What were the causes of the Revolutions of 1848? — Paper 2 · A Level History 9489

3 Liberalism and nationalism in Germany, 1815–71 (a) Explain why King Frederick William IV of Prussia refused the imperial crown in 1849. [10] (b) To what extent was the development of German nationalism in the period 1815–50 caused by economic factors? [20]

30 marks

Mark scheme: 3(a) Explain why King Frederick William IV of Prussia refused the imperial 10 crown in 1849. Indicative content • The king felt that Prussia’s unique identity would be weakened in a wider German context. • He disliked the title ‘Emperor of the German People.’ It suggested, in his view, that he owed his position to the people and not to God. He had a mystical idea of kingship and believed in the divine right of kings. • Frederick William IV felt if he accepted the crown then he would have to uphold and defend the ideals of the 1848 revolutionaries. This was something he opposed. • He was concerned over how Austria and Russia might react to a united Germany dominated by Prussia. In 1848, when there had been calls for a revolution in Russia to free Poland by liberals in the German states. Russia had made a partial mobilisation of troops on its western border. If the Prussian king accepted a crown proffered by the Frankfurt Parliament it would likely provoke a war with Austria, one which he felt Prussia could not win. Accept any other valid responses. 3(b) To what extent was the development of German nationalism in the 20 period 1815–50 caused by economic factors? Indicative content Arguments to support the primacy of economic factors could take the following form. The early nineteenth century saw the growing pace of industrialisation in the German states. In 1815, for example, Prussia was granted control of industrial land on the river Rhine. Therefore, it was able to exploit the region in terms of its raw materials for industrialisation. As part of this industrialisation railways developed and improved communication between German states, allowing for the growth of inter-state trade. This caused the idea to develop that a unified German state would increase wealth and trade even further. The growth of customs unions fostered the notion that a single German state without numerous tariffs would increase prosperity. This was something middle-class businessmen were keen to support as it maximised profits by increasing the available market for goods. By 1836, 25 of the 39 German states had joined the Zollverein, originally created by Prussia. Therefore, if the majority of German states were willing to accept Prussian influence in economic affairs why not in a political union? The wealth industrialisation and the Zollverein helped to create also provided the means to establish a well-equipped and efficient army, especially in Prussia. It was military strength based on economic strength which further made the idea of German unity attractive. The view can be challenged. After 1815, the German states absorbed the lessons learnt from the Napoleonic Wars. There was a realisation that being small and politically divided made the German states vulnerable to stronger powers, and that they needed one another for a common defence. The German princes had stirred up nationalistic feelings amongst the population to help raise armies to fight the French. This, allied to the defeat of Napoleon, created a sense of a common German identity. Cultural factors, also, played a role. After 1815, there was a reaction against French ideas of culture. For example, the idea grew of a national spirit, the ‘volk’. Academic studies showed that, whilst the states had different dialects, these variations came from the same source. Therefore, there was a common German language. The folk tales of the Brothers Grimm, in particular, were presented as specifically German in origin. In 1841, the words to what became the German national anthem were written and were seen as a plea to leaders in the German states to give priority to Germany as a whole – Germany above everything. Liberal thinkers promoted the idea of a national parliament to produce laws and run a united Germany. The 1848–9 revolutions in Germany saw liberals push for the creation of this united Germany. Although the revolutions failed, they did bring the idea of a unified Germany to the fore. Accept any other valid responses.

This question in 9489/22 Feb/March 2022

3 Liberalism and nationalism in Germany, 1815–71 (a) Explain why Bismarck was appointed Minister President of Prussia in 1862. [10] (b) ‘Austrian opposition was the main obstacle to German unification in the period 1815–50.’ How far do you agree with this view? [20]

