Discussion Questions for the Week of September 16th. What are Bismarck goals/aims?

s
1. 2. 3.

Further Prussian Conservative interests (Junker); Maintain Hohenzollern monarchy. Increase German international power.

What does he have at his disposal to accomplish this?

1. 2. 3. 4.

First, 200,000, then 400,000 regular troops 500,000 ready reserve ~2 million unready reserve Possible allies in other conservative states (Italy in war w/ Austria), a hesitant Russia, a sea power in Britain. Almost fervent nationalist sentiment in most publics.

5.

THE WARS OF GERMAN UNIFICATION Two views of Germany: 1. Gross Deutsch 2. Klein Deutsch

All w/ Austria-Hungary W/out

(Bismarck desire)...why? s

Wars against Denmark, Austria and France, limited aims, objectives Opponent Denmark 1864 Objective Land - Schleswig-Holstein : Access to ports. Middle of industrial boom...Germany on verge of becoming #1 coal and iron producer, needs shipping access to be able to expand as commercial center). Gotta have it. NOT political. More influence w/in German confederation, German turf w/in Silesia (supplementary goal, willing to trade off). Exclude Austria from confederation but not create as permanent enemies (by 1878 allies again). If Prussia marches though Vienna, too much ill blood (war is never over C) Of particular interest for IR theorists. A system transforming war over a domestic squabble. Contrary to Hegemonic stability and PT which argue that dissatisfaction drives the war. How do we know that war was not perceived as one that would have big international consequences? Money market rates in London, Paris, Amsterdam and Prussia. Rates highly volatile in Prussia (fears of losing) but not in other markets - see war as domestic squabble. Caused by BdM Pride of Place s argument. Needs an excuse to go to war w/ Austria, gets it when can work out t terms to sell S-H to Prussia. Dispute Means Sweep north Siege of Duppol (1800 Dane KIA, few German) British try to negotiate a peace Prussia renews attack until Danes capitulate. Bismarck allies w/ Italy, dissolves German confederation. Italy declares war on Austria Moltke taking advantage of trains, tries to spread out the war on wide front, giving huge initiative authority to local commanders. Leads to quick defeat of Hanovarians and Saxons Makes good use of telegraph to control commanders. Moltke tries for a Cannae (225 BC, Hannibal vs., Romans: Strategic withdrawal in center in order to envelop from sides), doesn get it. t Instead, two armies of ~200k converge. Leads to climactic battle of Sadowa (Koniggratz). Telegraph screw up leaves 1/3 of force waiting. Collapses into attrition. Austrians had a chance but

Austria 1866

rises over administration over S-H region France 1870 Unify Germany (need to get France to attack Germany and ALSO desire a limited war. If Fr attacks Germany, the Prussia can be seen as the defenders of S. Germany. Leads to unification f Germany...small territory desires. Destroy French Army, but have limited territorial aims.

blew it. Breach-loading rifle beats muzzle loader. 10K Prussia, 45K Austrian KIA Napoleon III starts (thinks inevitable?) hastily. No plan. Creates two armies (3 corps) w/ no staff. Germans again use railway to huge effect. 400k men mobilized. Germans grind down French, equal losses initially but Germans break though and start a process of attrition French using initiative and massing of forces. Big battle at Sedan. Germans surround Nap III, who quits and surrenders of the French army. Germans grind towards Paris, Revolution and huge wave of nationalism (300k volunteers in Paris) Moltke, because of Paris rail system he cuts it off from rest of country. Leon Gambetta, organizer of new popular govt. Escapes in balloon, organizes a new army in Loire and organizes guerrilla resistance on Germany supply lines. s Leads to extension of war, higher costs but in the end Germans wear don French by surrounding forts.

1)

In what ways were Prussia wars against Denmark, Austria and France Limited/ s Why did Bismarck impose these limitations? In S-H B wants to increase size and weight of Prussia, not to increase number of medium sized liberal states. Stay out of greater Denmark, keep Austria in alliance w/ Prussia. S-H Moltke wants to extract payments from local population in Jutland, B does not want to antagonize foreign powers. Moltke attitude is, what s s the point then. B believes the war was about politics. In fact, it was the siege of Duppol that gets the Prussians new bargaining power because Britain and others now recognize that the Prussian army is a force to be reckoned with...enhancing reputation so as to have more influence with less fighting. 7 weeks: Against Austria, also a conservative Germanic state, B sees a potential ally for the future. If he does not negotiate easy terms at the end of the war, then those hopes would be dashed. Interesting to note that Austria and Prussia were allies at the time of the war. Not destroying Austria means that, the domestic argument settled, Prussia/Germany can now look outward. 7 Weeks: Two days after decisive battle w/ Austria, Emperor of France Napoleon III, proposes an armistice and beginning of peace talks. King William wants to crush Austrians, but B sees that to ignore Napoleon would to huge loss of face for Napoleon and might bring him into the war to stop Prussian expansion. 7 weeks, military wants to pursue into Vienna and perhaps beyond. B fears getting sucked into deep E Europe and then being destroyed by an attack in the west (WWII). Franco-Prussian war didn want to destroy conservative position in t France, unleashing a new wave of liberal uprisings. Basically, B wants to maintain the domestic situations of the states in the European system, but simply increase Prussia influence. s FP war: B wants to keep Russia out of conflict and out of negotiations after war. Russia get more and more nervous the deeper into France the Germans go.

