Trace the growth of German nationalism till 1871. Was the unification of Germany a result of German nationalism or Bismarck’s brilliant diplomacy and statecraft?

The unification of Germany was a long-drawn process spread over a number of years. Its antecedents can be traced in the historical evolution of the German people and their constant search for a unique German identity. It was a process that evolved over a number of years and saw both unbending support and fierce opposition to its cause. It was shaped by both the internal politico-economic and social scenario of the German states including Prussia and Austria and the international concerns of the Great Powers of keeping Germany divided to maintain the balance of power between them in Central Europe. We will analyze this process by taking a look at the obstacles to the unification, the historical background of the German states and the evolution of German nationalism, the changing international situation and the rise of Prussia with special reference to Bismarck’s role.

We shall first look at the obstacles to this process of unification. Firstly, Germany exists in the heartland of Europe and has no natural frontiers that define its boundaries. There is no geographical barrier that may hinder the movement of people. Hence a debate on unification leads to a debate on the frontiers of Germany. The problem was further intensified due to the political developments of the Roman Empire that gave rise to a split or dual German identity. The Rhineland, because it had been a part of the Roman Empire, was an interesting mixture of German and Latin cultures. Hence, western and southern Germany always had a tendency to look up to the Italian culture of the Mediterranean for emulation. The Code Napoleon lasted here till the 20th century and they were very bitter when annexed by Prussia in 1866. The regions east of the river Elbe developed a unique identity-anti-Roman and anti-Catholic. They presented themselves as the bulwarks of the Western civilization against “barbaric east”. This gave rise to the problem of a German identity. The idea of Germany as a cultural point situated between the advanced West and the inferior east affected the debate of who is a German.

The way Germany was organized under the Holy Roman Empire since the Middle Ages also hindered any plans of national integration. These emperors, though German, tended to focus their attention on Rome since they saw themselves as universal Christian emperors and hence heirs to the Roman Empire too. Under the Holy Roman Empire, Germany was divided into a number of small principalities ruled by the princes. The Emperor ruled in name alone. By the 16th century there were over 1000 units in the empire and 400 in Germany. This lent no uniformity to the land in terms of political unification.

The Reformation that began in 1517 contributed in a cultural sense to the resolution of the problem of a German identity. Luther rejected the political hegemony of Rome, the Catholic Church and the Holy Roman Empire and obtained the support of the princes. The key development was the translation of Bible into German that gave German the status of a literary language and upturned the hegemony of Latin. The language in concern was actually the dialect of Saxony. One cannot speak of German nationalism but Martin Luther gave the Saxon dialect. Beyond this period of Reformation and Counter-Reformation served to further decentralize Germany. After Luther’s death, frequent wars between the princes and the Holy Roman Emperor divided the Germans. The Diet of Augsburg of 1555 laid down that a German province would follow the religion of her prince. Germany became religiously divided with the southern half as staunchly Catholic and the northern half staunchly Protestant.

Another factor that hindered unification was the rise of two great German states – Austria and Prussia who had very different view points on what Germany should be. Austria was a multiracial country of which only one-sixth were Germans. The very prestigious house of the Habsburgs ruled it. It was a staunchly Catholic country and German in a very cosmopolitan sense. The Austrian capital was Vienna. If she had to dominate Germany she had to give up her other nationalities. On the other hand, the non-German Slav people inhabited Prussia. It had no Roman antecedents and the capital was located at Berlin. The ruling dynasty was Hohenzollern. Initially Prussia was inclined towards Catholicism but by the 17th century it had become profoundly Protestant. The culture of this country was a far cry from the multi-cultured Latinized Vienna. It was more a mixture of Protestant piety and rationalist Enlightenment. Yet Berlin was not as great a cultural centre as Vienna. By the 18th century neither was ready to see the other in a unified Germany. Hence one power would have had to give up and keeping the existing situation in mind Prussia would have been the obvious choice. An ideological factor might have brought them together but any real co-operation between them was difficult.

Germany was also a case of cultural division that occurred along class lines. It was a network of parochial communities. The Aristocracy pledged allegiance to French culture. Then the Great Powers of the 19th century – France, Russia, Britain, Austria and Prussia – agreed to keep Germany divided through the Settlement of Vienna in 1815 because big political units in Central Europe were a threat to their power. Also the region acted as a shock absorber for the frequent wars that broke out among them every now and then.

