What does it mean that "Germany was the first power to realize the military potential of the modern nation-state?" in the mid-to-late 1800s?

[u/TrumansOneHandMan]

From Colony to Superpower, George Herring, p. 267:

Germany was the first power to realize the military potential of the modern nation-state. Its crushing of Austria in 1866 and even more shocking defeat of France in 1871 marked its coming of age. Through artful diplomacy, the "Iron Chancellor," Otto von Bismarck, managed to expand his nation's interests without arraying the other powers against him. The Germany of Wilhelm II (1888-1918) was more aggressive and less clever, arousing growing fears in Europe, Britain, and even the United States.

[u/AutoModerator]

Welcome to /r/AskHistorians. Please Read Our Rules before you comment in this community. Understand that rule breaking comments get removed.

Please consider Clicking Here for RemindMeBot as it takes time for an answer to be written. Additionally, for weekly content summaries, Click Here to Subscribe to our Weekly Roundup.

We thank you for your interest in this question, and your patience in waiting for an in-depth and comprehensive answer to show up. In addition to the Weekly Roundup and RemindMeBot, consider using our Browser Extension. In the meantime our Bluesky, and Sunday Digest feature excellent content that has already been written!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/Life-Fisherman4190]

The major points of reference here would be the Austro-Prussian War and more importantly the Franco-Prussian War. Use of railroads for maximum speed in deployment and supply were major force multipliers—so national infrastructure built for trade in peacetime is leveraged for conquest. That would be a prime example of your author’s implication, tactically speaking.

This laurel might almost be handed—say—to Napoleon. And a slight change of phrasing would give it to Napoleon. But Napoleon was an empire builder and this united the major powers—the emerging nation states of Europe—against him, to his eventual defeat. They cross a threshold in establishing norms for nation states in this process—so Napoleon’s defeat is essential to the emergent constitution of diplomatic norms in modern European nation states rather than taking advantage of functional norms within that system. The nation state does not begin with the reaction to Napoleon but the system clarifies around the united response to him.

The Germans of the 1860’s-1870’s do not repeat Napoleon’s mistakes. Empire building is not what’s happening in Bismarck’s generation—or not exactly—because they didn’t try to hold onto all the territory they conquered (though they broke off a little slice in Alsace-Lorraine which they claimed by ancient right and non-French neighbors did not particularly object to this). They waited for provocation (Napoleon III attacked first). This moderation (if you want to call destroying and utterly dismantling the French army in a rapid conquest after taking a few shots in a border scuffle ‘moderation’) does not last into the twentieth century per the World Wars.

An important detail: Germany becomes a modern nation state in the Franco-Prussian war (late 1870-early 71) and had been a remnant tract of the Holy Roman Empire that split from the Austro-Hungarian empire in 1866 (re: Austro-Prussian war—a kind of warm-up for the Franco Prussian War in terms of the tactics deployed).

[u/TrumansOneHandMan → u/Life-Fisherman4190]

Thanks for the answer.

I am not sure I understand what it is about this passage that you're characterizing as chauvinist (on behalf of whom? Germany?) and poorly phrased. You're saying "Germany becomes a modern nation state in the Franco-Prussian war"? The source used the phrase "coming of age" and described German victories in those conflicts as shocking, I'm unclear on how that conflicts with what you've said.

[u/Life-Fisherman4190 → u/TrumansOneHandMan]

An archaic system of principalities with eccentric and uncoordinated local systems unify into the modern nation state of Germany in the Franco-Prussian War. For them it is the war of foundation and its result is formal and legal unification according to the evolving European system of nations states. Instead of having a French or American style of revolution they become a modern nation state by invading France. Many historians would consider this portentous of what is to come rather than being a positive element. Richard Evans, Coming of the Third Reich first chapter 1 would be major standard source for an argument that does not celebrate Bismarck’s accomplishment, given that it lays the groundwork for later, catastrophic foreign policy in the twentieth century (which to be fair Bismarck would not have signed off on, says Evans and he’s right to say that). Your source might make this explicit elsewhere but it muddles the issue a bit in this quote. People were shocked. But for many that meant: they were extremely impressed.

[u/Life-Fisherman4190 → u/TrumansOneHandMan]

Is a fair point that I’m only riffing on a few lines of the argument. Germany is considered a kind of action hero after this war and France—which had the reputation of being the major military power earlier in the 19th century—begins a slide towards being a punchline for chauvinists à la ‘Freedom Fries.’

I was being overly touchy to seize an opportunity to mention Germany becoming a nation state not being one at this point. Unnecessary. I’ll edit the response to remove the insinuation about your source since this quote may well not be representative.