The source under debate consists of a section from a letter written by František Palacký in response to an invitation by the Vorparlament (pre parliament) to discuss the national constitution of assembly. The letter itself had been written on the 11th of April 1848, in the midst of the European revolutions. The debate surrounding Palacký’s response was mainly concerned with the formation of nation states. Specifically, whether or not Austria should or would form a political alliance with Germany. Would Germany remain small with a Prussian leadership or become larger by the unification with Austria. In fact the purpose of the initial invitation was to gain the support the Czechs in order to build a superior nation state. During this period the Austrian Empire saw a variety of diverse ethnicities, some of which held a dominating majority, such as Germany. The Czechs at this time were also a predominant ethnic group and had been encouraged to hold a sense of pride in relation to their language and literature almost as a means of separating them from Germans, a reminder of sorts of their heritage and refusal of ‘German manners and regimen’. Considering that the Czechs did not feel united or well in corporate with the Germans, Palacký’s refusal to join the constitution is not unexpected. In fact Palacký highlights toward the beginning of the letter that he was not ‘a German- at least I do not feel myself to be one’ and therefore should not be included with the proceedings, his lack of German heritage made him irrelevant to the situation. Palacký does, however, include reasons as to why Austria and Germany should merge together as well as suggesting how they should go about doing so. He states that it makes sense for Germany to ... ... middle of paper ... ...tuation in 1848 and to the Czechs. While it may not have held much importance in relation to the potentiality of the Austro-German unification, it became the one of the most key political statements that that led to the development of national Czech politics. Works Cited Encyclopaedia Britannica, Frankfurt National Assembly, http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/217271/Frankfurt-National-Assembly F. Palacky to the Committee of Fifty, Frankfurt – on – Main, 11th April 1848 The age of sage, Germany and the Revolution of 1848, http://www.age-of-the-sage.org/history/1848/german_revolution.html Books Open Edition, Letter to Frankfurt, 11th April 1848, http://books.openedition.org/ceup/2345 Discourse of Collective Identity in central and Southeast Europe (1770-1945), ed. by Balázs Trencsényi and Michal Kopeček (Hungary: Central European University Press, 2007)
Even prior to the Austro-Prussian War, there were divisions between the two states. Though they were allies for many years due to the German population that existed in both, they began to both grasp for power within the German states. One example of this power struggle occurred in the Zollverein, an economic association that Prussia led. Prussia did not want Austria to be part of this economic group and thus “blocked Austrian entry into the Zollverein.” In 1849-1850 the states were even on the brink of war. Prussia attempted to create a German union, with itself at the forefront, but Austria “called the Prussian bluff by adopting a belligerent posture.” As a result, Prussia lost what power it had accumulated in the maneuver when it signed the Olmutz Convention, which “re-established the old German Confederation.” Two wars were also influential on the conflict between Austria and Prussia. In the Cri...
Czechoslovakia previously owned Sudetenland (Czechoslovakia wasn't invited to this agreement) so they were furious and protested about the loss of their owned country. They felt secluded by both Britain and France (who they had been alliances with). Nevertheless, this agreement had been viewed as an accomplishment rather than a negative action. People were pleased because it was an outstanding example of having peace through negotiation rather than a war.
Wolfsgrüber, Cölestin. “The Austro-Hungarian Monarchy.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 2. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1907. 18 December 2011
3E. Peshine Smith, A Manual of Political Economy, Henry Carey Baird, Philadelphia, 1872, p. 16.
The Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria-Hungary led to the July Crisis. A crisis in which, Austria sent an Ultimatum to Serbia, with requirement to be followed. Serbia accepted most but not all of Austria’s demands. Serbia’s decline of the Ultimatum led to Austria-Hungary declaring war on the Serbs. Another key event in the July Crisis was Austria-Hungary sending a “blank cheque” to Germany. This cheque meant to ask if Germany would help Austria-Hungary if they went to war. Germany agreed to the “blank cheque”. As Austria-Hungary went to war against Serbia; Serbia had alliances with France, Russia, Italy, and the Ottoman Empire to join the war on their side. Germany knowing that Russia was mobilizing its army, Kaiser Wilhelm II, sent a letter to Russia’s leader. Tsar Nicholas II ignored the letter and kept on mobilizing its army. Therefore, Germany put forth the Schlieffen plan, written in 1904 by Alfred von Schlieffen. This plan’s principle was getting German troops through Belgium and then the troops into France....
...nted from this meeting because of appeasement. Europe was happy from this because it avoided war. This did not benefit the Czechs at all though.For some reason, Chamberlain favored Appeasement. According to Document 5, He thinks appeasement is the best way because he believes war is a "fearful thing".He thinks that appeasement will benefit Europe.
...ion of the Right of Man and the Citizen”, Republic of France, 26 August 1789
We are introduced to historical work done by North America, Germany, Great Britain, Belgium, Italy, France, Central Europe, and some minor reference to Poland and Russia. The three main divisions of the text are a gamut of information about the late 19th and early 20th century. It is during this time that Iggers talks about Leopold Ranke and the influence of his brilliant ideas. “It was Ranke's aim to turn history into a rigorous science practiced by professionally trained historians” (Iggers, 2005). Ranke initially introduced the ...