30 marks

Mark scheme: 3(a) Explain why Bismarck was appointed Minister President of Prussia in 10 1862. Indicative content  A constitutional crisis existed in Prussian over the army bill. In 1860, the Prussian Parliament only agreed to increase the military budget for one year and would not extend military service from two to three years. A newly elected parliament in December 1861 would not pass the money bill for the army, and the king dissolved the parliament. In September 1862 parliament still refused to pass the army bill. The king feared civil war and considered resigning. Bismarck was brought in to solve the crisis.  Bismarck was seen as an arch-conservative and loyal supporter of the monarchy. This, allied to a reputation for being unconventional and unpredictable, led him to be seen, by some, as the means to break out of the impasse over the army bill.  He had been recommended by the influential Minister for War, General von Roon. As early as 1858, in von Roon’s first audience with the Regent, who became king William I of Prussia in 1861, he was advocating that Bismarck head the government.  Bismarck received the support of the king because he stated that he was willing to implement the army re-organisation to the full, despite parliament’s vote against its passing. Accept any other valid responses. 3(b) ‘Austrian opposition was the main obstacle to German unification in 20 the period 1815–50.’ How far do you agree with this view? Indicative content Austria saw German unification, from the outset, as a direct threat to its own existence as a state. After the defeat of Napoleon, the borders of the German Confederation were modelled on those of the old Holy Roman Empire and in order to prevent the encouragement of a German nation state, areas peopled by Poles, Czechs, Danes and French were included. Under the leadership of Metternich, Austria sought to suppress any demand for unification. In 1819, the Carlsbad decrees, in response to nationalist agitation by nationalistic student organisations, censured publications, dismissed academics who supported nationalist ideas and disbanded the national student societies – Burchenschaften. Prussian plans for a united Germany – Erfurt Union (1849) –, which excluded Austria and would be dominated by Prussia, were thwarted by Austria. For example, war seemed about to break out between Austria and Prussia over disturbances in Hesse- Cassel, but Prussia backed down. In November 1850, at Olmütz Prussia agreed to abandon its union plan, due to Austrian pressure. Thus, the strongest German state which had championed German nationalism had been publicly humiliated by Austria. 3(b) However, Austria’s role can be questioned. There were divisions amongst German nationalists. For example, middle class nationalists were in favour of economic liberalism, whilst lower class nationalists wanted improved working conditions. For the middle class this was an attack upon profits. There were divisions over what territories would make up a future united Germany. Some favoured the inclusion of Austria in a ‘Greater Germany’, whilst others wanted Austria excluded from their ‘Little Germany.’ The German Princes felt threatened by unification. A written constitution and parliamentary elections by the people would undermine their role, and their status would be diminished – only one prince could rule a united Germany. Many in the German states resented Prussia’s strength which endowed her with the ability, potentially, to unite Germany. Thus, there was support for Austria in 1850 when she re-established the German Confederation. Religion was a barrier to unification, with Protestant states fearing the influence of Catholic states in a united Germany, and vice-versa. There was a sense that nationalism was a concern of the upper and middle classes. The peasants, who made up most of the population, were more concerned with the daily struggle of subsistence living. Accept any other valid responses.

This question in 9489/22 May/June 2022

3 Liberalism and nationalism in Germany, 1815–71 (a) Explain why France lost the Franco–Prussian War. [10] (b) To what extent did economic issues cause the German revolutions of 1848–49? [20]

30 marks

Mark scheme: 3(a) Explain why France lost the Franco–Prussian War. 10 Indicative content • The French military leadership was over-confident, believing their army’s reorganisation in 1866 made it superior to that possessed by Prussia and other German states. • Whilst MacMahon commanded forces in Alsace and Bazaine in Lorraine there was no strategy to coordinate their actions. The forces of Prussia and other German states were organised under a unified command. • French preparations were inefficient. French troops were sent to the front from their peace-time stations without their full complement of men and equipment. Reservists gathered in depots and overflowed railway stations, hindering traffic. There were six German railways to the French frontier, but only two French railways. • Troops from the southern German states fought better than expected and allowed the number of troops that Prussia and the other German states could bring to battle to outnumber the French. At the battle of Gravelotte-St-Privat, Moltke was able to field 180 000 troops to France’s 112 000. • Bismarck had isolated France diplomatically. He published secret French overtures, dating from 1867, that France be compensated for Prussian military success in 1866 by receiving Belgium territory. This turned public opinion anti-French in Belgium and Britain. Russia had promised to fight alongside Prussia if Austria came to France’s aid. Therefore, France could call on no allies to aid her in the war. Accept any other valid responses. 3(b) To what extent did economic issues cause the German revolutions of 20 1848–49? Indicative content In the 1840s the German states were facing a widespread economic depression which caused a great deal of hardship. Between 1816 and 1848 the population in German states had risen from 24 million to 36 million. This meant some areas found it increasingly hard to sustain their populations, and many amongst the peasantry still owed feudal dues to their landowners. In areas where peasants had become tenant farmers the rents were high. This produced resentment and a desire for change. In the towns working and living conditions were poor. The number of strikes and riots multiplied in the 1830s and 1840s. It is not surprising that the revolutions were principally urban. The growth of mechanisation threatened skilled artisans as it pushed down costs and made hand-produced goods relatively expensive. The economic situation deteriorated further in 1846 with a bad harvest. A potato blight occurred which led to the erection of barricades in Berlin, the looting of shops and the storming of the Crown Prince’s palace. The increase in food prices lead to the fall in demand for other goods and caused unemployment to rise as businesses laid off workers. All this created unrest in both urban and rural areas by 1848. The primacy of economic issues can be challenged. The power in the German states lay with the princes and the nobility. However, the economic crisis seemed to show that they lacked the will to alleviate the social distress. This led to growing criticism from the middle-classes who felt that they should no longer be excluded from participation in the political process. The existence of censorship and the secret police restricted the airing of these grievances and discussion of how to tackle the issues. A sense of nationalism had developed since 1815 in the German states with the liberal wish for an end to arbitrary government and the establishment of some form of parliamentary system. It was felt that national unity would create national prosperity. In March 1848 Metternich, who since 1815 had opposed nationalism and liberalism in the German states, fell from power. This seemed to be a sign that now was the time for such ideas to flourish. The focus of the question is the German states but reference to why revolution broke out in Austria (e.g., nationalism amongst the peoples of its empire) can be rewarded. Accept any other valid responses.

