. Would they really be that upset being ruled by their own people?

Bismarck said that he wanted to leave Austria alone so that he could use them as allies for a later war, (WW1). Why not conquer German Austria, and have a larger empire, but also more men, which meant that Germans could do a better job in fighting. The Austrians were bad allies anyways, and got beaten by the Russians.
I think that one of the main reasons that Bismark did not make Austria a part of Germany was that he didn't want his new nation to become so strong that the rest of Europe would ally against him. Bismark did not want to make Germany the dominant power in the region, only a nation on par with Britain, Russia, France, etc. If he had incorporated all the Austro-Hungarian lands into Germany, It would probably have provoked a war with the other major powers. I personnally don't think that Bismark wanted to conquer all of Europe the way Hitler did.

As for whether the Austrians would be upset being ruled by their own people, haven't you seen The Sound of Music? The Nazis wanted Captain Von Trapp to serve in their navy, since he had wartime experience and Austria was now a part of Germany. But Cap. Von Trapp was an Austrian, not a German, and he and the rest of his singing family escaped into Switzerland.

Originally posted by napoleon526
I think that one of the main reasons that Bismark did not make Austria a part of Germany was that he didn't want his new nation to become so strong that the rest of Europe would ally against him. Bismark did not want to make Germany the dominant power in the region, only a nation on par with Britain, Russia, France, etc. If he had incorporated all the Austro-Hungarian lands into Germany, It would probably have provoked a war with the other major powers. I personnally don't think that Bismark wanted to conquer all of Europe the way Hitler did.That's probably it. Bismarck was a great statesman and a proponent of the balance-of-power theory. He's aware that provoking the other powers into an alliance would be bad for the newly-unified Reich. Unfortunately Wilhelm II wasn't as brilliant. Or even brilliant enough to at least keep Bismarck in office for a while more.

As for whether the Austrians would be upset being ruled by their own people, haven't you seen The Sound of Music? The Nazis wanted Captain Von Trapp to serve in their navy, since he had wartime experience and Austria was now a part of Germany. But Cap. Von Trapp was an Austrian, not a German, and he and the rest of his singing family escaped into Switzerland.The Austrians had a navy? :) J/k. Strange as it was, the Austro-Hungarian empire did have 1 or 2 dreadnoughts in their small navy.

I'd say Chancellor Helmut Kohl.

Originally posted by rmsharpe
I'd say Chancellor Helmut Kohl.

I don't want to be pedantic or anything, but I'd call that Re-unification.

Yes, I know.

Knight-Dragon wrote:

The Austrians had a navy? J/k. Strange as it was, the Austro-Hungarian empire did have 1 or 2 dreadnoughts in their small navy.

Actually, the Austro-Hungarians had a fairly decent-sized navy in the Adriatic based in Trieste, one the British in WW I felt threatened by enough to specifically target in a series of sorties. The post-1920 de facto dictator of Hungary, Miklos Horthy, had been an admiral in the Austro-Hungarian navy. His status after the war was a source for jokes in Hungary, as 1920-1945 Hungary was a kingdom without a king (Horthy was a regent to a non-existant monarch) and Horthy himself was an admiral without a navy. (Interbellum Hungary was landlocked as Italy took over Trieste, though it did have a small flotilla on the Danube.)

Originally posted by Vrylakas

Actually, the Austro-Hungarians had a fairly decent-sized navy in the Adriatic based in Trieste, one the British in WW I felt threatened by enough to specifically target in a series of sorties. The post-1920 de facto dictator of Hungary, Miklos Horthy, had been an admiral in the Austro-Hungarian navy. His status after the war was a source for jokes in Hungary, as 1920-1945 Hungary was a kingdom without a king (Horthy was a regent to a non-existant monarch) and Horthy himself was an admiral without a navy. (Interbellum Hungary was landlocked as Italy took over Trieste, though it did have a small flotilla on the Danube.)