2)

How does 7 Weeks war transform system? Austria, defeated, looks around for allies and tightens bonds with Hungary. In rest of eastern Europe, helps to arouse nationalist sentiments. Reveals that Prussia is strong than Austria, stronger likely than France Suddenly Prussia is now an international power that unbalances the whole continental order established at congress of Vienna. No one anticipated this though.

3)

What combination of domestic and foreign conditions facilitated/aggravated success of Bismarck strategy of limited war? Could these condition be replicated s today? The crown can only disengage itself within by a successful diversion without. If we can persuade ourselves of our importance abroad, we are willing to let many things at home go by the board. Bismkrck quote highlights the diversionary use of force. B buys off liberals in part with offers of welfare state provisions, health insurance, pensions, etc. But, due to exploding economic growth, state is able to buy a bigger military and expand social programs. Liberal middle class terrified by lower classes i.e. workers. There is considerable tension for the parliamentarians who wish to destroy the monarchy, but without awakening the revolutionary spirit in the masses France and Russia also interested in conservative (royal governments) limited steps to consolidate power would not be seen necessarily as bad. The publics that have influence (liberals and elite's) have intense interest in foreign affairs. Constant tension w/ Austria. If Prussia gets too involved elsewhere, Austria will chime in. When king of Denmark dies, w/ no direct heir, because the inbreeding is so high, a German prince is able to make claim to the Dukedom of SchleswigHolstein. W/ limited war (Schleswig-Holstein) B gets support of BOTH liberals (who are ardent nationalists) and conservatives (who want to support their own against others. If war had expanded against other royals, this would have threatened Conservatives everywhere. FP War: Napoleon capitulates and flees to London. Republican revolution in Paris leads to a newly organized French army which refuses to give in which leads to the encirclement of Paris. FP War: Because of turmoil in France, B has a hard time finding who to negotiate with. German military VERY closed off to him at this point which lets war escalate far further than B wanted. FP War: Having Paris encircled, military doesn want to attack, not into t siege warfare. B uses the press to get public into the fight. Public opinion demands the attack on Paris to get it over with.

4)

Analyze the nature of the Bismarck-Moltke feud. What implications does this conflict have for contemporary civil-military relations? What does Clausewitz say? Reforms in the late 1850 (increase to 3 years universal service) was a s means to inculcate values of loyalty to the monarchy. Army to be school of the nation. Wanted to inject military attitudes into civilian life. Basic thread is, who is in charge of military policy, civilians or military. From the time that mobilization began, neither diplomatic negotiations nor political consideration should interrupt the further military progress. Politics was to be decisive before and after hostilities but not during. In S-H war, Moltke wants to encircle S-H by invading through the Jutland, which B wants to avoid because it might cause war to spread out of control. Moltke goes into J anyway, which pisses off Austrians. For the siege of Dppel, the army sees that it will be costly and has greater political effect than military so they don want to do it. Real war here, not t movement. In 7 weeks war, Bismarck does what Johnson did in Vietnam, he convinces the king to change Moltke war plans and troop movements, which B sees s might threaten France an widen war into one that would have even less certain outcomes. Communications problem exacerbate problem. Information comes and goes from variety of sources and so it difficult, if not impossible to s maintain central authority. Franco-Prussian war: because of B meddling in S-H and in 7W, Moltke s and military resolve that B will have little if any say in how next war will be fought. FP war, near the end, Moltke wants to take al front line French troops prisoner, and occupy and administer through governors Paris and much of France.

5)

In what ways was Bismarck thwarted in achieving his objectives? What lessons might the modern analyst draw from Bismarck experience? s domestic concerns plagued him. Had to institute many liberal reforms to keep liberals off his back. constant battles w/ military. Army views war as their domain, that they should set policy once war begins.

6)

Bismarck claimed that policy makers were like ships at sea, in that they could not determine the weather but that they could openly steer their ship. Bad steersman crashed upon the shores, good pilots brought their ships safely to port. Do you agree with this somewhat fatalistic view of world politics? Might it vary depending on the size of the state in question? role of hegemon, i.e. who gets to set the rules. Smaller states have to be much more circumspect, think of 1st S-H war.

7)

The Prussia that Bismarck guided was quite homogeneous (ethnically and racially). How might this have been an advantage or disadvantage in his policy goal of unifying the German states into a single great power? Homogeneity is a funny thing, the key is to what group to people ID with. Homogenous compared to France? No. To US today? Yes. To Balkans? Yes.

8)

Bismarck opponents seem to have accepted their losses in the limited wars s during the mid 19th century. Clausewitz also points out that wars are never over. What types of social conditions lead to wars that end and to wars in which the fighting stops but the underlying tensions continue to simmer?