This question in 9489/21 Oct/Nov 2022

2 Liberalism and nationalism in Germany, 1815–71 (a) Explain why the development of German nationalism was limited in the period before 1848. [10] (b) ‘Prussia’s economic strength was the reason for its victory in the Franco–Prussian War.’ How far do you agree? [20]

30 marks

Mark scheme: 2(a) Explain why the development of German nationalism was limited in the 10 period before 1848. Indicative content • Austria – the most powerful of all the German states. Austrians saw nationalism as an existential threat to the Austrian Empire and so was opposed to any development of German nationalism, e.g., Carlsbad Decrees, 1819. • Religion – The Reformation still cast a long shadow over the German states. Catholics and Protestants were suspicious and mistrustful of each other. This did not bode well for cooperation in achieving a unified Germany. • Culture – the Rhineland had come under French influence as part of Napoleon’s Confederation of the Rhine and, as such, considered themselves part of Western Europe. Although now part of Prussia following the Congress of Vienna, the Rhenish saw Prussia as an alien culture from the east. Therefore, forming a common cause would be difficult. • Elite’s opposition – the German princes had appealed to nationalism to rally their peoples to fight back and expel the French. However, once this had been achieved, they had no desire to see a united Germany, for such a political entity would need one ruler only. A united German state would mean the end of the power of the princes. Future leadership, it seemed, was unlikely to come from traditional leaders. Accept any other valid responses. 2(b) ‘Prussia’s economic strength was the reason for its victory in the 20 Franco-Prussian War.’ How far do you agree? Indicative content Arguments in support of this view could be as follows. When war broke out in 1870 Prussia’s economy was strong, based on its growth in the 1850s and 1860s. It had outstripped that of France, as well as that of Austria. By the mid-1860s Prussia produced more coal and steel than France. The industrialist Alfred Krupp was able to produce high-quality armaments for Prussia from his factories in the Ruhr. By 1865 Prussia had a more extensive railway network than France and was able to use six railways which ran to the French frontier whilst France had the use of only two. This allowed Prussia to move troops and supplies quickly and in greater numbers. At the battle of Gravelotte-St-Pierre the Prussian general von Moltke was able to field 180 000 troops to France’s 112 000. This view, however, can be challenged. When war broke out Bismarck had ensured that France was isolated diplomatically. The publishing of secret French requests from 1867 to receive Belgium territory turned public opinion in Belgium and Britain anti-French. Also, Russia promised to support Prussia if Austria came to the aid of France. As a result, France had no allies to call on when war broke out. It was Bismarck’s political skill which allowed him to overcome the impasse of the 1860–62 constitutional crisis over military reforms and the military budget. This meant that Prussia had the means to reform the army and make it into an efficient fighting force. This was then used to great effect through the military ability of its generals, particularly von Moltke. This contrasts with French military leadership, which was over-confident, believing its military reforms of 1866 had made its army superior to any potential opponent. French planning in the war was flawed. Whilst MacMahon had forces in Alsace and Bezain had forces in Lorraine, there was no strategy to coordinate their actions. In contrast Prussian forces were organised under a unified command. It was the superior military organisation, leadership and fighting ability of the Prussian led forces which defeated the French army in the field and so led to Prussian victory. Accept any other valid responses.

This question in 9489/22 Feb/March 2023

2 Liberalism and nationalism in Germany, 1815–71 (a) Explain why the creation of the German Confederation discouraged the development of German nationalism. [10] (b) To what extent was the Frankfurt Parliament’s failure caused by disagreements amongst its members? [20]

