‘Bismarck ruled Germany by dividing it. In doing so he prevented it from ever becoming truly united.’

The above statement seems to be associated closely in spirit with the German Sonderweg theory. Broadly this theory posits that, in contrast to most Western nations, Germany remained un-democratised, failing to wrestle itself free from the control concentrated in the hands of the small set of traditional elites, with disastrous consequences. The statement depicts Bismarck, the Reich Chancellor, as one man in whose hands the Reich’s destiny was controlled. However, the German Empire was not as firmly in Bismarck’s subjective control as the statement would suggest, and indeed as he would have liked. As Volker Berghan argues, more recently historical writing has been characterised by methodological and thematic diversity with the result that our understanding has become more sophisticated. He mentions Geoff Eley as an historian who has identified that the history of the Reich is not exclusively the history of a small set of manipulative elites; the historical reality is far more complex and interesting. If one looks beyond broad Sonderweg trends, it becomes clear that Bismarck’s control over Germany was not as overwhelming and effective as the statement in the question would suggest. Whether he retained the initiative by dividing Germany is questionable. Although Bismarck’s legacy may have ultimately had damning consequences, which can be traced back of lack of unity in German society, there are also indicators of a degree of unity and democratization within the Empire.

The argument that runs in tandem with the thrust of the statement highlights the following developments within the Reich between 1871 and March 1890 when Bismarck was dismissed by Wilhelm II. Bismarck identified Reichsfeinde and set in motion thoroughly suppressive ...

... middle of paper ...

...cs of division and the dangerous legacy it left behind there were forces driving national, liberal unity that increasingly pushed Bismarck out of the driving seat. In terms of the statement in the question it is more accurate that Bismarck attempted to rule Germany by exploiting the divisions brought about the modern, national age. Many of his policies did however fail. The exacerbation of dividing lines led to deep-rooted bitterness and alienation, which in the long term would re-emerge to prevent a united democratic front in Germany. The Kulturkampf, the passage of antisocialist laws and the introduction of tariffs we all devious and repressive plots to ensure Bismarck’s primacy. But we must not ignore the political evolution that can be discerned throughout the 1870s and 1880s, which saw genuine support for German unity and resisted Bismarck’s divisive policies.