Hannover had never liked or trusted Prussia because of her militarism in the
first place but now there arose a strong independence movement for Hannover that
actually lasted until 1932 when Hitler squelched it.
While much of what you state is true Jane, and many Hannoverans remained particularly bitter and suspicious of Prussian intentions and infringements (I may add my own family emigrated primarily because of it), it is never a clean or easy sweep in the end. The Prussians, for all their warlike tendencies, also did more to unite Germany than any other contingent, and like never before. This was undeniably in Germany's better interest over the long haul. It was not without a degree of hardship in many quarters, some of which emanated from the edicts of Bismarck and the Kaiser. The same can be said for the Third Reich. Hitler did many questionable and even brutal things, but many laudable things too. To think of how many young German men lost their lives every year over silly and unnecessary duels to settle personal quarrels. It was an absurd holdover from the past that smacked of the archaic, but likewise he outlawed that in his day. A small example of course, but I could make a list as long as the day as to other sensible things the Prussians, Bismarck and Hitler introduced to the betterment of all Germans. Many of these often-resisted reforms and promulgations remain as unheralded legacies in modern Germany today (while others have been whitewashed or dislodged).
I only add this so that all sides get a fair representation in the mix here. Modern Germany owes much to its Prussian affiliation, and though the Prussians remain an easy target for criticism then and now (some of it quite understandably), over all you simply cannot separate German ambitions and achievements from that of the Prussians (and likewise to some measure, the Hannoverans, Bavarians and Austrians). To do so would be to cheat history of many important de facto conditions and premises, and the consequential courses of action that have arisen. Many of the decrees and reforms that Prussia formulated - though perhaps unsettling or alien when introduced - have been lasting all the same. The breadth and span of so many quarrelsome kingdoms and fiefdoms all across the German landscape was equally chaotic, and lent itself to many unnecessary conflicts and bloodshed. The sate of Hannover was but one of many examples of this, but hardly alone. Prussia was simply first in seeing the "bigger picture", and then acting on the principle and drive of unification above all, come what may. How many other states would have been so bold or audacious - and then been able to pull it off?
One should also never underestimate what all of Europe owes the Prussians in the name of continental security in recent centuries. While they may have menaced many of their neighbors (these regional kingdoms previously mentioned) with their frequent marches and maneuvers, they also served as sentinels to encroachments from the East. Few thought of bringing arms or outright invasions upon the German interior, knowing that Prussia would have to be dealt with or subjugated. Once again evidence of how the sword cuts both ways. The fact that Prussia was lost after WWII could have be disastrous in many ways for Germany and even Europe as a whole, if it were not for the evolution of modern weaponry, and the ability to launch mega deadly projectiles at such long range distances. For me, this loss remains a bitter pill to swallow, though I realize one can point to certain merits likewise. The thought of McDonald's golden arches or but another Wal-Mart going up on those ancient Prussian/Germanic (now Russian and Polish) estates hardly thrills me with a sense of awe or accomplishment. Just my take mind you.
I too must take exception to Jane's overly broad sweep which seems to be
mostly based on family stories rather then a larger sense of geopolitics or
German history in general. But I wasn't going to respond until I read John
Brene's post. These emails are not the vehicle to discuss such wide raging
topics and one get's nowhere quickly.
Prussia as a militaristic state has been vastly overplayed by many. True,
they had a government which always believed in duty to country by each and
every citizen. This was a relatively new concept for the times. Some had to
assume the military role while the rest provided other services which
benefitted the whole. It was a small country from the start and pressure
from the East was always there as a danger to its very existence.
The Austro-Prussian war is often called the German Civil War or Brüderkrieg
because it was a war for unity of the nation which was sealed via the
Franco-Prussian war. Just as there are defenders of the Confederacy here, so
there are defenders of the Kleinstaaterei which was the precursor to a
united Germany. The Hannovarian patriots were obviously for a system which
represented a weak Germany of many independent states. It was this system of
lose confederation which had already cost the German Empire its territory
west of the Rhine. Further, the concept of Austria leading the northern
German states in the Deutscher Bund simply made no sense as Austria
represented the old system and fought change wherever it could.
Großdeutschland under Austria would have been a weak state subject to
further invasions by its neighbors and an eventual series of new countries
or annexations by its neighbors. Kleindeutschland at least had a strong
leadership others could follow and it was later able to take on that
aggressive neighbor to the West which always wanted more German lands.
The Brüderkrieg pitted almost all of the German states against Prussia. Yet,
the main battle was between Prussia and Austria. The other states did not
have the military capacity to seriously worry Prussia which was precisely
the reason they were all such easy pickings as individuals. Austria's
numerical superiority over Prussian troops was of no consequnce at
Königsgrätz where their casualties were 7 times as high as those of the
Prussians and the war was essentially over right then and there. At
Langensalza Hannover routed some Prussians forces and they captured many but
within two days the Hannovarians themselves were surrounded and gave up. It
was all very short and sweet. It has been said that Prussia's enemies really
did not have their heart in a fight. They were not defending their
fatherland. They did not have the same unit cohesion and sense of purpose of
the Prussians. If they did they certainly could have made a battle of it. As
it was they fought for some leader who was not really their country. German
nationalism had started to bubble and Prussia seemed to know how to take
advantage of this.
I too must take exception to Jane's overly broad sweep which seems to be
mostly based on family stories rather then a larger sense of geopolitics or
German history in general. But I wasn't going to respond until I read John
Brene's post. These emails are not the vehicle to discuss such wide raging
topics and one get's nowhere quickly.
This may be true Fred, but it sure makes for interesting exchanges, and is often enlightening and educational into the bargain. Your own take is excellent also, and covers a lot of ground to boot. How one separates politics from history, and history from our ancestral perspectives and assessments, is anyone's guess. A troubling and maddening conundrum if there ever was one! In the end they simply cannot be, short of sticking to lineage graphs and stick-people charts.
Somewhere in between what you, I and Jane have written lies the truth I believe, in all its nebulous glory. I hazard to guess that while the pages of history - or for that matter Fred or Jb's accountings - may proclaim one thing (all of which are more assessable with the passage of time, the cooling of emotions, and the benefit of hindsight vision), much of what Jane relayed is exactly what many of our Saxon ancestors in Hannover felt and thought, and for that reason cannot (or ought not) be dismissed as mere colloquial accounting, especially if we are trying to understand more clearly the very lives of our very ancestors. Hopefully it is the sum of the various parts that makes for the fullest story.
That said, I am a firm believer that to know Germany is to know Prussia, and vice-versa. Anything short of that and you'll be splitting hairs (Teutonic hairs anyway).
Happy to see you back in full swing Wolf. That was a long but hopefully productive respite. You know we all enjoy your inputs, the more the better.
and for that reason cannot (or ought not) be dismissed as mere colloquial accounting, especially if we are trying to understand more clearly the very lives of our very ancestors.
Kindly overlook one of those two very's, as that becomes [VERY] redundant (und ein example of overkill at its worst).
Who said recently they were losing their mind? Why Jb I believe ... especially when he types and sends on the fly.