30 marks

Mark scheme: 2(a) Explain why the creation of the German Confederation discouraged the 10 development of German nationalism. Indicative content  Whilst the German Confederation consisted of 39 states, far fewer than the hundreds which existed in the late 18th. century, there was no single unified German state.  The war against Napoleon, referred to as the War of Liberation, had raised nationalist feelings throughout the German states. However, the German Confederation reflected a lack of interest in, and no concern for, promoting a united Germany.  Its boundaries were modelled on those of the Holy Roman Empire rather than ones that would encourage the development of a unified German state. Thus, it contained areas containing Poles, Czechs, Danes and French but excluded areas which were largely German speaking.  It reflected the concerns of the rulers of the separate states, none of whom wanted to give up their power – a unified German state only needed one prince.  It was dominated by Austria who saw nationalism as an existential threat to its empire. Accept any other valid responses. 2(b) To what extent was the Frankfurt Parliament’s failure caused by 20 disagreements amongst its members? Indicative content Arguments which support the central role played by disagreements amongst its members could be as follows. There were clear divisions on political lines amongst the Parliament’s members. Some favoured Big Germany with Austria maintaining its leadership whilst others supported Little Germany which saw no place for Catholic Austria and favoured the leadership of Protestant Prussia. It did seem in October 1848 the first view had prevailed. However, it only applied to Austria’s German lands, and this was unacceptable to Austria as it would mean the breakup of its Empire. Divisions existed along the lines of social class. It was dominated by the middle classes who saw the demands for improvements in social and working conditions as undermining the Parliament’s support for economic liberalism and costly to their profits. This meant the lower classes had no faith in the Parliament. There were other reasons, however, for the Parliament’s failure. The refusal by Prussia’s King Frederick-William IV of the imperial crown offered by the Parliament contributed to its failure. This was because it would not have the substantial military and economic support of Prussia. Therefore, it had no effective way to make its ideas and policies a reality. There was the question of legitimacy, also. The Parliament had not been initiated by the German Confederation. Therefore, in April 1849 Austria recalled its delegates, to be followed by Prussia in May and then by the delegates of Saxony and Hanover. The consequence of this was that the Parliament became a rump and not a national assembly. Accept any other valid responses.

This question in 9489/21 May/June 2023

2 Liberalism and nationalism in Germany, 1815–71 (a) Explain why Prussia went to war with Denmark in 1864. [10] (b) To what extent was the development of German nationalism in the period 1815–50 brought about by cultural factors? [20]

30 marks

Mark scheme: 2(a) Explain why Prussia went to war with Denmark in 1864. 10 Indicative content • It happened because Bismarck saw an opportunity for Prussia. He hoped to annex the duchies, strengthening Prussian power in northern Germany, and enhancing his own standing within Prussia. • It was the product of Bismarck the ‘Machiavel’ – a long term plan to bring about a unified Germany under Prussian leadership. With Austria as her ally Prussia would defeat Denmark. The peace treaty would be manipulated to ensure joint Prussian and Austrian administration of the duchies. The decision of their long-term fate would cause tension which Bismarck could exploit to manoeuvre Austria into war. • It was the product of a clash of rival nationalisms, German and Danish regarding the duchies of Schleswig and Holstein, under Danish rule for 400 years. Holstein’s population was German speaking whilst North Schleswig had more Danish speakers. Danish nationalists wanted to maintain this language and culture in Schleswig. In November 1863, the new king Christian IX incorporated Schleswig into Denmark. German nationalists wanted both duchies incorporated into Germany. • It was the product of an old-fashioned dynastic dispute caused by the death of a king without male issue. In Denmark, the royal line of inheritance could pass down the female line. The two duchies followed the Salic Law which favoured the male line. In 1852 at the treaty of London it was agreed that Christian of Glucksburg, related by marriage to the Danish king’s first cousin, would succeed as ruler of Denmark and the two duchies once the present king died. In line with Salic Law the two duchies put up their own candidate, the Prince of Augustenburg. When the childless Danish king died in 1863, the government of Holstein refused to swear allegiance to Christian IX. The son of the Prince of Augustenburg now claimed both duchies, a stance supported by German nationalists. Accept any other valid responses. 2(b) To what extent was the development of German nationalism in the 20 period 1815–50 brought about by cultural factors? Indicative content Arguments to support the central role of cultural factors might take the following form. By 1815, after victory over the French, in what Germans called the ‘War of Liberation’, there was a reaction against cultural ideas linked with France. German Romanticism rather than French Rationalism flourished. Thus, the notion of a German national spirit, the volk, grew in popularity. It was something that had existed in the past but had been suppressed under Napoleon’s rule. It was given support by academic studies which acknowledged that the German states all had different dialects but stressed these all came from the same source. A common German language, therefore, existed. The popular folk tales of the Brothers Grimm were presented as being especially German in origin. In 1841 the words to what would later become the German national anthem were written by the poet Hoffmann von Fallersleben. It was a plea to the leaders of the German states to give priority to Germany as a whole – Germany above everything. Therefore, these common cultural factors were an encouragement to a distinct German identity and so raised the prospect of a unified German nation. Other factors, also, were influential. Economic factors such as industrialisation led to the development of railways which improved communications between the German states, allowing for the growth of inter-state trade. By 1836, 25 of the 39 German states had joined the Zollverein. The wealth produced by industrialisation and the Zollverein provided the means, especially in Prussia, to establish a well-equipped and efficient army. A key lesson learnt from the war with Napoleon was that being small and politically divided made the German states vulnerable to stronger powers. Therefore, they needed one another for a common defence. The nationalist feelings stirred up by the German princes to help raise armies to fight Napoleon did not end when Napoleon was defeated in 1815. In this period liberal thinkers promoted the idea of a national parliament to make laws and govern a united Germany. Although the revolutions of 1848–49 in Germany did fail the idea of a united Germany had been brought centre stage. Accept any other valid responses.

