The Student Room Group

What is the difference between Germany and Prussia?

Apparently, there was Prussia, which in 1971 divided into Prussia and the German Empire?

I have no idea, please help!

Scroll to see replies

louiseyeah
Apparently, there was Prussia, which in 1971 divided into Prussia and the German Empire?

I have no idea, please help!
You mean 1871.
Before Germany's Unification in 1871, there were four Kingdoms
- Prussia
- Bavaria
- Saxony
- Württemberg

After the wars of unifications, these Kingdoms made up the majority of what is now known as Germany by Wilhelm I, who was made Kaiser of the new German state :h:

Anything else?
Reply 2
I believe Prussia as a State (as opposed to a Kingdom) was abolished by the Nazis as an entity in the 1930s. East Prussia basically became part of Poland after WWII. Apart from Koenigsberg / Kaliningrad, which became Russian, as it is today.
Well. Both the Western and the Eastern fronts tbh :p: Weltpolitik = World Policy :wink2:
Jez RR
I believe Prussia as a State (as opposed to a Kingdom) was abolished by the Nazis as an entity in the 1930s. East Prussia basically became part of Poland after WWII. Apart from Koenigsberg / Kaliningrad, which became Russian, as it is today.
This isn't even relevant tbh :p:?!
Reply 4
Stricof
This isn't even relevant tbh :p:?!


Interesting though, don't you think? :biggrin:

Much of the conflicting opinions between the regular army and the SS seems to have stemmed from a deap-seated Nazi suspicion of the officer class. 'Those damned Prussians', as Hitler may or may not have once said.
Jez RR
Interesting though, don't you think? :biggrin:

Much of the conflicting opinions between the regular army and the SS seems to have stemmed from a deap-seated Nazi suspicion of the officer class. 'Those damned Prussians', as Hitler may or may not have once said.
If we are to be pedantic, Prussia was abolished, de jure, in 1947 but de facto in 1934

Well the SA were pretty much integrated into the German Army + SS as a result of Operation Hummingbird and the Enabling Act. The SA seemed unruly. Much like the Spartacist movement. We can compare the two because both appeared to want revolution in the sense of the term. But Hitler learnt from November 1923's failure.
Well obviously the Schlieffen Plan was devised to attack the Western Front and then the Eastern front due to the belief that Russia would take a long time to mobilise. Unfortunately this was not the case and although, yes, Russia came into the war ever so slightly later, Germany was fighting on two fronts for most of the war until the armistice.
Unfortunately in the sense that the Schlieffen Plan had not been modified since 1906. Unfortunate in the sense that Russia was industrialising quickly since Alexander III's reign. It is unfortunate for them :p:
One of the many 'What if's' amongst history students such as myself and historians :wink2:
I haven't really considered who I'd support. I think there is scope to argue that Germany stumbled into war, rather than planned a war of aggression and conquest
Reply 8
Stricof
One of the many 'What if's' amongst history students such as myself and historians :wink2:
I haven't really considered who I'd support. I think there is scope to argue that Germany stumbled into war, rather than planned a war of aggression and conquest


well possibly. but when you point a loaded gun at your rival and then accidentally shoot them, your intention to kill or not is often disregarded.
Don't ignore the Eastern front and Scandinavia tbh. When Austria-Hungary announced its annexation of Bosnia and Herzegovina in the Bosnian Crisis, Germany had some honouring to do through the Triple Alliance established. Now you see, helping Austria-Hungary attack an ally of Russia would cause Russia to come into War. Then Germany's involvement with Russia would have sparked off the Triple Entente agreement with Britain and France. So there is scope to argue Germany stumbled into war, certainly.
jimbo139
well possibly. but when you point a loaded gun at your rival and then accidentally shoot them, your intention to kill or not is often disregarded.
Depends if the other person is also holding a loaded gun to you, tbh :p:
Reply 11
louiseyeah
Apparently, there was Prussia, which in 1971 divided into Prussia and the German Empire?

I have no idea, please help!


Germany originally was just loads and loads of little city states and countries loosely connected in the Holy Roman Empire (sometimes it became a stronger connection)

The Duke of Brandenburg was the guy in the Berlin city state and the surrounding area, he eventually got hold of the land of ostprussia, and his countries name changed to Prussia.

This Prussian state was very militaristic and by the mid 19th century had managed to be one of the, if not THE most powerful German state.

Napoleon got rid of the holy roman empire and after him several attempts at varying German confederates were attempted, eventually Prussia united the remaining states around 1870s violently!

Prussia remained a state under Germanys confederate system until the end of the 2nd world war when the Allies decided Prussia as a state was far to dangerous and dismantled it.

Most of Prussia stayed in east Germany until unification and the state of prussia within Germany has never been recreated.

That was all off the top of my head so corrections might be needed but hopefully that clears it up!
Reply 12
Stricof
Depends if the other person is also holding a loaded gun to you, tbh :p:


Very true. Though that seems not to have been judged relevant in this case (Versailles etc).

Take home message: if you're going to shoot someone, make sure they're dead.
jimbo139
Very true. Though that seems not to have been judged relevant in this case (Versailles etc).

Take home message: if you're going to shoot someone, make sure they're dead.
You're right. I suppose one has to question the extent to which the brutality of Treaty was justified.
Reply 14
louiseyeah
Apparently, there was Prussia, which in 1971 divided into Prussia and the German Empire?

I have no idea, please help!

Just get and read his book.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_von_Bismarck
Reply 15
Actually, there was very little action on the Eastern Front after 1914, with the Russians sustaining huge losses and the Tsar taking over the millitary, they were an extremely uneffective fighting force.
Yaggh, I agree .It's very intriguing.I know this spirit on this topic for some time now. I am truly convinced Germany MAINLY wants to be WHOLE and STABLE . , .
hufsduuierwui
rfhseugfe;iugshdswuhhsuygsijdagsujhgfrtijkfrdefjfrrgjikuhrdeftgjuhgfreuijsdkedwreduUIYqeWERYYH7dhq8hc2uhewhjzbh ujiubg3y7u c
Using all the work we have done on thistopic, complete the following piece of work:‘Germany was clearly the primary cause ofthe outbreak of World War 1 in July 1914’How far do you agree with this statement?Structure:

Introduction focus on question some evidence ofGermany’s role as well as some example of balance, debate and scope.

Main Paragraphs: Build a case against Germany. Examine theevidence based on the work done so far. What can they be blamed for and why?Consider leadership, involvement in long and short term events and behaviour /attitudes in the run up to the war.

Other causes / countries. Please do not neglect this part ofthe work. Build a case that casts doubt on German culpability e.g. examining therole of other countries such as Austria-Hungary, Serbia, Russia, France as wellas Britain.

- Conclusion there should be mini judgements throughout buta clear verdict is needed

Quick Reply

Latest