The understanding of European politics during the latter half of the extended nineteenth century, particularly from 1848 onward to the First World War, is as much about the European political climate as a whole as it is about the key figures within this climate. For example, one cannot fully understand the multitude of independence and nationalist movements in the Balkans during this time without first understanding the outside pressures placed on these movements by the three competing empires of the Russians, Habsburgs, and Ottomans; and only then delving into the multitude of persons whom inspired the individual movements. Likewise, understanding the German situation at this time is just as much about the European picture as a whole, as it is about the people within the German system itself; of which, Otto von Bismarck is clearly the synonymous figure. With that said, it follows that a purely biographical approach to this turbulent time in German politics, focused on Bismarck, will leave one largely without the knowledge of the greater European situation; however, this same biographical approach also helps to understand the political interworking and personal relationships that forged a unified Germany, something that the study of the European climate as a whole fails to do. The biographical approach to German unification in Bruce Waller’s Bismarck leaves the reader without much information on the European political picture as a whole and by no means provides a plethora of information on many of the political power players outside of Bismarck’s Germany. For example, Waller’s approach to Bismarck’s economic foreign policy is clearly lacking an explanation of outside factors, and those factors of the European economic situat... ... middle of paper ... ...e, if one is seeking to obtain knowledge of the European political climate in general, then an account such as Hobsbawm’s is vastly more helpful in understanding the bigger picture; likewise, Fulbrook’s account on German history as a whole provides a similar level of big picture understanding but in a uniquely German setting. However, if one already has a grasp on the bigger picture, then Waller’s Bismarck is most likely the best option to advance one’s knowledge to a new level. Thus, biographical approaches to history are only truly helpful once one understands the events taking place outside of the life of the figure in question. Works Cited Bruce Waller, Bismarck, (Malden: Blackwell Publishers, 1997) Eric Hobsbawm, The Age of Empire 1875-1914, (New York: Vintage Books, 1989) Mary Fulbrook, A Concise History of Germany, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)
Hagen W (2012). ‘German History in Modern Times: Four Lives of the Nation’. Published by Cambridge University Press (13 Feb 2012)
Bismarck believed that Germany should be united under Prussian leadership and that Austria should have nothing to do with Germany. Bismarck was chosen as chancellor by the Prussian king as he had a proven record as a monarchist and had little time for liberal and excessive parliamentary ideas. Bismarck helped his long term plan to unite Germany and to be the ruler by getting in a strong position with the king. The king owned Bismarck a 'favour´ as Bismarck had solved the king´s constitutional crisis. Bismarck played a crucial part in the unification of Germany as he helped to set up the Northern German Confederation after defeating Austria in the second of three wars.
Clark does a remarkable job of making a scholarly historical argument on the events leading to World War I interesting while at the same time presenting a new narrative that distributes culpability across Europe and not as the general narrative, exclusively to Germany. Perhaps what’s more significant is the relevance of diplomacy in the context of the ideals and culture each party held in forming decisions which, Clark argues was to avoid war however the dominance of masculinity, nationalism, and fear would end up writing a script that would lead to the Great War. Clarks account is definitely insightful and has given me a better understanding on how World War I started and on the Baltic conflict in the 1990s. he fills what I would call a gaping hole in European History.
In 1914, Europe was diving into two separate powers. One was Triple Entente composed of France, Russia and Britain. Other one was Triple Alliance, consists of Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Italy. (Pope 2) Each of the countries was connected with different treaties. The caused of European countries’ unstable political situation and threat of war was present. By arranging alliances with other governments, most countries found ways to protect themselves from assault. While Germany was becoming the center of the struggle, Europe made a spider web of tangled alliance that led most countries into two opposing powers. (Hamilton 16) In the late nineteenth century, the most surprising event in Europe was the birth of united state of Germany. Under the leadership of the Chancellor of Germany, Otto von Bismarck, system of alliances was established to achieve peace in Europe. By 1890, Bismarck succeeded in having every major power into his alliance system...
Revised: May 30, 1998 Accessed:October 15/99 Encyclopedia Britannica Online, "Bismarck, Otto von" © 1994, Accessed Nov. 10 1999 German News. " Otto von Bismarck, Founder of the German Empire", © July 1998, Accessed : October 15/99 Gielen, Christof "The Road to National Unification" ©1995
In the late 1800s, Chancellor Otto Von Bismarck used different strategical 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
As the final days of World War One slowly drudged through the month of November, a war torn Europe left separated and waiting to be picked up and pasted back together. An astonishing number of thirty-eight million dead between the Allied Powers and the Central Powers during a war that took over four years to come to an end. The main players during 1914 - 1918 were Britain and Germany, however this rivalry did not begin simply because of World War One and all the logistics of those four years. This essay is not to address the events of World War One, but to however explain what caused them. The lead up to the world’s first “World War” is a story of Europe’s heavyweight title fight, in one corner the English, boasting a huge naval fleet and looking to be the face of Europe. In the other corner, Germany, led by Kaiser Wilhelm II was fueled and willing to go at whatever cost necessary to back up their Triple Alliance member Austria-Hungary. This was not the first time the English and Germans had become involved with one another. England’s first diplomatic relations with Germany began with an alliance between Ethelberht of Kent and Charibert I. These marriages between the two countries were sporadic, however this is where relations began. Enlgand had been on top of Europe for quite sometime,
Nationalisms powerful and intense impact on individuals is demonstrated in Rudolf von Ihering’s Two Letters (1866). By offering individuals a group to be a part of became something which appeared to be boundless in its potential for prosperity and it gave individuals a sense of empowerment. Initially, Von Ihering had rigorously opposed Realpolitik’s policies which were employed by Otto von Bismarck, declaring that, “everyone [in Ger...
Otto Von Bismarck, the most well-known practitioner of Realpolitik, and also the first to coin the term Realpolitik, sought to advance the power and welfare of Prussia. One of the first surprising initiatives taken by Bismarck to achieve stability, and ensure the interest of his country was to integrate the nationalism of the liberals with the views of the Junkers, this ve...
Research will be drawn from many sources including several historical studies and online articles. The sources used revolve around Bismarck's attitudes and actions toward German unification and general policy. Sources include works by historians A.J.P. Taylor and James Wycliffe Headlam. The policies of Bismarck during the interwar period were researched as well, through several scholastic journals and written works.
Turner, Henry Ashby. Germany from Partition to Reunification. New Haven, CN: Yale University Press, 1992. Print.
To begin with, Otto Von Bismarck’s mother, whose name is Wilhelmina Mencken, impacted him the most, when he was in his young ages. She didn’t want her son to become another insipid landowners, or as they were called Junkers, as his father was. “She had high hopes for her gifted son. She pushed him mercilessly to study hard and make something of himself”(19). However, as any other young boy he didn’t like to study, but it’s mother, who decides what is the best for the child. This made Otto hate her, when he was a kid. Nevertheless, his mother was not the only important person in his childhood: “The second great power in Otto’s life was his father, Ferdinant von Bismarck.”(19) The Bismarcks had been Junkers for centuries. They had the reputation of being tough, unimaginative, and absolutely loyal to their king. “Otto later confessed that he wa...
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 Congress of Vienna in 1814-15 created the so-called German Confederation under Austrian and Prussian hegemony, but this unit disappointed the dreams of nationalists. The rivalry of Austria and Prussia paralyzed it in a way comparable to the effects of Soviet-American dualism on the United Nations during the Cold War. Almost everywhere, the old rulers repressed the nationalist movement after 1815. The German princes realized that nationalism required ...
“Bismarck and German Nationalism.” The American Historical Review Vol. 60, No.3 (1955): pg. 78. 548-556.