This question in 9489/21 Oct/Nov 2023

2 Liberalism and nationalism in Germany, 1815–71 (a) Explain why the Carlsbad Decrees of 1819 were issued. [10] (b) ‘German nationalism caused the war fought by Denmark in 1864 against Prussia and Austria.’ How far do you agree? [20]

30 marks

Mark scheme: 2(a) Explain why the Carlsbad Decrees of 1819 were issued. 10 Indicative content • The decrees provided inspectors for universities, disbanded student societies, introduced press censorship and set up a commission to investigate, and clamp down on, so-called revolutionary movements. • The immediate cause was the murder of a reactionary writer and secret agent (Kotzebue) of the Russian Tsar by a member of a student society. • The murder seemed to confirm Metternich’s belief that student societies (Burscherschaften) promoted liberalism and nationalism in Germany. These were products of the French Revolution and, as such, a threat to the aims of preserving monarchical rule and the social dominance of the aristocracy. • Liberalism and nationalism were an existential threat to the Austrian Empire, made up as it was of several nationalities (Hungarians/Czechs/Poles/Croats). • Austria was the dominant power in the German Confederation and a growth in liberalism and nationalism would threaten this dominance. Accept any other valid responses. 2(b) ‘German nationalism caused the war fought by Denmark in 1864 against 20 Prussia and Austria.’ How far do you agree? Indicative content Arguments to support this view might be as follows. The duchies of Schleswig and Holstein had been under Danish rule for 400 years, but Holstein’s population was German speaking whilst Schleswig had more Danish speakers. German nationalists wanted the duchies incorporated into Germany. This German nationalism created tensions which had led to a war, 1848–1851, between several German states and Denmark. The issue seemed to have been settled by the London Protocol of 1852. However, in November 1863 the new Danish king incorporated Schleswig into Denmark, a clear breach of the protocol which provided Prussia and Austria with a casus belli against Denmark. The view can be challenged. It was the product of a clash of nationalisms, Danish and German. Danish nationalists wanted to maintain its language and culture in Schleswig. It was Danish nationalism in 1863 which breached the London Protocol and caused the war to happen. The war of 1864 can be seen, also, as the result of an old-fashioned dynastic dispute caused by the death of a king, Frederick VII of Denmark, without male heir. In Denmark royal succession could pass down the female line but the two duchies followed the Salic Law which favoured the male line. When Christian IX became king in 1863 the government of Holstein refused to swear allegiance and the son of the Prince of Augustenburg, a German claimant, claimed the duchies. In addition, there was an economic aspect to the war as there was a grievance at the tolls the Danes charged through the Danish Straits between the Baltic and North Sea. To avoid this Austria and Prussia intended to build the Kiel canal, but it could not be done whilst Denmark ruled Holstein. It can be argued that a change in the international situation led Bismarck to see an opportunity ripe for exploitation. By 1863 there was a decline in support for Denmark’s position over the duchies – the Crimean War had crippled Russia’s power and France was prepared to renounce Danish interests in exchange for compensation to herself elsewhere. Some argue it was the product of Bismarck’s long-term aim to increase Prussia’s power by annexing land and cementing Prussian pre-eminence in Germany by the defeat of Austria and France in future wars. This would create a unified Germany under Prussian leadership. Accept any other valid responses.