By the 18th century, with the arrival of a cultural awakening, there was emerging a new middle class in Germany that was bound together by the possession of education. It included lawyers, journalists, professors and other professional classes. It tried to detach itself from the dominant French culture as preferred by the German aristocracy and foster German values, especially through a common German language. The late 18th century also saw the rise of Romanticism that emphasized belief in individuality of a human being and a society as opposed to the Reason and Rationalism of the Enlightenment. Since the Enlightenment was the hallmark of the French culture, an attack on the former meant an attack on the latter, which is what happened in the German case. One of the forerunners of this movement, Herder spoke of nations as organic units that evolved through history (a romantic thought) and not as a result of a social contract (a typical Enlightenment thought). Certain playwrights and poets like Klopstock, Lessing and Justice Moser took it further and argued that the German culture must be asserted more strongly.

It was the French Revolution and Napoleonic period that thrust Germany into the modern world. Napoleon reorganized Germany into three levels – 1) areas that were governed directly by Paris (Rhineland), 2) a ring of middle-sized states to be used as a counter-balance against Prussia and Austria and, 3) he did not control the two great states but after each campaign widdled away their temporize and played one country against the other. In 1806 the Holy Roman Emperor gave up his title and henceforth they were hailed as Emperors of Austria. Napoleon thus reduced the number off political units in Germany from 234 to 39. This was done not with aim of unification but for administrative convenience to some extent and strategic positioning to a greater extent.

Prussia and Austria could not ignore Napoleon and they had to modernize themselves in case they wanted to match up to him. In Austria these reforms were never taken up in a big way. On the other hand Prussian Reform Movement started 1806 and every area of national life was revamped. Serfdom was abolished; modern education system was introduced along with the set up of the University of Berlin in 1810. The army was modernized and social reforms like the emancipation of Jews were carried out. Code Napoleon was introduced in Germany. By the end of the period, Prussia was more advanced and modern than Austria.

More importantly, Napoleon forced the Germans to answer the question of their cultural identity. A great debate emerged in the German intellectual circles arose so as to what did one mean by being a German. What did it mean to throw out Napoleon? Was it merely a political question or a larger cultural question? What was to be its replacement? It was linked to the larger idea of one part of Germany being a part of the Western world and the other a part of the inferior eastern world.

Two attitudes emerged from the German lands to answer this question. The first group saw Germany as a part of the Western world and wished to retain French culture in Germany. The second group contended that German nationalism was equivalent to an attack and riddance from the elite French culture that dominated the German courts of the time. The foremost supporter of the first group was the greatest German poets of all times – Goethe (1749-1832). In his younger days he was a romanticist but when the movement acquired nationalist overtones Goethe separated himself from it. He never rejected the French values and was a great admirer of Napoleon till the end of his life. His idea of a German culture was bound with that of a larger Mediterranean culture. Goethe was not even interested in the problem of political unification of Germany. He was interested in Germany as a cultural center and not as a political unit. He compared Germans and the Jews and pointed out that though the Jews had no state of their own, they had made immense contribution to the cultural world. He never rejected the Enlightenment and evolved a certain concept of Germany as a part of the Western world. Other members of the group in fact opposed unification on the grounds that it might lead to concentration of resources in one area, dominance of one state over others, lead to despotism or might even destroy the diversity of the German culture.

The second group announced Western culture as a decadent culture that had to be thrown out of Germany. Its ardent supporters were E.M. Arndt and F. Jahn. Another supporter Fichte argued that though Germany was a conquered land, they were spiritually and culturally superior to the artificial societies of French and the British. This argument was used to stir the nationalist sentiments of the Germans. History was used to draw contrasts between ancient Greece and Rome, which was then applied to the contemporary Germany and France, again to bolster national movement. Rome was seen as a militarily and administratively efficient state capable of creating a great empire but without great culture, whereas Greece was seen as a state with a fragile and not so strong polity, but a center of cultural upsurge. This model was then applied to the prevalent period. France became the embodiment of Rome and Germany that of Greece. Holderin, a German poet, contributed to draw this parallel.

