Ronald Speirs, John Breuilly. Germany's Two Unifications: Anticipations, Experiences, Responses. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005. XIV + 340 S. $100.00 (cloth), ISBN 978-1-4039-4653-9.

Reviewed by Melanie Kintz (Department of Political Science, Western Michigan University)
Published on H-German (April, 2006)

Comparing Germany's Two Unifications

This volume attempts to compare the first and second unification in Germany's history--one occurring in the nineteenth century and the other just sixteen years ago. National unifications, as Breuilly and Speirs rightfully acknowledge, are rare historical occasions and Germany's experience of two unifications is unique. However, are these two unifications comparable? The editors of this book argue that they are. For the authors, comparisons involve uncovering both similarities and differences in the two processes in order to understand the historical developments that gave rise to them and to explain what made for success or failure of the process in each case. Such comparison can only happen within the proper framework (p. 2). Thus, to show that the two unifications are, in fact, comparable is the central objective of this essay collection.

In their theoretical framework in the first chapter, Breuilly and Speirs define national unification as a rapid series of events arising out of political crisis and leading to the establishment of a single state that is either beforehand or in retrospect legitimated by the argument of bringing together a divided nation (p. 2). This definition is central to the book, as only the application of this definition to the events of 1864-71 and 1989-90 implies that the processes indeed are comparable. In a second step, Speirs and Breuilly introduce the concepts of the anticipation, process and experience of national unification and the responses to the new nation-state. Following the editors' well-written theoretical framework, the book provides an interesting collection of essays by well-known scholars dealing with the comparison of the unifications. Among them are the two essays by Breuilly and Mary Fulbrook comparing the role of nationalism or John Paulmann's essay "Beginning and End? The Two German Unifications and the Epoch of Territoriality."

Abigail Green's essay on how federalism shaped unification also stands out, as it uses unification in the broader context of nation building and compares Germany's first unification with the unification of Italy and state-building in France. She concludes that the existence of relatively strong states in Germany before the unification facilitated the later unification because they created the infrastructure for a nation-state before it came into existence. This happened, for instance, through education and the development of the railway system. However, the existence also constrained the unification process. Because the German states were so strong it was impossble to dissolve them. Doing so would have meant that the acceptance of the new nation would have been delayed. It is unfortunate, however, that this essay does not consider how federalism shaped the second unification. The second unification led to the re-establishment of the federal states in East Germany that had been abandoned in 1952 and replaced by fourteen administrative units, the Bezirke. Was this re-establishment of the new Länder ever questioned in the process of German unification? How did federalism shape the second unification? One could argue that the federal structure and the FRG's distribution of competencies between state and federal government could have been perceived as strange by East Germans. Especially the distribution of competencies in education policy is quite different from that of the GDR. While the GDR had a highly similar educational system with similar structures and contents throughout the whole republic, school education in the FRG differed from state to state. On the other hand, federalism and the re-establishment of the Länder also meant that the East German Länder could design their constitutions with higher regard for the requirements of their inhabitants. This change played a role in the creation of opportunities for referendums and other forms of direct democracy. If federal structures had positively affected the acceptance of the new German nation-state during the first unification, did they have a similar effect during the second?

This is not the only essay that does not directly consider both unifications. Other comparative frameworks would also have been helpful. James Retallack's essay, for instance, deals with British perceptions of the first unification and shows differences in views on German unification from politicians in London and British diplomats stationed in Germany. As is well known, Britain was also very skeptical about Germany's second unification, even though this skepticism was based on other reasons. However, one could ask whether the views from London and those of diplomats stationed in Germany at the time, differed during the second unification. Furthermore, Retallack claims that the reports of diplomats provide a thick description of the events in Germany and therefore enrich our understanding of diplomatic history as it moves away from exchanges between the highest levels of government. Thus, a complementary essay on British perceptions of the second unification would also have enhanced the reader's understanding of diplomacy between Britian and Germany.

Providing more complementary essays comparing aspects of the unifications directly could have strengthened the book's framework, tied the single essays together more effectively and showed more convincingly that the two processes are comparable. Despite that, the book provides an interesting approach to comparing these unifications. The advantage of looking at the anticipations of, experiences in and responses to Germany's unification(s) is not limited to the provision of an interesting framework for further research. It could also be a useful approach to the further study of unifications and nationhood in other contexts. What results would the application of these concepts bring if they were, for instance, applied to the cases of the two Koreas, the Taiwan question or Yemen's unification?

If there is additional discussion of this review, you may access it through the network, at: https://networks.h-net.org/h-german.

Citation: Melanie Kintz. Review of Speirs, Ronald; Breuilly, John, Germany's Two Unifications: Anticipations, Experiences, Responses. H-German, H-Net Reviews. April, 2006.
URL: http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=11686

Copyright © 2006 by H-Net, all rights reserved. H-Net permits the redistribution and reprinting of this work for nonprofit, educational purposes, with full and accurate attribution to the author, web location, date of publication, originating list, and H-Net: Humanities & Social Sciences Online. For any other proposed use, contact the Reviews editorial staff at hbooks@mail.h-net.org.