More handpicked essays just for you.
Bismarck and his domestic problems
Bismarck and the unification of Germany
Chapter 10 section 1 otto von bismarck
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Bismarck and his domestic problems
Preliminary research into Otto von Bismarck and Bismarckian Germany’s portrayal in history reveal that from the 1870’s to 1920’s, Bismarck was portrayed favourably as the “man in charge” and as a necessity for Germany to advance its goals as a newly formed nation, a concept that could have its roots stemming from early nationalistic influences that arose during said period. This interpretation throughout the 1930 and 1940’s period changed dramatically as a result of Nazism and the Third Reich, where the Bismarckian narrative was heavily altered following the collapse of the Weimar Republic, as the Nazi regime constantly and consistently utilised the thus altered “Bismarck” to justify themselves. This is famously found in Hitler’s manipulation
The Great Depression had a big impact on both the United States and Germany. Both countries were in a state of panic, a state of desperation, and a state of distraught. Not knowing what to do, the people of both countries needed a leader that would step up to absolve them of all of their fears and regain order to life. The United States’ leader Franklin Delano Roosevelt led the country in connection to his people and led them to strength and prosperity through the depression and through war. Germany's leader Adolf Hitler took advantage of his people's desperation and led them in a revolution that would kill millions of people and although having power for a fair amount of time, he would lead his people to their even more increased downfall and broken down economic
Gottfried, Ted, and Stephen Alcorn. Nazi Germany: The Face of Tyranny. Brookfield, CT: Twenty-First Century, 2000. Print.
Hagen W (2012). ‘German History in Modern Times: Four Lives of the Nation’. Published by Cambridge University Press (13 Feb 2012)
In 1866 the Austro-Prussian War broke out between the two German states of Prussia and Austria. There had been conflicts between the two in previous decades, but Prussia, under the command of Otto von Bismarck, had sought a more lasting split. Under Bismarck’s control, conditions had been orchestrated to make war possible between the two and to ensure Prussia’s victory. Thus, when the opportunity was presented by the Duchies question, Bismarck took his chance and provoked a war. The war itself was over in seven weeks, with a Prussian victory, it was important as it symbolized the permanent separation of the two states. Though the Austro-Prussian War of 1866 had origins before Bismarck, Bismarck actively chose to prepare for and provoke a conflict with Austria in hopes of removing its influence from the German states.
The Roles of Adenauer and Walter Ulbricht in the Development of Post War Germany Both Adenauer and Walter Ulbricht had very important roles in the development of post war Germany. Adenauer brought West Germany to an acceptable economic level quickly, as well integrating Germany into Europeby joining NATO. Adenauer also helped to make West Germany political stable. Erhard was important in the development of East Germany, however, not as important as Adenauer in the development of the whole of Germany.
When Otto von Bismarck was recalled from Paris to become Minister-President of Prussia in 1862, German nationalism was already more than 40 years old. First apparent in the opposition to Napoleon´s occupation of the German states, national feeling grew into a movement after 1815. This feeling was encouraged by a growth of interest in German literature and music and by increased economic cooperation between the north German states. By 1848 it was strong enough to make the creation of a united Germany one of the main demands of the revolutionaries. Otto von Bismarck was a Prussian patriot who inherited the traditions of love of king, army and country from his family.
Under the reign of Otto von Bismarck, the national liberals and German unification really took to another level. After gaining the Chancellorship in 1862, Bismarck began improving Prussia's diplomatic position to ensure Prussia's dominance over Austria. In 1863, when Russia experienced a revolt in its Polish territory, Bismarck and Prussia supported Russia in its violent suppression of the rebellion. This endeared Prussia to Russia, who was traditionally an ally of Prussia's German rival, Austria. This example shows that Bismarck was able to read situations and be pragmatic to differing circumstances – therefore he has often been referred to using realpolitik tactics. This meaning that he understood situations; Bismarck himself knew this and
In the late 1800s, Chancellor Otto Von Bismarck used different strategic plans in order to gain as much power possible, the majority of the plans consisted of him taking advantage of the different political parties. Bismarck used many traditional political strategies in order to gain the power he craved for, such as creating harsh laws and prohibiting certain beliefs or ideas. Unfortunately, these strategies did not satisfy the people, so Bismarck later started to increase the welfare of the working class, apologized to the Socialists, and did much more to obtain more political strength which eventually created a new conservatism. In an effort to increase political power for the Kaiser, Chancellor Otto Von Bismarck uses liberal and traditional conservatism strategies to gain power, but he later appeals to the wishes of the working class in addition to his traditional political maneuvers indicating his willingness to create a new conservatism. Bismarck’s government first passed four laws starting reasonably with the abolishment of restrictions on civil rights based on religious beliefs, but later descending to an irrational law stating that social-democratic, Socialist, and communist endeavors are to be prohibited (doc 1).