After Napoleon’s defeat in 1815, the Great Powers decided to continue with his organization of Germany as it served their interests in keeping Central Europe divided to maintain the balance of power among each other. Hence the pre-created 39 political units were combined into the German Confederation. The central body of this organization was the Diet – a diplomatic organization comprising representatives chosen by the rulers of the member states. The Congress of Vienna had stipulated that all member states should have constitutions of their own. But apart from a few rulers none bothered to even make empty promises about it and the Diet proved powerless to do anything about it. This shows that the Diet was a redundant organization and was incapable of giving Germany any real bond of unity. It was no way an indicator of a unified Germany but a loose conglomeration of the German states. Though it had a Parliament it wasn’t a popularly elected body. Prussia and Austria were only partial members as only part of their territories that were German were covered by the organization. Certain non-German powers like England and Denmark were also its members. They body had no military force of its own, neither a central government. For all practical purposes it was a defunct and redundant organization. Most of the German states looked to Austria for leadership and she was vested with the permanent Presidency of the Confederation.

During these years Austria’s attention was concentrated on Italy and the Balkans. She gave up Belgium. At the same time Prussia ceded most of its Polish possessions to Russia and received compensation in Saxony and Rhineland, its center of interest shifted from Eastern Europe to Central Europe and its population became overwhelmingly German. It came to posses the fine mineral resources and coal deposits of the Ruhr valley and Saar which told the foundations of Prussian industrialization in the coming years.

Again this background in the international scene, true German nationalism began to emerge in the years between 1815-1848. Many factors contributed to its growth. Till 1815 Germany was economically backward, had no capital, no factories, no working class. The first railway line was laid in 1835. Prussia became the motor of German industrialization since it had been defeated at Napoleon’s hands. The acquisition of the Rhineland (hubbub of rich mineral resources) made Prussia the strongest industrial power in Germany within the next 30 years. In 1818, the government introduced a new tariff law that abolished all internal rolls while imposing a moderate tariff on goods coming in from outside. Zollverein – the Prussian Customs Union was formed in 1834 that make the member states increasingly dependent on Prussia, gradually reducing Austrian influence in Germany, and thus paved the way for the hegemony Prussia achieved by force of army in 1866 as Germany had already been unified economically through these measures. Due to the more advanced economic development the Prussian industrial working class was growing fast and its bourgeoisie was more numerous, wealthy and took upon itself the progressive force that would make the Germany of the future. Also between 1807-1813, Prussians saw a number of liberal reforms including abolition of serfdom.

This was the age of romanticism – glorification of local culture and folk dialects against the elite Frenchified culture of the court and the urban areas. Protests against this kind of status quo came from the commercial and industrial classes especially the university students who formed societies called Burschenaften and devoted it to the moral and political regeneration of Germany and the cause of national unity. They rejected any form of Government that any links of having originated outside Germany.

They were very clear that they wanted to rid Germany of foreign and western influences. But unclear about what to replace it will, Metternich wasn’t too worried about these societies until in 1819 a student called Karl Sand assassinated a German’s spy and Metternich got an excused to crack down on the Burschen with severity through Karlsbaad Decree. Choral societies and gymnastic associations played a major role in arousing nationalist sentiment amongst Germans. Public festivals were organized on a large scale with the intention of boosting national fervour among people. The festival held by the Burschen at Wartburg in 1817 though drew in only 1500 people but they were drawn from different parts of Germany. A big bonfire was organized where the Code Napoleon was burnt. On a much larger scale was the festival in Hambach in 1832. Nationalist sentiments were articulated through architecture as well. The monument called Valhalla built along the lines of the Parthenon reminded one of Germany being equated to the ancient Greece. The period before 1818 was also the heyday of South German Liberalism, for all of the southern states had constitution, representative assemblies and parliamentary orators. This period also saw the rise of the Prussian school of historians who argued for Prussian leadership in German unification.

It was the Rhine Crisis of 1840 that gave German nationalism the opportunity to appear in its full form. Failing in their effort to secure control over Syria and Palestine the French decided to seek compensation in Europe by acquiring Rhineland. This led to a furore across Germany and nationalist sentiments were articulated strongly against the French ruler through patriotic songs, plays and poems (Many intellectuals like the famous II Heinz (1797-1856) who had left Germany after 1830 because he could not beat to live in the shitting atmosphere of growing nationalism in his land also reached furiously against this unjustified French claim. The fact that Rhineland was a part of Prussia again seemed to indicate that Prussia might take up the cause of leadership in the German Question.

