No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 16 December 2008
The German navy of 1848–52 was born in the stormy sessions of the Frankfurt Parliament and died amid equally acrimonious debates in the diet of the restored German Confederation. Denmark's blockade of the North Sea and Baltic ports during the Schleswig-Holstein war inspired this first attempt to create a German battle fleet, and the temporary resolution of German-Danish differences, combined with the Confederation's unwillingness to assume responsibility for the warships, brought it to an early end. The scant scholarly literature on the first German navy tends to view it purely as a north German concern, but on this question, as in all other activities of the Frankfurt Parliament and German Confederation, Austria had a considerable voice in determining the outcome. During its four years of existence the fleet became a pawn in the greater Austro-Prussian struggle for hegemony over Germany.
1. Bär, Max, Die Deutsche Flotte von 1848–1852 (Leipzig, 1898)Google Scholar, remains the most comprehensive account of the political debate over the fleet; since it is based primarily on Prussian and Hanoverian archival materials, its treatment of the Austrian role leaves much to be desired. Hubatsch, Walther, ed., Die Erste Deutsche Flotte, 1848–1853 (Herford, 1981)Google Scholar, contains essays ranging from the editor's scholarly treatment of the fleet's relationship with the German Confederation to a detailed account of the type of sidearms used by its sailors. Here, too, the Austrian interest in the navy question is ignored.
2. In a number of articles and papers, Roy A. Austensen has made a strong case for the view that a great degree of continuity existed between the policies and ideas of Metternich and those of later Austrian statesmen, all of whom had been his protégés prior to 1848. See Austensen's, “Felix Schwarzenberg: Realpolitiker or Metternichian? The Evidence of the Dresden Conference,” Mitteilungen des österreichischen Staatsarchivs 30 (1977): 97–118Google Scholar; “Austria and the ‘Struggle for Supremacy in Germany,’ 1848–1864,” Journal of Modern History 52 (1980): 195–225Google Scholar; and “The Making of Austria's Prussian Policy, 1848–1852,” The Historical Journal 27 (1984): 861–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Among other things, Austensen rejects the traditional association of Schwarzenberg with the Mitteleuropa concept of Bruck, whose background in business and international trade left him outside of the circle of statesmen schooled under Metternich (which included Schwarzenberg, Prokesch, and Count Friedrich Thun, among those playing a role in the German navy question). But these same credentials also made Bruck the most influential member of Schwarzenberg's cabinet when it came to maritime matters, an area in which Metternich had few opinions of his own to pass along to his protégés. As a result, the questions raised by Austensen are not as crucial to the present topic as they are to other aspects of Schwarzenberg's policies.
3. Hubatsch, Walther, “Die deutsche Reichsflotte 1848 und der Deutsche Bund,” in Hubatsch, ed., Die Erste Deutsche Flotte, 30–32Google Scholar. For texts of the Federal Act and Vienna Final Act articles mentioned above, see Huber, Ernst Rudolf, ed., Dokumente zur deutschen Verfassungsgeschichte, 3d rev. ed., 3 vols. (Stuttgart, 1978), 1: 87–88 and 96Google Scholar. Like Britain and Denmark, the Netherlands also had a connection to the Confederation, but since it was through their ownership of land-locked Luxemburg, no German claims were placed on the Dutch navy.
4. On Austria's “Italian navy” in the years prior to 1848, see Sondhaus, Lawrence, The Habsburg Empire and the Sea: Austrian Naval Policy, 1797–1866 (West Lafayette, Ind., 1988), chaps. 1–5.Google Scholar
5. Charmatz, Richard, Minister Freiherr von Bruck: Der Vorkämpfer Mitteleuropas (Leipzig, 1916), 29–30Google Scholar; Radowitz to Frankfurt Parliament, 8 June 1848, text in Wigard, Franz, ed., Stenographischer Bericht über die Verhandlungen der deutschen constituirenden Nationalversammlung zu Frankfurt am Main, 9 vols. (Frankfurt, 1848–1849), 1: 252–53.Google Scholar
6. Möring to Frankfurt Parliament, 14 June 1848, Wigard, , Stenographischer Bericht, 1: 303–7Google Scholar; Kohlparzer motion, 14 June 1848, ibid., 319.
7. Duckwitz, Arnold, Die Gründung der deutschen Kriegsmarine (Bremen, 1849), 61Google Scholar; Hubatsch, “Reichsflotte und der Deutsche Bund,” 37.
8. Heinsius, Paul, “Anfänge der Deutschen Marine,” in Hubatsch, ed., Die Erste Deutsche Flotte, 1848–1853, 21Google Scholar; Duckwitz, Gründung der deutschen Kriegsmarine, 7; Hubatsch, “Reichsflotte und der Deutsche Bund,” 35–36.
9. Heinsius, “Anfänge der Deutsche Marine,” 20–21.
10. Schwarzenberg to Schmerling, Vienna, 22 Feb. 1849, Haus- Hof- und Staatsarchiv, Vienna, Politisches Archiv, II. Deutscher Bund (hereafter: HHSA, PA, II), Carton 86, 1849/12–13.
