HIST2086 Bismarck: The Iron Chancellor Bismarck as diplomat: Anti-Austrian policy, Lecture 7 28 September 2010

Österreich: “Eastern Empire” Borderland of Roman Empire : Habsburg rule; part of Holy Roman Empire of German Nation (until 1806) 1493: Maximillian I: “Bella gerant alii, tu felix Austria nube” 1519: Division into Austrian & Spanish Habsburg lines 1526: Spanish Habsburg “World Empire” Mission of Austrian Habsburg Empire –Bringing civilization to Eastern Europe –Protecting the German Empire from ‘infidels’ (Turks) 1529 / 1683: Turkish sieges : Austrian (-Hungarian) Monarchy Austria’s historical roots

1815: Congress of Vienna: Member + dominant power of German Confederation (Deutscher Bund) Multi-ethnic Empire: Attempt to build-up “Habsburg nationalism” versus dissolution of Empire Italian nationalism: 1820, 1830, 1848, 1852, 1860, 1866, 1871 German nationalism: 1848/49, 1866 Hungarian nationalism: 1848, 1867 Slavic nationalism: 1848, 1908, 1914 Habsburg Empire after 1815

Challenges for Habsburg Empire Inherent weakness: 15 different nationalities, lacking common identity (only Habsburg dynasty) + economic backwardness Shaken internally by 1848 revolution + externally by Prussia → Hasty modernisation efforts + military alliance with Prussia + focussing on politics in German Confederation

Zollverein (Customs Union), 1834 Prussia + most German states but not Austria Net Value of Production in Gulden, 1840s Economic SectorCustoms UnionAustria Agriculture46,327,6 Small business15,2 3,6 Industry 8,1 4,0 Total production70,035,0

Austria’s strategy Strived to dominate Prussia → Austrian- Prussian Defence Alliance, May 1851 Strived for close cooperation with ‘Third Germany” (= medium + small German states who mistrusted Prussia’s political + economic potential + possible territorial ambitions) = Aimed to re-strengthen herself to become “master of Germany” by relying on German Confederation and its members

Bismarck’s strategy Clearly recognised Austria’s strategy Criticised Austria’s factual dominance in German Confederation (= presidency, close cooperation with ‘Third Germany’) Called for struggle for supremacy in Germany: “Prussia first” Launched strictest opposition + martial language + obstruction policy towards Austria at Frankfurt Diet Tried to blockade work of Diet (diet = Austria’s tool)

Confrontation Policy: Austria Promoted Central European Customs Union = Austria + German Customs Union of 1834 (Zollverein) Aimed … to break-up Prussia-dominated Zollverein to bring support to Austria’s economy to claim Austria’s dominance also in economic sector to pave way to German unity under Austria’s leadership

Confrontation Policy: Bismarck Promoted Prussia-dominated Zollverein Aimed … To preserve Zollverein free trade preferable for export of heavy industry products + foodstuff To make German public aware of advantages of Zollverein To put economic pressure on ‘Third Germany’

Confrontation Policy: Results Austria unsuccessful in creating Central European Customs Union Prussia successful in creating ‘Tax Association’ (Steuerverein) with North German states, 1851 = Important annex to Zollverein → Austria- dominated South German states unable to launch customs’ war against Prussia Strictly bilateral Austria-Zollverein Trade treaty, 1853, as ‘compensation’ for Austria, but no customs union

Crimean War, (1) ☺ F, UK, OE, Sardinia ≠ ☻ R → General fear of R’s expansion towards Mediterranean + Middle East Bismarck’s push to exploit conflict to enhance PR’s position towards A P’s government undecided over support for R (traditional close PR-R relations + post 1815 ‘Holy Alliance’ of P, R, A) or strict neutrality

Crimean War, (2) But: A’s push for renewal of 1851 P-A alliance treaty (1854) → A’s ultimatum to R to move out of Danube region: No formal declaration of war on R but A clearly in R’s enemy camp Results of A’s politics vs. R: Promoters of neutrality in P stronger Bismarck’s success to frustrate A’ attempt to mobilize German Confederation troops vs. R = P (Bismarck) regarded as speaker of majority of German states vs. A

Crimean War, (3) Results: After defeat R felt left in stake by A: → Total break of ‘Holy Alliance’ F’s (Napoleon III) new leading role in Europe Bismarck’s thinking: Prepare unavoidable war with A by keeping good relations with R + fostering better relations with F → Realpolitik of Bismarck