The continent-wide revolutions of 1848 sough achieve liberal, democratic and nationalist aims in Centralized Eastern Europe. It was an attempt to replace monarchy with some kind of a representative government. The first attempt to unify Germany thus occurred against the Princes. The Frankfurt Parliament that comprised of representatives from all German states including Prussia and Austria aimed to transform Germany into a federal union, presided over by a hereditary emperor nut with a strong parliament representing the educated and propertied classes and a ministry that was responsible to it with it liberal constitution. It drew up the Declaration of Fundamental Rights which established Freedom of speech and equality before law as basic rights of all Germans. But long-windedness in these debates led to a breakdown in the unity of their purpose. Both the Austrian and the Prussian revolutions of 1848 failed due to the lack of a central leadership and lack of unity of purpose. This led to the return of monarchical order in both the countries in a more absolutist form.

Nevertheless the debate in this Parliament that revolved over frontiers of Germany gave a useful insight into the evolution of the debate on German unification and hence must be dealt with briefly. The first alternative was that of a unified Germany including all the areas where Germans lived irrespective of their member there. This could not be possible because what would happen to the multiracial Austria whose only one-sixth people were Germans. Then the second idea of a Greater Germany or Grossdeutsch was Austria including Bohemia and Moravia. Though these two provinces were essentially Slav dominated Germans were an upper class minority race. We see here that “liberals of the parliament” had a chauvinistic attitude of German being the master race and other races are as inferior races. But 1849 Austria have recovered completely from the revolution had turned into stronger unitary state and clearly asserted that entire Austria would have to be part of the unified Germany. The only other alternative was that Austria must be left out of unified Germany. Hence the idea of a smaller Germany or Kleindeutsch. This was viewed as a temporary stage. Another cause of worry was how to prevent Klein being dominated by Prussia. For this it was suggested the Prussia would have to break up its 8 provinces and become completely decentralized. Berlin could not be the capital; some other city – probably Frankfurt.

The Frankfurt Parliament offered the crown of the German Union to the Prussian Monarch Frederick who refused it on the grounds that he would accept the crown from the princes only and not from an elected body. This was a deathblow to the Parliament and it was disbanded in 1849. On the other hand he devised his own scheme that called on the German Princes to join their territories in a union that would be led by Prussia and would exclude Austria. Although for purposes of foreign and economic affairs it would continue to deal with Austria. But before the plan could materialize the Austrians intervene and through the Treaty of Olmutz pressurized Prussia to surrender their plan and agree on the re-establishment of the German Confederation.

The developments in and around 1848 had clarified how liberal nationalism was ready to adopt a racial attitude in the organization of Germany. It also pointed out that unification could not achieved from below. It was an issue of power and the princes were not ready to surrender their power to a popularly elected Government. It was realized finally that the only way to unify Germany was through military force. Also the attitude of great powers to German National Movement was crucial in determining its particular character and direction.

The years of 1850-71 saw a very fluid European scene with the arrival of Napoleon III in France. He wanted to redraw the map of Europe so as to undo the settlement of Vienna in order to reclaim the lost pride of his uncle Napoleon Bonaparte. For this purpose he was willing to foster limited nationalism in Italy and Germany. He created the Crimean War over a very trivial issue in which Austria was isolated. He was willing to interfere in Italy and fight Austria to a limited extend. The Holy alliance had broken up and Austria was virtually isolated in Eastern Europe. The onus now lay in Prussia to manipulate the situation to her advantage.

In 1859 the German National Association was founded that drew liberal aristocrats, professional classes, lawyers, journalists, professors and a few industrialists as its members. It tied to stand in as an intermediary body between the conservative aristocracy and the low classes. It was basically propertied organization and reflected the economic and intellectual basis the German National Movement had acquired. Yet there were a few who opposed such nationalism like A. Schopenhauer (1788-1860) who like Goethe felt that political unification was irrelevant in front of cultural importance of the region. But one cannot deny that there was a ground well of nationalist movement by the early 1960s, Germany had been unified economically under Prussia and leaving out Austria.

We will now analyze the role of Bismarck in the unification of Germany and try and answer questions related to it like – Was German unification possible without him? What different form would have it have taken? Did the individual in him contribute to tame the larger historical forces to give German Unification the form it took or was he merely a label for the larger historical forces?

Bismarck lived in an age of cultural transformation where Realism arose as a reaction against Romanticism and we see a change in his ideas as well which were in tune with his days. He came from the Junker class – the landowners of Germany similar to the gentry in England. They were not a very rich class but deeply conservative. He was in many ways a typical Junker but 1848 marked a change in his thinking and he began to modify his ideas. Thereafter he became isolated from his class because they could no understand what he was doing.

