OCR Specification focus:
‘Kleindeutsch versus Grossdeutsch models expressed divergent visions of German unity.’
German nationalism in the nineteenth century was shaped by two rival models of unification, creating deep divisions between statesmen, intellectuals, and wider society.
Competing National Visions
The debate over German unity centred on two main visions: the Kleindeutsch (Lesser German) solution and the Grossdeutsch (Greater German) solution. Both approaches reflected competing political, cultural, and territorial ideas about how a united Germany should be formed and who should dominate it.
A clean, labelled map of the German Confederation (1815) following the Congress of Vienna, with Austria and Prussia clearly distinguished. This visual aids comparison between a Grossdeutsch option (including Austria) and a Kleindeutsch alternative (Prussia-led, excluding Austria). It includes broader European outlines, which exceed the syllabus but help orientation. Source
The Kleindeutsch Model
The Kleindeutsch model proposed a Germany without Austria, under the leadership of Prussia. Advocates of this view argued that Austria was too diverse, too committed to its empire in Central and Eastern Europe, and too resistant to reform to fit within a German nation-state.
Support for Kleindeutsch unity came from:
Prussian liberals who saw Prussia as a modernising force with economic and military strength.
Nationalist intellectuals who valued cultural unity among German-speaking states.
Economic interests tied to the Zollverein, which excluded Austria and strengthened Prussia’s influence.
Kleindeutsch: The vision of German unification excluding Austria, with Prussia as the leading state.
The Kleindeutsch model gained particular strength during the Frankfurt Parliament of 1848/1849, where debates about monarchy, constitutionalism, and sovereignty highlighted Austria’s incompatibility with a united German polity.
The Grossdeutsch Model
The Grossdeutsch model sought a Germany including Austria, embracing all German-speaking peoples within the Habsburg Monarchy. Proponents valued historical traditions and Austria’s leading role in the Holy Roman Empire, dissolved in 1806.
Key supporters included:
Conservative elites who preferred the stability of Austrian leadership.
Catholic communities who were culturally and religiously aligned with Austria.
Romantic nationalists who argued for unity based on shared language and heritage, not state boundaries.
Grossdeutsch: The vision of German unification including Austria, preserving its role as the traditional centre of German power.
This vision was undermined by Austria’s multi-ethnic empire, which contained Hungarians, Czechs, Italians, and others, diluting its ability to act as the core of a purely German nation.
Intellectual and Political Context
The clash between Kleindeutsch and Grossdeutsch visions was embedded in wider nineteenth-century political currents:
Liberalism promoted constitutional government and saw Prussia as more amenable than Austria.
Conservatism aligned with Austria’s authority and resistance to change.
Romanticism inspired both sides, drawing on culture, history, and the shared idea of a German Volksgeist (national spirit).
Writers, historians, and philosophers—such as Fichte, who emphasised national identity rooted in language, and Arndt, who celebrated German distinctiveness—helped to give ideological weight to both competing models.
The Frankfurt Parliament (1848/1849) and the National Question
The Frankfurt Parliament crystallised the Kleindeutsch versus Grossdeutsch divide. Delegates faced a choice between offering the imperial crown of a united Germany to the Prussian king (Kleindeutsch) or constructing a constitutional framework that incorporated Austria (Grossdeutsch).
Key points in the debate:
Austria refused to divide its empire into separate German and non-German parts, making Grossdeutsch impractical.
Prussia was reluctant to accept leadership under liberal terms, with King Frederick William IV rejecting the imperial crown as “from the gutter.”
The failure to reconcile these visions marked the collapse of the 1848/1849 revolutions and delayed unification.
Socio-Economic Factors
The growth of the Zollverein strengthened the Kleindeutsch vision by creating economic ties between northern and central German states under Prussian leadership.
A clearly labelled map of the Deutscher Zollverein within the German Confederation, with colours showing accessions over time. It visually demonstrates Austria’s exclusion and Prussia’s centrality, aligning with economic arguments for Kleindeutsch unification. The map also notes border changes relevant to customs policy; these details go beyond the syllabus but do not distract from core learning. Source
Meanwhile, Austria’s economic stagnation compared with Prussia’s industrial advances reinforced the sense that Austria was unsuited for leadership in a modern, unified nation.
Cultural and Religious Divisions
Religion and culture also divided visions of unity:
Protestant-majority Prussia embodied the Kleindeutsch model.
Catholic Austria drew support from Catholic regions such as Bavaria and parts of the Rhineland.
This religious divide complicated the pursuit of a single unified identity.
Legacy of Competing Visions
The Kleindeutsch-Grossdeutsch rivalry left lasting consequences:
It entrenched tensions between Austria and Prussia that culminated in the Austro-Prussian War of 1866, where the Kleindeutsch solution triumphed.
It created regional loyalties that persisted even after Prussia established a Kleindeutsch German Empire in 1871.
It showed the difficulty of reconciling cultural nationalism with political pragmatism in a fragmented Europe.
The competing national visions reflected not only geopolitical rivalries but also deeper questions of identity, governance, and modernisation, ensuring their central place in the history of German nationalism.
FAQ
Austria resisted because unification threatened its multi-ethnic empire, which extended far beyond German lands. Accepting German unification would have meant sacrificing influence over Hungarians, Czechs, Italians, and other national groups.
Additionally, Austrian rulers feared that joining a liberal or constitutional framework proposed by German nationalists would weaken Habsburg absolutism and destabilise their empire.
Religion created divides:
Catholics often leaned toward Austria and the Grossdeutsch idea, since Austria was a Catholic power.
Protestants, especially in northern states, supported Prussia’s Kleindeutsch model.
These religious identities reinforced political loyalties, deepening the difficulty of forming consensus across German lands.
The Grossdeutsch model drew heavily on the tradition of Austrian leadership within the Holy Roman Empire, dissolved in 1806. Supporters argued that Austria had historically been the natural head of Germany.
Romantic nationalists emphasised this long-standing unity of German culture under Habsburg dominance, believing modern unification should preserve continuity rather than create a new Prussian-led state.
Liberals considered Austria too hostile to constitutional reform, while Prussia seemed more adaptable to limited constitutional government.
They also believed Prussia’s economic leadership through the Zollverein could underpin a modern national economy. This made Kleindeutsch unity appear more compatible with their vision of a progressive and legally bound German nation.
The rivalry sharpened tensions between the two powers:
Austria sought to defend its dominance within the German Confederation.
Prussia positioned itself as the nucleus of a future German nation.
This clash over leadership hardened into open hostility, eventually culminating in the Austro-Prussian War of 1866, where the Kleindeutsch model decisively triumphed.
Practice Questions
Question 1 (2 marks)
Which two competing models of German unification were debated during the nineteenth century?
Mark scheme:
1 mark for correctly identifying Kleindeutsch (unification without Austria, led by Prussia).
1 mark for correctly identifying Grossdeutsch (unification including Austria).
Question 2 (6 marks)
Explain why the Kleindeutsch model gained greater support than the Grossdeutsch model in the mid-nineteenth century.
Mark scheme:
1–2 marks: Basic description with limited explanation, e.g. identifies Prussia or Austria’s role without analysis.
3–4 marks: Clear explanation of at least two reasons, e.g. Austria’s multi-ethnic empire made inclusion impractical, Zollverein excluded Austria, or Prussia’s modernising strength.
5–6 marks: Developed analysis linking multiple reasons to broader themes, e.g. socio-economic modernisation, political liberalism, and Austria’s cultural/religious differences, showing why Kleindeutsch was seen as the more practical and attractive vision of unification.
.svg){kind=link}