This question in 9489/22 Oct/Nov 2023

2 Liberalism and nationalism in Germany, 1815–71 (a) Explain why Austria lost the war of 1866 against Prussia. [10] (b) How far were the revolutions in Germany, 1848–49, caused by nationalism? [20]

30 marks

Mark scheme: 2(a) Explain why Austria lost the war of 1866 against Prussia. 10 Indicative content • The organisational skills of the Prussian High Command meant that there was advanced planning and preparation. Thus, Prussia was able to use the railways far more efficiently than Austria in the mobilisation of its army. Only one single track railway ran from Vienna to Bohemia whereas Prussia was able to use five lines to move troops south. • The secret alliance Bismarck made with the king of Italy in April 1866 meant that Italy followed Prussia into war against Austria. As a result, the Austrian army was forced to fight on two fronts, in the north against Prussia and in the south against Austria. • General von Moltke used more daring tactics. To prevent Austrian troops moving up from the south, having defeated the Italians, and linking with their troops in the north von Moltke took the double risk of crossing into Bohemia and dividing his forces for faster movement, only concentrating them again on the eve of battle. In contrast, the Austrian High Command missed several opportunities to annihilate the separated Prussian forces. • The Prussians used their new breech-loading needle guns which had a rate of fire five times greater than anything the Austrians used. In the major battle of the war at Sadowa/Königgrätz, 3 July 1866) this proved decisive, and the Austrian army retreated in disorder. • The Austrian government realised continuing the war would result only in further defeat and might lead to the breakup of the Empire. Therefore, Austria sought an end to the fighting. Accept any other valid responses. 2(b) How far were the revolutions in Germany, 1848–49, caused by 20 nationalism? Indicative content Arguments supporting nationalism’s central role could be as follows. There had been a growing sense of nationalism in the German states since 1815, with the liberal wish for an end to arbitrary government and the establishment of some form of parliamentary system. The success of greater economic integration amongst the German states, as seen in the Zollverein, seemed to suggest national unity would enhance economic prosperity. The position set out by the Frankfurt parliament in its draft constitution for a united Germany would seem to point to nationalism as a driving force in the events of 1848– 49. Thus, the German states were to be united as a German Empire led by a German Emperor. The government would represent the populations of all the states. Nationalism was a key issue in the troubles Austria faced in its empire as its many subject peoples demanded independence. In March 1848 Metternich, who since 1815 had opposed nationalism and liberalism in the German states, fell from power. This seemed to be a sign that now was the time for such ideas to flourish. However, there were other influences behind the revolutions of 1848–49. In the 1840s the German states were facing a widespread economic depression which caused a great deal of hardship. Between 1816 and 1848 the population in German states had risen from 24 million to 36 million. This meant some areas found it increasingly hard to sustain their populations, and many amongst the peasantry still owed feudal dues to their landowners. In areas where peasants had become tenant farmers the rents were high. This produced resentment and a desire for change. In the towns working and living conditions were poor. The number of strikes and riots multiplied in the 1830s and 1840s. It is not surprising that the revolutions were principally urban. The growth of mechanisation threatened skilled artisans as it pushed down costs and made hand-produced goods relatively expensive. The economic situation deteriorated further in 1846 with a bad harvest. A potato blight occurred which led to the erection of barricades in Berlin, the looting of shops and the storming of the Crown Prince’s palace. The increase in food prices lead to the fall in demand for other goods and caused unemployment to rise as businesses laid off workers. All this created unrest in both urban and rural areas by 1848. Also, the power in the German states lay with the princes and the nobility. However, the economic crisis seemed to show that they lacked the will to alleviate the social distress. This led to growing criticism from the middle-classes who felt that they should no longer be excluded from participation in the political process. The existence of censorship and the secret police restricted the airing of these grievances and discussion of how to tackle the issues. Accept any other valid responses.

This question in 9489/23 Oct/Nov 2023

2 Liberalism and nationalism in Germany, 1815–71 (a) Explain why Prussia went to war with Austria in 1866. [10] (b) How influential were liberal ideas in Germany by 1848? [20]

