Oscar E. Aguado AMULAC ID# 2166 Western Civilization II DS Prof. Baxa July 30, 2013 Bismarck: Genius or lucky Bismarck was one of the most dominant and significant statesmen of the nineteenth century. A political intellect who achieved the apparently impossible undertaking of unifying Germany without a political party to support him, despite an unsympathetic parliament and with no direct control over any army. His—Bismark— only arsenals were the utter force of his personality and his crafty ability to influence Emperor Wilhelm I. Jonathan Steinberg’s biography takes a new look at this witty, slightly hysterical despot using the diaries and letters of his friends, colleagues and enemies and he paints a portrait of a man full of contradictions. He had grand political visions that were created with subtle strategies of political genius but his pettiness and vindictiveness were never far behind. Bismarck adored conflict and he had a palate for being offensive. His “slap in the face” method to political manipulation was a tactic in itself that led him more often that not to get his own way. In the modern era minds, Bismarck is clasped together with a mix of Churchill and Pinochet. He was anything but consistent though. His conception of Realpolitik meant that anything that allowed him to get his own way was acceptable: whether or not that meant joining an Evangelical Christian sect as he did as a young man giving him a start in politics or cosying up to the Liberal party when it served his purpose. He even went so far as turn the Prussian political landscape upside-down by adopting full male suffrage much to the chagrin of his fellow conservatives. The Austrian Foreign Minister Baron Rechberg summed up Bismarck’s protean nature, when h... ... middle of paper ... ...ck, through hard work and determination. He spent his life fighting liberalism and found natural allies in Russia and Austria, with their authoritarian and anti-democratic traditions but he was fighting a losing battle. The reactionary absolutism that he championed had had its day by the time he left the political stage. The great man acted as a bulwark against liberal and democratic principles while he could but when Bismarck was brushed aside, those principles flooded the political arena. So where did Bismarck’s genius lie exactly? He was the father of “Realpolitik” which meant “constantly shuffling sets of alternatives and playing off one against the other.” His real genius lay in his guile, cunning and sense of political timing – but above all in his willingness to take risks and be shockingly aggressive. Never has the force of personality alone achieved so much
Salisbury always refused attempts in the late 1880s by German Chancellor Bismarck to draw him into the Triple Alliance of Germany, Austria and Italy. He believed that Britain's lack of definite alliances and commitments was to the country's advantage. Although Liberal weaknesses and divisions, such as the no support for leader Gladstone in the 1890s, helped the Conservative cause, this was not the main reason for dominance. The Conservatives owed a lot to the skills of Salisbury. He adapted well to the changing political climate, and also made policies which appealed to all walks of life, and a wide range of social people.
Because of the state of Germany’s economy, Hitler portrayed himself as the saviour of Germany, the man that was going to restore the respect that their forefathers had earned & installed. However, under no uncertain terms was he going to do it alone, he pr...
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.
Hitler was furious with Germany’s surrender in World War I, so when he got back to his home in Munich, he was determined to enter politics and become the greatest leader in German history (Smith). He spent all of his time and effort trying to become the chancellor of Germany. Once he was voted into being chancellor, he needed a way to become the leader of all of Germany. Hitler gathered power through many acts of t...
Treitschke, Heinrich. “History of Germany in the Nineteenth Century and Historical and Political Writings.” The Human Record. By Alfred J. Andrea and James H. Overfield. Vol. 2. New York: Houghton Mifflin, 2011. 2 vols. 292-295.
roles in how he managed to become the dictator of Germany, and initiated World War II.
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
Hitler got everything he wanted for so long, without even having to resort to force. Lukacs describes Hitler as ''being an amateur at generalship, but he posessed the great professional talent applicable to all human affairs: an understanding of human nature and the understanding of the weaknesses of his opponents. That was enough to carry him very far''(3). Lukacs wants to make that a point in all of his readers' minds; that Hitler could manipulate people so he could get what he wanted without resorting to violence.
Hitler wasn’t always a dictator of Germany, in fact; he never wanted to be in the army in the first place. But in spite of what he wanted he started off as a young soldier, and often rebelled because of the mixed ...
... said. He had this obsession about keeping the Germans pure and he also he explained that Germany is. After he got out of jail he took advantage of the status to rise and eventually he was named Chancellor of Germany.
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.
Within Nazi government, Hitler acted as the final source of authority, which serves as evidence against the notion that Hitler was ‘weak’. Having consolidated power by 1934 Hitler was, at least theoretically, omnipotent, being Chancellor, Head of State and “supreme judge of the nation”. However, the notion that Nazi government systematically pursued the clear objectives of the Fuhrer is challenged by the reality of Nazi government structure. It has been widely accepted by historians that the Nazi State was a chaotic collection of rival power blocs. Mommsen’s explanation that this was the result of Hitler’s apathy towards government a...
...logy and goals, and also a opportunist and exploitative man in regard to opportunities within foreign policy as they were presented him.
...ded and supremely outmatched. These three wars achieved Bismarck’s goals of obtaining support for the army reforms and unifying Germany under Prussian leadership (which meant the expulsion of Austria from Germany’s affairs).
“Bismarck and German Nationalism.” The American Historical Review Vol. 60, No.3 (1955): pg. 78. 548-556.