I suppose we could say the Austro-Prussian War was a major bridge as well. The emergence of Prussia as strong European power was a threat to France. Bismarck used this as an impetus for unifying Germany. The Franco-Prussian War was all that was needed to bring the Southern German States into line. Once Germany was unified there was never more than 40 years that they weren't in a state of war against France. Hence the bitter French saying "Give a German a rifle and he automatically turns toward France".

Not that the Germans didn't have a legitimate gripe. It had been them living under the French heel since Napoleonic times.

Without considering the Franco-Prussian War, you lose the German perspective on the WWi & WWII. They were a brand new nation trying to establish themselves as equivalent to the older more established Great Powers of Europe. By the time WWI came about they were still in their infancy as a country. Unlike the USA, which had the benefit of an isolating ocean, Germany had to establish themselves among France, Russia, England, and Austria. Any or all of whom would like to again reduce them to a series of petty pricipalities. In playing Germany in Diplomacy you've surely noticed how much work you have to do early on, and also how much easier your job is if you go on the offensive against someone right off the bat.

Ah well, it's not surprising really. However if you are interested in why everyone thought WWI was going to be a quick war, and why anyone would have rushed to sign up before missing an opportunity for glory in battle; it's worth a quick look.

The question is, why did Napoleon III care so much about the Spanish succession issue even after the Hohenzollern candidate declined the throne? The cause of the grievance was essentially removed. Although I think ultimately Napoleon was right that eventually Bismarck would have done something else to provoke a war (and he did edit cables from the Emperor to inflame French opinion) It is actually surprising to me that Ludwig went ahead and joined the German Empire. Bavarians hated the Prussians and had no enthusiasm for the war against France, especially after the Austrian war.

The candidate didn't decline the throne; his father did so for him under duress from the French. Bismarck was looking for a chance to take on the French, but I think the French had vastly underestimated the Prussians with regard to the threat they represented. Bismarck had his hand in making the war happen by publishing the carefully edited Ems dispatch.

As to why Napoleon III reacted as he did, I can see it to some extent. If you are playing France and Germany manages to get a foothold in Spain; it isn't really a good thing for your nation's security. Going so far as to demand that the king of Prussia publicly renounce any claim to the Spanish throne on the part of the Hohenzollern dynasty might be seen as an overestimation of the French predominance in the area. A similar demand 50-100 years earlier would have carried the desired weight.

Without considering the wars of succession and the unification of germany, the franco prussian war doesn't have context withiin the context of ww1...

Dammit I meant that war between Austria-hungary and Germany in 1866..

The unification of Germany is the main my main point. We tend to look back and see the French and Germans as natural enemies at this point. With Germany and Italy unifying within a year of each other, the political landscape changes rapidly and sets the stage for upheaval. The secret alliances idea that lead the entire continent into war was a reaction to the frequency of the 19th Century wars in Europe. Unfortunately, with the advance of technology it had an opposite effect than desired by bringing everyone into a horrific war of attrition.

I see an obvious link between those war :
franco-prussian war => Bismarck who was first opposed to the annexation of Alsace-Lorraine feared that France would take revenge => Bismarck diplomatic system to isolated France => system of Triple Alliance and Entente Cordiale that turned an other balkanic war into a world war.

Yes, the Austro-Prussian War was important in that it showed Europe the relative strengths of the Austrians and Prussian. I'll admit to knowing much less about that war though.

Good call, chamois. That's how I see it as well.

Speaking of which. We used to play a five player version of Diplomacy in which Germany and Italy hadn't yet unified. It was a fun variation.

France and Germany were natural enemies. The French had eliminated the Holy Roman Empire after the humiliation at Austerlitz, and in general German nationalism was a reaction to their impotence in the face of the French. The Germans resented the French because French had infected their language and culture and the idea was that the Germans didn't have pride enough to defend and support their own culture. The Confederation of the Rhine was a French puppet, whose fake 'support' for France was revealed during the War of the Sixth Coalition (the southern Germans defected as well).

Infected is such a strong word. William the great loved the French language and is a prussian hero.

" If you are playing France and Germany manages to get a foothold in Spain; it isn't really a good thing for your nation's security."

But since Germany has no Mediterranean naval presence, Germany's position in Spain is tenuous at best. Plus Spain during this period was a basketcase of instability, and posed no threat to France.

One of my favorite poems is "An die Deutschen" by Johann Herder.

"And you German alone
Returning from abroad
Wouldst greet your mother in French?
O spew it out, before your door
Spew out that ugly slime of the Seine
Speak German, O you German!

@ Scagga - it was just Austria during the Austro-Prussian war. The Magyars didn't revolt until later

Still there is the European truism of the 19th Century that rarely did anyone willingly gave up anything once they held it. The King of Sweden being the big exception. Norway got their independence without a war.

As far as Germany's naval paresence in the Med. That's true but they were allies with Italy. Napoleon III was basically backing the Pope with a garrison of French troops keeping Rome from being annexed by the Italians. When the Franco-Prussian War started going badly for the French (which I think was about twelve hours into it) the French withdrew their support of Rome and the city became Italian in rather short order.

hmm, I never knew that they had French troops in Rome. that's interesting

Well except that Norway became independent in 1905. Swedish nationalists had proposed dissolving the union decades before as they believed Norway to be filled with liberals, so there was no real clamor to keep Norway.

@Putin : many historians consider the 19th century period to be from 1815 to 1918.

...for European History.

Coming from my grandparents who were alive and living in Sweden at the time, there was considerable concern that there would be a war. They attributed King Gustav with giving the Norwegians their independence peacefully. My 19th Century European History prof. cited it as the one time any nation gave up its holdings peacefully in that time period as well.

I agree again chamois. Things don't typically click over with the turning of one century to another.

oops it was King Oscar not King Gustav.

Why Gustav? He wasn't in power yet - was Oscar II.

Swedes were afraid of a possible two-front war, with Russia making noise in Finland at the time.

And didn't the British hand over Heligoland to the Germans?

.. yeah I got that. I heard a lot about King Gustav growing up so it was an honest slip. King Oscar II was the king that allowed peaceful Norwegian independence.

Heligoland was an exchange of territories and an agreement not to interfere with each others empire building. It's not quite the same thing as relinquishing a claim to an entire country to avoid going to war.

Fair enough. On a separate but somewhat related point, one person I've always been interested in is Rudolf Kjellen, who was a prominent "nationalist" during this time period. He's a forgotten figure despite the fact that he should be considered the *founder* of political science. I tried to learn Swedish for the sole purpose of reading his work. He's done some in German, but most of it has not been translated. Anyway he has some writings on the Norwegian question that I want to read, but I can't find any materials to help me learn to read Swedish.

Good luck on that. I learned German becasue it was the closest thing I could get to Swedish. My grandmother tried to teach me to speak some, but we didn't get far. I could basically understand her when she spoke to me but not a word from anybody else. As I understand it the Swedes who visited later (the 1990's) had a hard time understanding her as well. Dad called it "Chicago-Svensk" basically a mixture of English and Swedish.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpHniCEHY7I

This will be absolutely no help at all, but it is funny.

Hey Crazy Anglican, does your grandmother go by the name: "Swedish Mountains"? My grandpa used to bang out this swedish girl near Chicago just after the Korean War. Just askin.

Sounds like your Grandpa is about the same age as my dad, so unless he had an Oedipal complex going, probably not. She lived in New York btw the dialect is just called Chcago Svensk.