Bismarck was a Junker only from his paternal side. His mother was of an upper middle-class origin who was the dominant figure in his early life. She had been educated at the University of Gottingen and had developed certain cosmopolitanism. Bismarck knew a number of languages like French which he spoke with the expertise of a Frenchmen, English and Russian. He had served as an ambassador to a number of countries before he became the PM in 1862. Most of the Junkers had no literary tastes whereas he was steeped in romantic literature and was very fond of Shakespeare and Water Scott.

The typical Junker attitude to economy was development of agriculture and blind opposition to the Industrial Revolution. Bismarck paid a lip service to the rural values but with the realization that industrialism had come to stay after 1848, he decided to harness it and use it in the interests of the Junkers. He insisted on the predominance of the landed aristocracy in Germany and on a larger scale in Europe till the end of his life. After 1848 he made a compromise. He noticed that industrialism had created a class of industrial – capitalists and he decided to take them into a partnership because he knew it was necessary to do so to stay in power. He was a realist and a pragmatic man. He was able to strike a balance between the Junkers and this class of industrialists till he was in posses but after his dismissal in 1890 it was taught to harness the growing power of the industrialists in Germany.

Bismarck remained a conservative from the beginning to the end. In the initial years he was a member of the Burschenaften and was termed a reactionary. But with 1848 he realized that the age of mass politics had arrived and that if the monarchy adopted a course of conservatism of the old order it would swept away. Thus he attempted a redefinition of conservatism. He tried to preserve the existing hierarchy but tried to base it on some kind of popular vote when he introduced universal suffrage in Germany.

Socialism was an inconvenience to the Junkers. Bismarck was also opposed to it but he attempts some kind of a compromise. He realized that blind opposition to it would mean an open invitation to revolutions. Therefore he becomes the pioneer of social welfare legislation like food insurance, accident insurance, old-age insurance etc. He was the first one to introduce them onto the European continent.

In foreign policy Junker ideology meant reverence for Austria as the Senior German Power. They considered Austria and Germany as the bulwarks of conservatism in Central Europe after Napoleon’s defeat. Hence the idea of an ideological partnership between both the German States. Bismarck was never a German nationalist. His sole aim was to increase the power of Prussia and within Prussia his own power. From 1850s he evolved a new conception of foreign policy for Prussia. He laid out that foreign policy should not be ideologically but politically motivated. He attacked the idea of ideological solidarity with Austria and pointed out that since new opportunities were opening in Europe, Prussia must take advantage of them including Austria.

Thus we see that Bismarck was a member of his class until 1848. Thereafter he breaks with his class. He realized that nationalism could no longer be ignored or wished away. It was here to stay and thus he decided to harness it in the interests of the Junker aristocracy. Most of his class members thought he was been a radical whereas he was redefining conservatism and giving the old order a new lease of life. Bismarck was a statesman of his age and comparable to the stature of Benjamin Disraeli in England and Cavour in Italy. His only interest was to preserve the power of Prussia and this he did by balancing and presenting himself, on one hand to the nationalists as one who had the diplomatic expertise to manipulate the international scene to give them a unified Germany and on the other hand, presented himself to the Great Powers as the only one could defend Germany against the national movement in the interest of the old order. In his domestic policy he was a conservative but in his foreign policy he was a revolutionary. In this sense he is exactly like Cavour with one difference. Cavour at least co-operated with the liberal democratic movement and firmly believed in the parliamentary government. Bismarck did not even pretend that he was a liberal. Relations between him and the nationalists were one of total enmity; not even secret contacts.

Bismarck came into power following a constitutional conflict that occurred soon after William I’s accession. Roon the Minister of War planned to increase the military establishment by creating new regiments and providing new barracks. He was determined to make the army at least a stronghold of conservatism. The reserve, with its middle-class officers and connections with civilian life was to be reduced and later eliminated. The parliament agreed to the increase in the annual intake of conscripts but proposed to balance it by reducing the period of service from 3 to 2 years. In 1861, the Prussian parliament agreed to increased army expenditure for a single year, on the assumption that Roon’s far-reaching changes would be postponed. Roon, however, did the opposite and in 1862, parliament refused to make the increased grant. William I believed that he was faced with a real political crisis and could see no way out. Roon persuaded him to see whether a new chief minister might not be able to break the impasse and persuaded him in October 1862 to appoint Bismarck as his minister president. The army reforms were carried through the increased taxes which had not been voted, collected. The liberal majority were helpless against Bismarck.