Everything is correct (as usual) but unfortunately we don't have a navy anymore: this Danube flotilla was ceased in the nineties. :( No more naval superpower... ;)

Bismarck, Hitler didn't do much, too much resistence and anti-Germany at the time

Bismarck of course. :D

Helmut Kohl has no merit whatsoever in German history. If he should be remembered for something, It'd be ruining the country and its economy by his short-sightedness.
Yes, the re-unification took place under his reign. But he had absolutely no influence in that. In fact, he even attempted to keep the DDR going by offering them economic aid. But the mis-management of the DDR made it impossible to keep the state going. I do not say Communist mismanagement, because nothing done by any of those states claiming themselves to be Communist really are.
Helmut Kohl is but a liar and weak-minded moron, and he deserves no more than to become a footnote in the remotest chapters of German history.

Originally posted by Stefan Haertel
Helmut Kohl has no merit whatsoever in German history. If he should be remembered for something, It'd be ruining the country and its economy by his short-sightedness.
Yes, the re-unification took place under his reign. But he had absolutely no influence in that. In fact, he even attempted to keep the DDR going by offering them economic aid. But the mis-management of the DDR made it impossible to keep the state going. I do not say Communist mismanagement, because nothing done by any of those states claiming themselves to be Communist really are.
Helmut Kohl is but a liar and weak-minded moron, and he deserves no more than to become a footnote in the remotest chapters of German history.

I have to disagree completely in this.Without Kohl German reunification would probably never have taken place.Look at the Rhetorics of SPD politicians in this time.On November 10th West-Berlin Mayor Walter Momper clearly said:The East Germans don't want reunification.They probably want more rights and the travel freedom,but they have their own identity and don't want a single Germany.
If another man had been Chancellor,Germany's reunification could have taken much longer or not at all,especially if idiots like Lafontaine or Rau had been in charge.The German reunification was not something self-going and inevitable,but determined by the decisions of a few men-Kohl,Bush Sr.,Gorbachev.Without Kohls good relations to both (and also to Mitterrand),the USSR could very well have demanded a unified Germany leaving the NATO,something which no reasonable person could have agreed to at this time.
Kohls 10-point-plan was the decisive factor,which made clear to the East German public,that the FRG government also wanted reunification,an idea which had dissolved slowly since Brandt came into power.If a SPD chancellor had been in power,it would have been very difficult to convey this idea.
Kohl simply made offers of economic help to prevent the DDR from falling into Anarchy,which even Gorbachev could in no way have allowed.

So,in fact,Kohl is after Adenauer the Greatest Post-War chancellor we had and in Industrial Times one of of Germanys greatest politicians as well.

The reunification took place because of events in the East, therefore because of the people in the GDR as well as because of the non-violent reaction of the leadership in both the GDR and especially the USSR (in particular Mr. Gorbachev).

Kohl jumped on a train that was run by others. His role in the process was an administrative and organisational one. And I agree with Stefan that he did it almost as bad as he could have done by any chance.
You're right in saying that it would probably have been longer until unification would have taken place with another chancellor, but that would have been a good thing. Saying that it wouldn't have happened at all without Kohl is simply not true.
It would have happened differently, there would have been a chance for a true unification and not an annexation like it was in reality.
Kohl's "blooming landscapes" were a disaster, and his "great relationship" to Mitterand brought nothing else than massive corruption (Leuna...) to the benefit of certain French companies.

And apart from unification his legacy is one of complete failure. Constant rise of the national debt, constant rise of unemployment, constant reduction of average living standards, constant benefits of certain selected companies.

And what should never be forgotten is that he is personally responsible for the biggest political scandal in the country since the war.

P.S.: Where did this thread come from? :confused:

I have to agree w/ Stefan & Hitro. Kohl just used an opportunity another chancellor would have used, too. Regarding the money offered to Soviet Union (>credits >help on re-deploying Soviet military), it's arguable if Kohl did well on this. However, I'm an admirer of Mr. Genscher, the foreign minister of Kohl's cabinet. He earns merits at least in the forefront of the re-union.
Kenelly's SPD-rhetorics point is somewhat weak as the opposition always yells at the government. (But this beheviour is also somewhat childish ;) )
One might draw the conclusion that the leadership and the powerful organs (military, police) of the GDR really helped to get the re-union done in a peaceful way in deciding not to use force. The situation was very close to a civil war in those days.