11. Duckwitz, Gründung der deutschen Kriegsmarine, 54–56; Parker quoted, 56.
12. The fifteen officers given commissions at the rank of lieutenant or above included five northern Germans, five Belgians, three Britons, one Dutchman, and one American. See “Liste der Offiziere, Fähnriche und Seejunker … nach dem Stande vom 1. Mai 1850,” in Hubatsch, ed., Die Erste Deutsche Flotte, 1848–1853, 104–5.
13. Kudriaffsky to Schwarzenberg, Emden, 19 Feb. 1849, HHSA, PA, II, Carton 86, 1849/140–42; Duckwitz, Gründung der deutschen Kriegsmarine, 18. Kudriaffsky subsequently transferred to the Austrian army at the rank of Feldmarschalleutnant.
14. Kludas, Arnold, “Die Kriegsschiffe des Deutschen Bundes 1848 bis 1853,” in Hubatsch, ed., Die Erste Deutsche Flotte, 1848–1853, 53–59 passimGoogle Scholar; Georg von Hulsemann (chargé to U.S.) to Schwarzenberg, New York, 16 May 1849, HHSA, PA, II, Carton 86, 1849/40–41. Ironically, agents of the German navy ended up in direct competition with Austrian officers attempting to buy British steamers for the Habsburg navy.
15. Hubatsch, “Reichsflotte und der Deutsche Bund,” 33. See text of part 2 (Die Reichsgewalt), article 3, section 19 of the Frankfurt constitution in Huber, , ed., Dokumente zur deutschen Verfassungsgeschichte, 1: 377.Google Scholar
16. Vice Admiral Anton von Martini (Marine-Ober-Kommandant) to Baron Franz Cordon (war minister), Trieste, 9 Dec. 1848, Kriegsarchiv, Vienna (hereafter: KA), Marineakten, M/c 27 (1848), no. 254 (Carton 46), reflects the Austrian naval commander's fears of subordination to a Greater German naval command as a consequence of the proceedings at Frankfurt.
17. Reported by Count Johann Bemhard von Rechberg (Austrian plenipotentiary) to Schwarzenberg, Frankfurt, 30 Apr. 1849, HHSA, PA, II, Carton 86, 1849/34–35.
18. See Huber, , ed., Dokumente zur deutschen Verfassungsgeschichte, 1: 552Google Scholar. Expropriation plan discussed in Handel (Austrian minister to Württemberg) to Schwarzenberg, Stuttgart, 25 July 1849, HHSA, PA, II, Carton 86, 1849/54–56.
19. Dahlerup took the Austrian job in February 1849, after Danish officials persuaded him that it would aid a diplomatic initiative designed to detach Austria from the rest of Germany on the Schleswig-Holstein question. See von Dahlerup, Hans Birch, In österreichischen Diensten, 2 vols. (Berlin, 1911–1912), 1: 1–6Google Scholar. Bruck was in charge of Dahlerup's orientation process, and the admiral's memoirs confirm that the trade minister spoke for the cabinet on all naval matters. See ibid., 1: 14.
20. Brommy to Gen. August Jochmus (“Reichsminister der Marine”), Bremerhaven, 13 Sept. 1849, HHSA, PA, II, Carton 86, 1849/83;Jochmus to Rechberg, Frankfurt, 12 Oct. 1849, ibid., 1849/81–88 passim.
21. Archduke John to Schwarzenberg, Frankfurt, 18 Oct. 1849, ibid., 1849/75–78; Hubatsch, “Reichsflotte und Deutscher Bund,” 38.
22. “Übereinkunft zwischen Österreich und Preussen …,” Vienna, 30 Sept. 1849, text in Hoor, Ernst, ed., Erzherzog Johann von Österreich als Reichsverweser: Der unveröffentliche Briefwechsel mit Felix Fürst zu Schwarzenberg aus den Jahren 1848 und 1849 (Vienna, 1981), 97–98.Google Scholar
23. Bourguignon report, Frankfurt, 26 Mar. 1850, HHSA, PA, II, Carton 86, 1850/65–67; Kübeck to Schwarzenberg, Frankfurt, 8 Sept. 1850, ibid., 1850/182–88 passim.
24. Jochmus memorandum, Frankfurt, 17 Feb. 1851, ibid., 1851/119–21.
26. Thun to Schwarzenberg, Frankfurt, 8 July 1851, ibid., 1851/318–400.
27. Schwarzenberg to Thun, Vienna, 13 July 1851, ibid., 1851/414. At this point, Austria's policy toward the German navy question started to lapse into the same sort of disarray found in other areas of Schwarzenberg's German policy. This problem has been addressed most recently in Austensen's, Roy A. “Metternich, Austria, and the German Confederation, 1848–1850” (paper read before the German Studies Association, St. Louis, 15 10 1987).Google Scholar
28. Friedjung, Heinrich, Der Kampf um die Vorherrschaft in Deutschland, 1859 bis 1866, 2 vols. (Stuttgart, 1901), 1: 141Google Scholar; von Bismarck, Prince Otto, Gedanken und Erinnerungen, 3 vols. (Stuttgart, 1898; reprint, 1922), 1: 96.Google Scholar
29. Prokesch to Schwarzenberg, Berlin, 23 July 1851, HHSA, PA, II, Carton 86, 1851/451–54; Prokesch to Schwarzenberg, Berlin, 8 Aug. 1851, ibid., Carton 87, 1851/471–74. As a young army staff officer, Prokesch had been assigned briefly to serve aboard the Austrian squadron in the Eastern Mediterranean.