30 marks

Mark scheme: 2(a) Explain why Prussia went to war with Austria in 1866. 10 Indicative content • The ‘humiliation of Olmütz’ (1850) still rankled – the military defeat of Austria would expunge this sense of shame. By 1866 Prussia was more militarily prepared and able than in 1850. • After the war with Denmark the treaty of Vienna, October 1864, brought about the joint administration of the duchies of Schleswig and Holstein by Prussia and Austria. However, there were disagreements – Austria supported the Duke of Augustenburg’s claim to the duchies whilst Prussia worked for their annexation. This increased tension between the two German powers. • The war was the product of Bismarck’s determination to bring about a united Germany under Prussian leadership. To achieve this Prussia would have to defeat Austria. In February 1866 at a meeting of the Prussian Crown Council Bismarck said that war with Austria was only a matter of time. • In April 1866 Prussia made a secret alliance with Italy – the Italian king agreed to follow Prussia if it declared war on Austria within three months. • Prussia provoked Austria into action. On 10 June 1866 Bismarck proposed that Austria be excluded from the German Confederation. This was an unequivocal challenge to Austria’s power in Germany. Austria responded by calling for the mobilisation of the Confederation’s troops against Prussia. War began on 14 June 1866. Accept any other valid responses. 2(b) How influential were liberal ideas in Germany by 1848? 20 Indicative content Arguments to show liberalism was strongly established in Germany by 1848 could take the following form. The years after 1815 saw the growth of nationalist societies amongst university students, a group dominated by the middle and upper classes of the German states. This nationalism adopted liberal aims such as national and state representative assemblies. In 1823, King Frederick William III of Prussia had agreed to the establishment of provincial Diets. In the 1830s following the July Revolution in Paris and the successful Belgian revolt against the Dutch the demand grew for a greater liberalisation of policies. Brunswick, Saxony, and Hesse-Cassel saw the creation of more liberal constitutions, whilst in Bavaria, Baden and Württemberg liberal parties gained parliamentary seats and there was a greater freedom of the press. In the 1840s political debate developed further in a liberal direction. Newspapers and political journals flourished, and the fact that Germans were the most literate people in Europe helped. Liberal expression found an outlet in 1847 with the founding of ‘Die Deutsche Zeitung’ (The German Newspaper). It published details of the meeting of liberal representatives in southwestern states at Hippenhelm who demanded an elected national Diet. The liberal notions on trade found an outlet in the Zollverein which encouraged another liberal aim, German nationalism in the form of a unified Germany. In 1848 revolutions broke out across Germany. However, this view can be questioned. The Carlsbad Decrees of 1819 dealt with the nationalist societies by banning them, increasing state supervision of universities and intensifying press censorship. Prussia might have provincial Diets, but it had no constitution, and the Diets were dominated by landowners who tended to be conservative, not liberal, in outlook. The seeming growth of liberalism in the 1830s was challenged by Metternich’s persuasion of the Federal Diet to pass the Six Articles (1832). They increased its control over the internal affairs of the individual states and forbade political associations and popular meetings. This was followed in 1834 with increased censorship and control over universities. The degree of political consciousness possessed by Germans in 1848 can be questioned. Most Germans were peasants who were focused on making a living from the soil rather than freedom of the press and political representation. Liberals were exclusively well-educated and well-to-do members of the middle class, concerned with their own economic and political interests not radical change in the structure of society. Whilst vociferous, they were a small elite whose influence could be seen as limited. Accept any other valid responses.

This question in 9489/21 Oct/Nov 2024

2 Liberalism and nationalism in Germany, 1815–71 (a) Explain why Bismarck wanted to be allied with Austria in the war against Denmark in 1864. [10] (b) To what extent did the Carlsbad Decrees limit the development of nationalism in Germany in the period from 1819 to 1848? [20]

30 marks

Mark scheme: 2(a) Explain why Bismarck wanted to be allied with Austria in the war against 10 Denmark in 1864. Indicative content • He did not want the war to be waged in alliance with the whole of the German Confederation. He had no desire to elevate its status. • He saw waging a war in alliance with the strongest power in Germany as raising Prussia’s prestige in seeming to be an equal partner with Austria. • He knew Prussia could not avoid acting jointly with Austria. The Austrians would never agree to Prussia acting alone. At this time Prussia was not yet able to defy Austria. • There is a view that Bismarck saw it as a desirable alliance because any Prussian-Austrian settlement of so intricate a problem as the Schleswig- Holstein issue would provide the opportunity, at a later date of his choosing, to pick a quarrel with Austria and challenge its position in Germany. Accept any other valid responses. 2(b) To what extent did the Carlsbad Decrees limit the development of 20 nationalism in Germany in the period from 1819 to 1848? Indicative content Arguments to support the view that the Carlsbad Decrees did limit the development of nationalism in Germany in this period might take the following form. The nationalistic student societies, Burschenschaften, had been growing in size and strength since 1815. The Carlsbad Decrees disbanded these societies, so their growth was ended. Universities produced the future social and political elites of the German states. To prevent nationalistic ideas being carried forward the Carlsbad Decrees dismissed from their posts academics who supported German nationalism. To further limit the development of nationalism in Germany the Carlsbad Decrees placed universities under the control of new supervisors. The Carlsbad Decrees enacted a more rigid censorship over publications and the press. Therefore, open discussion of nationalistic ideas in the German states was lessened. The Carlsbad Decrees reflected Austria’s determination, under Metternich, to oppose any development of German nationalism. This dominance of the German states allowed Metternich, in 1821, to get all the German states to restrict the subjects which their assemblies could discuss. Austria remained the most influential power throughout this period. However, this view can be questioned. In 1832 nationalists met at Hambach in Bavaria, flew the tricolour, symbol of revolution and stated that power lay with the people. Thus, in the same year, and again in 1834, Mettternich got further legislation enacted to limit the discussion of nationalistic ideas in the universities and in the press. This suggests that the Carlsbad Decrees had not been effective in limiting the development of nationalistic ideas in Germany. It can be argued that it would have been almost impossible to totally suppress such ideas as there were several factors which helped to develop nationalism in Germany in this period. The early nineteenth century saw the growing pace of industrialisation in the German states. As part of this industrialisation railways developed and improved communication between German states, allowing for the growth of inter-state trade. This caused the idea to develop that a unified German state would increase wealth and trade even further. The growth of customs unions fostered the notion that a single German state without numerous tariffs would increase prosperity. This was something middle-class businessmen were keen to support as it maximised profits by increasing the available market for goods. By 1836, 25 of the 39 German states had joined the Zollverein, originally created by Prussia. Therefore, if most German states were willing to accept Prussian influence in economic affairs why not in a political union? Cultural factors, also, played a role. After 1815, there was a reaction against French ideas of culture. For example, the idea grew of a national spirit, the ‘volk’. Academic studies showed that, whilst the states had different dialects, these variations came from the same source. Therefore, there was a common German language. Accept any other valid responses.