The first crucial step in the triggering of the Great War can be looked at with respect to the German vow to support the Austrian position on Serbia. According to historian John G. Stoessinger, news of the Archduke Ferdinand and his wife Sophie's death deeply shook Kaiser Wilhelm II, who had a genuine fondness of the Archduke. For this, "he [Kaiser Wilhelm II] took the fateful step of assuring Austria that she could count on Germany's `faithful support' even if the punitive action she was planning to take against Serbia would bring her into conflict with Russia. In other words, the Kaiser issued Austria-Hungary a blank check" (Stoessinger 3). This decision of the Kaiser, as Stoessinger argues, was guided by his morals and friendship toward the Archduke and "under any circumstances demonstrated an extraordinary confusion of personal ethics and political judgment," and thus, it is untrue, "as many historians have stated, that the Kaiser wanted war" (Stoessinger 4). Contrastingly, the German historian Fritz Fischer argues that official papers give proof that German lea...
The Treaty of St Germain, signed in 1919 between the Allies and Austria, aimed for the recognition of the split of the Austria-Hungarian Empire into the two separate republics Austria and Hungary. The Allies felt that Austria was, to a certain extent, responsible for the war. As such, Austria was made to take certain responsibility for war damage and was ordered to pay reparations in goods and services. The treaty also involved major reshuffling of Austrian territory such as the loss of Slovenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina (contributing to the formation of Southern Slav kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, renamed Yugoslavia). Austria also lost the territories Galicia, South Tyrol, Istria amongst many others. This redistribution of territories led to Austria’s loss of almost all its industrially rich regions and about 15 million of its population. This huge debt to pay for war damage, accompanied by its inability to pay due to t...
There was a long-standing rivalry between Austria-Hungary and Russia due to their interests in the Balkans. Russia saw her role as leading and supporting her fellow Slav peoples in the Balkans. This Pan-Slav concept provided an ideal excuse to interfere in the Balkans and to extend Russia's influence towards the Eastern Mediterranean. Ideally Russia wished to open the Dardenelles straits to its warships. Austria-Hungary was concerned that this Russian encouragement of nationalism may threaten her borders and inspire nationalism within her own empire. In turn, Germany recognised that as Austria's closest ally her fate was linked with that of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Austria-Hungary was anxious to prevent Russian encroachment in the Balkans. This aim would be best served by the elimination of Serbia, Russia's Balkan ally. In 1878, Russia was humiliated at the Congress of Berlin when her proposal for a Greater Bulgarian state was rejected and Austria-Hungary occupied Bosnia to maintain order amongst the nationalist revolts.
Throughout history, negotiation has been a powerful tool used by world leaders to avoid violence and solve conflict. When negotiation succeeds all parties can feel that that have achieved their goals and met their expectations, but when negotiations go awry countries and relationships can be damaged beyond repair. The Munich Agreement of 1938 is a primary example of this type of failure, which was one of the catalysts to the start World War II and Czechoslovakia’s loss of independence. The Czech people were greatly overlooked during this agreement process, which still in some instances affects the country today. The 1930s were a challenging time for Europe and the powers within it due to the aftermath of WWI and the worldwide economic depression. Meanwhile, Fuhrer Hitler and the Nazi party were continuing their domination of Europe and threatening to invade Czechoslovakia, which many felt would most likely incite another World War. To prevent this England, France, Italy and Germany entered into an agreement, which would allow Germany to seize control of Sudetenland and is today known as the ‘Munich Pact’. Sudetenland had a large German population and its borders were in strategically strong areas for the German military. For negotiations to be successful there are many components that one must be aware of such as personalities of all parties, end goals of each person and the history from the country. England led the process with an appeasement policy as an attempt to mollify Hitler and the Nazi party and prevent war, which this pact did not. The Munich Pact is a perfect example of how negotiation can fail when all of the pieces do not fall correctly into place.
Kuzio, T. (2001). Historiography and National Identity among the Eastern Slavs: Towards a New Framework. National Identities, 3(2), 109-132
The growth of the European super powers during the 19th century consisted of the great powers vying for territorial attainments, developing their international influence, and ensuring positive domestic attitudes of their diplomatic actions. Attempting to cement their hegemony of international politics, the Prussian Empire sought to create an ethnically and politically unified German state to rebuff the prominence granted to Austria at the Congress of Vienna. Through the machinations of Chancellor Otto von Bismarck and his determination to unite the German lands through “blood and iron”, Germany quickly rose to become the epicenter of European politics and forever changed the geopolitical landscape of Europe. In examining the unification of Germany and its implications for the international system, this paper will explore the prehistory of the unification, significant diplomatic successes and failures during the bolstering of Germany’s power, and the change in the power structure of Germany that ultimately changed the military landscape of the international system and became the precursor for World War I.
Before the outbreak of World War I, Slovakia was part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and declared its independence in October 1918, joining the Czech provinces of Bohemia, Moravia, and Silesia to form the Republic of Czechoslovakia. Czechoslovakia in the interwar period was the only functioning parliamentary democracy in eastern Europe. Even though it was the only functioning parliamentary democracy, the Czechs and Slovaks had issues that divided them from one another. In the Czech lands, they were more populated and industrialized than Slovakia’s. The Slovak population was also poorer, less educated, and extremely Catholic. The Prague government (Prague is the capital of Czechoslovakia; and why the government is called the Prague government) “attempted to address these economic inequalities by industrializing Slovakia in the 1920s but these efforts were cut short by the Great Depression (Merriman, Winter 2358). The result from the attempted fixes was the Slovaks grew resentful in the 1930s and a separatist movement began, which was led by Father Andrej Hlinka and Jozef Tiso.