31. The Navy Law of 1850 committed Austria to spend 34.3 gulden on her fleet in the eleven-year period 1850–60. Prior to 1848 the customary annual budget had been 1.5 million gulden. Copy of text of Navy Law in KA, Centralkanzleiakten, Präsidialreihe 1862/562, 31–42.
32. Thun to Schwarzenberg, Frankfurt, 26 Aug. 1851, HHSA, PA, II, Carton 87, 1851/497–516.
33. Prokesch to Schwarzenberg, Berlin, 28 Aug. 1851, ibid., Berichte aus Berlin/37.
34. Bismarck to Manteuffel, Frankfurt, 12 Sept. 1851, text in von Poschinger, Heinrich, ed., Preussen im Bundestag 1851 bis 1859, 3 vols. (Stuttgart, 1882; reprint, Osnabrück, 1965), 1: 15Google Scholar; Thun, Tagesbericht, Frankfurt, 7 Sept. 1851, HHSA, PA, II, Carton 87, 1851/535–62; Schwarzenberg to Thun, Vienna, 13 Sept. 1851, ibid., 1851/569–72.
35. Protocol of 7–9th Sessions of Marine Commission, Frankfurt, 23–25 Oct. 1851, copy in HHSA, PA, II, Carton 87; Thun to Schwarzenberg, Frankfurt, 18 Nov. 1851, ibid., 1851/767–809.
36. Bismarck to Manteuffel, Frankfurt, 19 Nov. 1851, Poschinger, , ed., Preussen im Bundestag, 1: 44Google Scholar; Prokesch to Schwarzenberg, Berlin, 30 Sept. 1851, HHSA, PA, II, Carton 87, Berichte aus Berlin/49–54; Prokesch to Schwarzenberg, 12 Jan. 1852, HHSA, PA, II, Carton 88, 1852/116–17.
38. Thun to Schwarzenberg, Frankfurt, 26 Aug. 1851, HHSA, PA, II, Carton 87, 1851/497–516.
39. Stern, Fritz, Gold and Iron: Bismarck, Bleichröder and the Building of the German Empire (New York, 1977), 15–16Google Scholar; Thun, Tagesbericht, Frankfurt, 17 Feb. 1852, HHSA, PA, II, Carton 88, 1852/526–49. The designation given to the ships placed them in a different category from possessions considered “organisch,” such as the federal fortresses of southwestern Germany.
41. Thun to Buol, Frankfurt, 24 Apr. 1852, HHSA, PA, II, Carton 88, 1852/824–28; Francis Joseph (decree), Vienna, 12 May 1852, ibid.
42. Buol to Baumgartner, Vienna, 23 Aug. 1852, HHSA, PA, II, Carton 89, 1852/998–99; Baumgartner to Buol, Vienna, 28 Aug. 1852, ibid., 1852/1000–1; Francis Joseph, Vienna, 1 Oct. 1852 (in margin of Buol Vortrag of 19 Sept.), ibid., 1852/1020–43. Fischer, Otto, “Dr. Laurenz Hannibal Fischer und die Auflösung der deutschen Flotte 1852–53,” Historische Zeitschrift 85 (1900): 261–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar contends that Fischer tried to keep the German navy together despite the order to sell the ships.
44. Schwarzenberg to Thun, Vienna, 27 Sept. 1851, HHSA, PA, II, Carton 87, 1851/603–6 refers to the Navy Law of 1850 within the context of German fleet plan. Among the leaders of the Austrian navy, Dahlerup, too, was not around to witness the end of the German navy question; he resigned in 1851, after Francis Joseph's brother, Archduke Ferdinand Max, entered the Habsburg navy. The archduke commanded the fleet from 1854 until 1864, when he became Emperor Maximilian of Mexico.
45. See Häussler, Hans-Joachim, “Küstenschutz und deutsche Flotte 1859–1864,” Forschungen zur brandenburgischen und preussischen Geschichte 51 (1939): 311–43.Google Scholar
46. Rechberg to Count August Degenfeld (war minister), Vienna, 27 Feb. 1862, HHSA, PA, XL. Interna, Carton 114, Kriegsministerium, 557–62.
47. On the war of 1864 see Handel-Mazzetti, Peter, “Das Seegefecht bei Helgoland am 9. Mai 1864,” Marine Rundschau 39 (1934): 193–98Google Scholar, and Paschen, D., “Der blutige Tag von Helgoland,” Marine Rundschau 44 (1939): 470–76.Google Scholar