This question in 9489/22 Oct/Nov 2024

2 Liberalism and nationalism in Germany, 1815–71 (a) Explain why the Carlsbad Decrees threatened the development of German nationalism. [10] (b) ‘The dispute over the new Danish King’s rights over Schleswig-Holstein caused the war of 1864.’ How far do you agree? [20]

30 marks

Mark scheme: 2(a) Explain why the Carlsbad Decrees threatened the development of 10 German nationalism. Indicative content • The nationalistic student societies, Burschenschaften, had grown in size and strength since 1815. The Carlsbad Decrees disbanded these societies, so their growth was ended. • Universities produced the future social and political elites of the German states. To prevent nationalistic ideas being nurtured amongst these elites the Carlsbad Decrees dismissed from their posts academics who supported German nationalism. To further limit the development of nationalism in Germany the Carlsbad Decrees placed universities under the control of new supervisors. • A more rigid censorship over publications and the press was enacted by the Carlsbad Decrees. Therefore, open discussion of nationalistic ideas in the German states was lessened. • They reflected Austria’s determination, under Metternich, to oppose any development of German nationalism. This dominance of the German states allowed Metternich, in 1821, to get all the German states to restrict the subjects which their assemblies could discuss. No single German state was able to challenge, successfully, Austria’s position until 1866. Accept any other valid responses. 2(b) ‘The dispute over the new Danish King’s rights over Schleswig-Holstein 20 caused the war of 1864.’ How far do you agree? Indicative content Arguments which stress the central role of dynastic concerns in causing the war of 1864 with Denmark might note the following. Dynastic wars were the product of the death of a king without male issue. The 18th century had been dominated by such wars – war of the Spanish and Austrian Succession. The war of 1864 could be classed as the ‘War of the Danish Succession’(Clark). In November 1863, the childless Frederick VII of Demark died. In the treaty of London of 1852, it had been agreed that Christian of Glucksburg, married to the king’s cousin would succeed Frederick on his death. In Denmark royal succession could pass down the female line but the two duchies (Schleswig and Holstein) followed the Salic Law which favoured the male line. When Christian IX became king in 1863 the government of Holstein refused to swear allegiance and the son of the Prince of Augustenburg, passionately supported by German nationalists, claimed the duchies. Christian IX made things worse by incorporating Schleswig into Denmark, thereby violating the 1852 treaty. This provided a casus belli for Prussia and Austria. The prominence of dynastic considerations can be questioned. It was the product of a clash of nationalisms, Danish and German. The duchies of Schleswig and Holstein had been under Danish rule for 400 years, but Holstein’s population was German speaking whilst Schleswig had more Danish speakers. Danish nationalists wanted to maintain this language and culture in Schleswig whilst German nationalists wanted the duchies incorporated into Germany. These tensions had led to a war, 1848–1851, between Denmark and several German states. There was an economic aspect to the war as there was a grievance at the tolls the Danes charged through the Danish Straits between the Baltic and North Sea. To avoid this Prussia intended to build the Kiel canal, but it could not be done whilst Denmark ruled Holstein. It can be argued that a change in the international situation led Bismarck to see an opportunity ripe for exploitation. By 1863 there was a decline in support for Denmark’s position over the duchies – the Crimean War had crippled Russia’s power and France was prepared to renounce Danish interests in exchange for compensation to herself elsewhere. Some argue that any Prussian-Austrian settlement of so intricate a problem as the Schleswig-Holstein issue would provide Bismarck with the opportunity, at a later date of his choosing, to pick a quarrel with Austria and challenge its position in Germany. The war was the product of Bismarck’s machinations. The war was the first step in Bismarck’s plan to bring about a unified Germany under Prussian leadership. Accept any other valid responses.

This question in 9489/23 Oct/Nov 2024