The last battle of the Bismarck changed the tides during World War II. The Bismarck was Germany’s most famous battleship during World War Two, and was sunk on May 27, 1941. The Bismarck had already sunk the battleship HMS Hood before being sunk herself. For many, the end of the Hood and Bismarck symbolized the end of the time when battleships were the dominant force in naval warfare, to be replaced by submarines and aircraft carriers and the advantages these ships gave to naval commanders.
Bibliography Primary Sources J Hite and C Hinton, ‘Weimar and Nazi Germany 2000’. Manchester Guardian Report, 13th April 1933. Franz Von Papen’s Speech at Marburg University, 17th June 1934. Rohm’s Speech to foreign press April 18th 1934. Field von Weich’s account of Hitler’s Speech to the leaders of the SA and most of the senior Reichswehr generals 28th February 1934.
The focus of this study is the effect that Otto Von Bismarck's leadership and politics had on Pre-World War One tensions in Europe. This study investigates to what extent the actions of Otto Von Bismarck led to World War One. The focus of this study is the period between Bismarck's appointment to Minister President of Prussia on September 23, 1862 and the Austro-Hungarian declaration of war on Serbia on July 28, 1914. Bismarck's earlier career is discussed briefly but only as a method to understand his political attitudes. And similarly, as Bismarck was removed from office in 1890, the only events discussed between 1890 and 1914 will be based off of policies instilled by Bismarck, not those of Wilhelm II.
The debate as to whether Hitler was a ‘weak dictator’ or ‘Master of the Third Reich’ is one that has been contested by historians of Nazi Germany for many years and lies at the centre of the Intentionalist – Structuralist debate. On the one hand, historians such as Bullock, Bracher, Jackel and Hildebrand regard Hitler’s personality, ideology and will as the central locomotive in the Third Reich. Others, such as Broszat, Mason and Mommsen argue that the regime evolved out from pressures and circumstances rather than from Hitler’s intentions. They emphasise the institutional anarchy of the regime as being the result of Hitler’s ‘weak’ leadership. The most convincing standpoint is the synthesis of the two schools, which acknowledges both Hitler’s centrality in explaining the essence of Nazi rule but also external forces that influenced Hitler’s decision making. In this sense, Hitler was not a weak dictator as he possessed supreme authority but as Kershaw maintains, neither was he ‘Master of the Third Reich’ because he did not exercise unrestricted power.
Historians are often divided into categories in regard to dealing with Nazi Germany foreign policy and its relation to Hitler: 'intentionalist', and 'structuralist'. The intentionalist interpretation focuses on Hitler's own steerage of Nazi foreign policy in accordance with a clear, concise 'programme' planned long in advance. The 'structuralist' approach puts forth the idea that Hitler seized opportunities as they came, radicalizing the foreign policies of the Nazi regime in response. Structuralists reject the idea of a specific Hitlerian ideological 'programme', and instead argue for an emphasis on expansion no clear aims or objectives, and radicalized with the dynamism of the Nazi movement. With Nazi ideology and circumstances in Germany after World War I influencing Nazi foreign policy, the general goals this foreign policy prescribed to included revision of Versailles, the attainment of Lebensraum, or 'living space', and German racial domination. These foreign policy goals are seen through an examination of the actions the Nazi government took in response to events as they happened while in power, and also through Hitler's own ideology expressed in his writings such as Mein Kempf. This synthesis of ideology and social structure in Germany as the determinants of foreign policy therefore can be most appropriately approached by attributing Nazi foreign policy to a combination as both 'intentionalist' and 'structuralist' aims. Nazi foreign policy radicalized with their successes and was affected by Hitler pragmatically seizing opportunities to increase Nazi power, but also was based on early a consistent ideological programme espoused by Hitler from early on.
During the period of 1850-1871, Germany was unified with the leadership of Otto von Bismarck, the chancellor of Germany at the time. Bismarck, known as the "Iron Chancellor", used both diplomacy and the strength of the Prussian military to achieve his goals. Germany, under the chancellorship of Otto von Bismarck, was unified through Bismarck's aggression and force, persevered with warfare and reforms, and finally achieved with the strong power of the Prussian military.
“Bismarck and German Nationalism.” The American Historical Review Vol. 60, No.3 (1955): pg. 78. 548-556.