Originally posted by Hitro
P.S.: Where did this thread come from? :confused: The bins of history... :p

Ok ok, it's an old thread, 'resurrected' by a certain poster, along with a host of others...

I think Hitro and Grille said it all.

Not Fully Achieved Yet

Switzerland has many german speakers;
but it still remains very independent.

Not Fully Achieved Yet

Switzerland has many german speakers;
but it still remains very independent

Not fully achieved yet. The Germans in the Netherlands and in England still remain very independent.

The English and the Dutch have far more in common with the Germans then the Swiss.

Originally posted by Stefan Haertel
Helmut Kohl has no merit whatsoever in German history. If he should be remembered for something, It'd be ruining the country and its economy by his short-sightedness.

that's so true. The only thing people will remember him for is that he and his party were corrupt to the core (although some people begin to forget that...)

and yago, why have dutch and english more in common with germans than the swiss? In general English have a great disliking for all things german (I know it is a cliché, most english I met was on holiday in Spain and that is a certain kind of .... guys (don't want to get offending ;) ))

unification:
i think there are two improtant points:
1. in german their are different words for the ancient germanic tribes and that german thing you talk about considering netherlands,brittain etc. on the one hand and real germany on the other hand. its like "slavs" and "russians" not the same in german. dunno why no german pointed that out before (perhabs i simply cannot read)...
2. when the dream of unification became a topic (1848 basically), there where two ideas: "small-germany" which was achieved by bismark and "great germany" (no, hitler did not invent that phrase) which should include austria,half of belgium,half of denmark and basically every town on the planet where anybody at least was able to spell the word "deutsch".

reunification/modern germany:
it has to be said that there are dominant differents in culture depending on the former occupation zones.
kennelly (or his parents) must in fact have moved here to the north. nobody like him is actually born in the former british or rushian zone.
only those who got candy from the john waynes or their descendents still consider adenhauer (war? what war? jews? i see no jews anywhere?) or kohl (what? you cannot see my crown? ive lost? e-l-e-c-t-i-o-n? what is an election?) great politicians today.
saying netherlands were more german than switzerland is only the top. i have to say that amsterdam and london make me feeling patriotic.
munich and frankfurt make me feel embarrassed...
thats all carolina,georgia,texas there: very ... old fashioned is the friendliest word i can use ... people trying to look modern and liberal...

Originally posted by SanPellegrino
and yago, why have dutch and english more in common with germans than the swiss? In general English have a great disliking for all things german (I know it is a cliché, most english I met was on holiday in Spain and that is a certain kind of .... guys (don't want to get offending ;) ))

all that mallorca stuff....is it important?
when i went to ireland for vacation they kissed my feet and prefered talking to me or doing things for me (hostel reception, stores etc.) picking me out of a line of 20 brits despite they where there before my.
it was quite easy. you only had to speak a single sentence bad english and they treated you best friend cause they knew where you came from.
best where the lads that asked us for cig papers and where not far away of building a temple for us when they heard we bought them in amsterdam 3 days before :D
very different to the normal perspective of a german tourist ;)
but is that the point?
the peoples attitude towards simply everythingwas not very familiar there , while a northern german and a brit can understand each other within a minute ...if they want.

in switzerland they think your an idiot when you say '"chianti...no, dont ofer me your housewine , i dont wanna se the card, no , dont bother me" and you are thinking the whole time "how do they manage not to get mad ,using that language? do they manage not to do?"
im bad at english , but far better than at understanding anything a switz says to me ;)

Originally posted by pandora


all that mallorca stuff....is it important?
...
im bad at english , but far better than at understanding anything a switz says to me ;)

1. well, I said it is a cliché but I really dislike the way british newspapers treat all things german, we are still "the huns" there even after 50 years and we all know the impact of mass media. I guess the english would be quite mad if german newspapers would always call them "island apes" or something. And i am not in that tourist war thing but don't try to communicate with english guys after 6 PM if you have a german accent ... (to be fair they always fought with each other, too, even with their girls)

2. :lol: It is a bit funny but after a while you get used to it, it's like german with a bad cough (no offense to our swiss friends here, you would laugh at the idiom that is spoken in my region, too)