0

In 19th century Europe, there was such a thing as a "German question" i.e, how to achieve unification of all lands inhabited by Germans. What puzzles me is that, at that time, each of the kingdoms had its own variety of German and formed a dialect continuum. Sure, they would be mostly mutually intelligible throughout the territory to allow someone to be referred to as a "German-speaker", but so were the Low Franconian (Dutch) dialects mutually intelligible to their Low German speakers (+ Old Saxon to the west of the Netherlands). Also, I'm aware of the fact they would probably share a translation of the Bible from the 15th Century.

Today we usually say that a language is a "dialect with an Army and a Navy", so at that time, we would expect most of the different varieties of the German language to be simply taken as specific languages (e.g Bavarian, Hessian, Swabian, etc) in their own states. Indeed this has happened to Luxembourg, which, although being a possible candidate to a "German-speaking land", it just considered itself a separate entity and developed an identity based on that.

I wonder what kept the other German states away from developing this identity and instead still continue to view themselves as "German", whatever that term would mean at the time (How would you differentiate, at that time, a German from NRW from a Dutch or Luxemburger?)

Improve this question
9
  • 2
    A simple heuristic for distinguishing between German and Dutch from the early 19th century is given here: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kannitverstan
    – Jan
    Commented Jul 5 at 7:30
  • 3
    "we would expect most of the different varieties of the German language to be simply taken as specific languages (e.g Bavarian, Hessian, Swabian, etc) in their own states." Might there be some way to confirm or refute that expectation?
    – Jan
    Commented Jul 5 at 7:32
  • 2
    Documenting preliminary research will improve both the probability of an answer and the quality of the answer(s). I think you've answered your own question - there were competing drives - some sought unification around language and the formation of a nation-state. Others sought an independent path (like Luxembourg). A full answer would have to also address the concept of a nation state, incentives for nation-states, nation-state formation initiatives throughout Europe, and the German reaction to Napoleonic France.
    – MCW ♦
    Commented Jul 5 at 11:17
  • 2
    You should look at the history of germany since the Holy Roman Empire (and before), how the emperor was elected and the politics behind.
    – Dan M
    Commented Jul 5 at 16:40
  • Another similar example is the Pan-Arabism - the idea that Arabs are one people that should live in a single state. Note that the dialects of Arabic are just as diverse as dialects of German. The crux here is likely a state (held as a unit by a king or a dictator) vs. a nation-state - grounded in shared linguistic and cultural identity.
    – Roger V.
    Commented Jul 5 at 19:23

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
3

German disunity was tied into autocracy and backwardness of many smaller German principalities, and the drive for unity was tied into the drive for democracy. Unity was also tied to a power grab by the largest country to end up in the Reich, but the OP asked why smaller ones wanted unification.

  • Two possible answers to the German question were the Kleindeutsche Lösung (lesser German solution) and the Großdeutsche Lösung (greater German solution). The Großdeutsche Lösung did not happen and many German-speaking countries and territories are now no part of Germany.
  • Disunity caused tax barriers and obstacles to economic development. The Zollverein was no satisfactory solution.
  • The Napoleonic Wars had been a clear sign that the individual kingdoms, duchies, cities, etc. could not hope to prevail in geopolitics. Germany calls the campaign of 1813 the Freiheitskriege (liberation wars).
  • The March Revolution was about pan-Germanism and about democratic rights.

So there is no single answer, and the outcome was not inevitable. One could tell counterfactual stories about a different outcome.

Improve this answer
3
  • 1
    "The drive for unity was tied into the drive for democracy" is true only to some degree, you may want to modify this statement. Bismark and Wilhelm-I would have disagreed strongly. The true story is that the drive for unity came from two forces, liberal and conservative.
    – Moishe Kohan
    Commented Jul 5 at 20:14
  • In addition to the Napoleonic wars, the en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhine_crisis showed in 1840 that French expansionism was still a threat and fuelled German nationalism.
    – Pere
    Commented 2 days ago
  • @MoisheKohan, edited, even if the question seems to be why people in smaller countries wanted in.
    – o.m.
    Commented 2 days ago

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.