In 1863 the Austrian monarch summoned to Frankfurt a meeting of the princes which was the last and most grandiose attempt to unite Germany by consent. Austria proposed a strengthening of the federal authority, the establishment of a federal assembly and the voluntary surrender by the princes of part of their sovereignty. The princes made their agreement conditional to that of Prussia. Bismarck however persuaded William I not to accept this proposal. The failure of the Frankfurt meeting ended all chance of a Germany achieved by negotiation and so broke the last final of historical continuity.

Austro-Prussian friction arose on the question of the duchies of Schleswig and Holstein. These duchies were essentially German but shared a border with Denmark. They had always maintained freedom but in 1850, the King of Denmark decided to annex them. Prussia and Austria decided to co-operate in liberating them which they achieved quite easily. But they disagreed on how to dispose of them. Under a temporary agreement, Austria took over Holstein and Prussia Schleswig. This played into Bismarck’s hands and enabled him to create incidents that he hoped would further alienate his sovereign’s sympathies from Vienna.

Meanwhile Bismarck secured the neutrality of France and Russia. He struck 3 separate alliances with Italy, Magyars and German radicalism. With Italy the alliance was formal, an offensive alliance of two states. The Magyars, still subject to Vienna, hampered the Austrian defense and Bismarck’s victory gave them virtual independence. With the German radicals the alliance was political as Bismarck proposed a German parliament elected by direct universal suffrage. The capitalists accepted because it gave them prosperity and unification; the working classes accepted it since it gave them social security and the vote.

In June 1866 when the dispute between Prussia and Austria broke out into war, all German opinion was soon on the Austrian side. In Rhineland there were massive protests and demonstrations even in Berlin. At the Federal Diet, all the states not absolutely under Prussia’s guns voted in condemnation on Prussia. None of the states except Saxony would agree, even at this point of crisis, to a common plan of defense or sacrifices for a common cause. In short, Germany was conquered, not united.

The war between Austria and Prussia lasted 3 weeks seven to the formal conclusion of hostilities. Although, during the war Bismarck had encouraged attempts at revolt in Hungary and had made offers of independence to Czechs the last thing he wanted was the destruction of the Habsburg monarchy who were his essential allies against Greater Germany. Austria, therefore, lost no territory to Prussia except the theoretical share of Schleswig and Holstein. But she withdrew from German affairs and the German Confederation was dissolved. Of the German states north of the River Main were forced into a new North German Federation under Prussian control.

Liberalism was as good as dead in Prussia. The Prussian crown was military monarchy and needed a parliament only to consent to its expenditure few military purposes. The capitalist middle class ceased to demand control of the state; they accepted Junker rule and confined their liberalism to hoping that this rule would be exercised in a liberal spirit.

The task of unification was not complete. Southern Germany had to be included in this organization. In August 1870, Bismarck provoked war with France over a trumpery issue. The French armies were defeated and they had to cede Alsace and Lorraine and a huge indemnity to the victors. The German princes were induced by Bismarck to offer the crown to William I and on January 18, 1871, the German Empire was proclaimed in the Palace of Versailles.

German unification was the result of not German nationalism but brilliant diplomacy and statecraft. The success of Bismarck was so rapid and so perfect that many observers accepted it as inevitable. The development of German nationalism and perhaps even the growth of German economic power was inevitable but there was nothing inevitable about the form it took.

Thus we see that German unification was a process that had strong roots and antecedents in its past. It was the evolution of the Germans, their peculiar placing in Central Europe and their split identity between the “Advanced West” and the “Inferior East” that initiated the debate on German identity. It was taken further in the Napoleonic period when Germans were forced to confront questions like what does it meant to be a German. We see the beginnings of the German national movement that was staunchly anti-French. The rise of the two Great German states – Prussia and Austria – gave a new dimension to the scene. Debate arose so as to who would lead German unification. It was decided in the favour of Prussia by a star diplomat and statesman Bismarck – who exploited the international situation and the domestic scene to ensure unification of Germany. This proves that the process was not merely the result of historical forces, individuals do have a role in giving it its particular character.