Bismarck And Kaiser Wilhelm 's Foreign Policy

Bismarck determined that this cause should be a war, (Richards, 1977, 142) for there is no better bonding agent then that of the threat to one's livelihood. Bismarck used the Danish war to help consolidate his internal position in Prussia and to strengthen Prussian military transportation. (Christopher, 1991, p.103) "Liberal sentiment in Germany had always been stirred by a desire to separate Schleswig- Holstein from Denmark. The liberals called for a repudiation of international agreements by Prussia (such as the 1852 Protocol which put the Danish issue on ice), while Bismarck declared in the Diet that he would not be a party to a breach of international obligations. So Bismarck made an agreement with Austria, the avowed enemy of German unity, to proceed within the context of the 1852 Protocol.

In contrast to Bismarck, Kaiser believed that in order to keep Germany in power and prevent them from defeat he had to build and strengthen a navy as strong as, if not stronger than England’s. In all, Kaiser’s end goal was to make Germany the strongest country in power out of Europe, whereas Bismarck was content with having good relations with different European countries but also maintaining his own power throughout the land that he owned.

First, the 1878 Berlin Conference led to Russian concessions and led to the Russian animosity of Germany, leading to Russia and Germany growing apart (Nau 98). If Bismark had decided to reconcile with Russia and try to fix their fractured relationship, then perhaps Germany and Russia wouldn't have mobilized as quickly against each other — instead, they might have sent more telegrams, thus avoiding WWI. However, the Kaiser could have made better decisions himself. First, he didn't have to damage the Russia-Germany relationship even more, which led to an alliance between France and Russia (Nau 99). The Kasier also didn't have to start a naval rivalry with Great Britain (Nau 99). The Kasier's poor choices led to Russia, France, and Great Britain becoming German rivals, and since these countries surrounded Germany, Germany probably got frightened. So, Germany decided to train its army and mobilize as soon as they felt threatened. This choice of quick mobilization led to WWI. If the Kasier chose to make amends with Russia and not bother Great Britain with a naval rivalry, then WWI could have also been

Bismarck used realpolitiks in his diplomacy and policies, which allowed him to utilize different political ideologies to achieve his goals. In document 5, the socialist actions that Bismarck took are presented. Bismarck insured “workers against industrial accidents” (doc 5). This is an example of realpolitik. Bismarck gained support from the workers, so he could pass Anti-Socialist laws without disorder. This was a way to preserve the traditional order. The Kaiser had intended for his speech to connect with the working class; the working class had previously been ignored and manipulated, but now they were being favored. In Bismarck’s speech, he argues that the state had a duty to provide support for the nation’s “helpless fellow citizens” (doc 6). Furthermore; this exemplifies Bismarck’s practice of realpolitik and his view that “ lasting guarantees of internal peace” was ppossible Bismarck made a serious effort to better the working conditions as a way to avoid a similar event to the radical socialist Paris Commune gaining control. Finally, both sides of the spectrum criticized Bismarck’s shift policies to appeal with differing political groups. In document 2, Wilhelm Liebknecht, who is a socialist, expressed the contempt caused by Bismarck’s

Prince Otto von Bismarck was seen as both a political genius and a power monger, like a German version of Alexander the Great by the people. Bismarck was a conservative, who used the people around him to reach his goals; and in doing so, he pitted people against one another. According to the book 19th Century Germany by John Breuilly, modern historians have found it very hard “to separate the man from his achievements” (Breuilly 172). The historians have run into a roadblock that consists mostly of “Bismarck’s individuality and his responsibility for the political development of the Empire” (Breuilly 172). Bismarck was known to support nationalism and patriotism, and he believed in the Burschenschaften or student organizations. He also believed in the concept of faith in power, more in ideas. Bismarck only cared for two things: Prussia and Prussian power, and he would do anything to obtain Prussian domination. Although Bismarck did not care for Germany, he was all for German Unification. Historians cannot decide if Bismarck’s legacy is positive or negative but they agree that he was a “brilliant and shrewd tactician who succeeded in postponing the problem of political mobilization for 60 years” (Breuilly 172). In Otto von Bismarck, some people saw a great man who was ahead of his time, while others saw nothing more than a bloodthirsty power monger, who wanted a united Germany to

Bhole, 1 Tanvi Bhole Ms. Sanyigo Honors U.S. History – 1B 4 October 2014 Pre – WWI Questions 1. The foreign policies of Bismarck were very strategic and peaceful. Bismarck prevented bloodshed by creating the League of the Three Emperors.

Prince Otto von Bismarck was seen as both a political genius and a power monger, like a Prussian version of Alexander the Great by the people. Bismarck was a conservative, who used the people around him to reach his goals; and in doing so, he pitted people against one another. According to the book 19th Century Germany: Politics, Culture and Society 1780-1918 by John Breuilly, modern historians have found it very hard “to separate the man from his achievements” (Breuilly 172). The historians have run into a roadblock that consists mostly of

Bismarck and Hitler were both extremely influential leaders in history who had strong impacts on politics in Germany. They both dramatically changed the future of Germany and had lasting impacts that are still evident in today’s world. They are both prominent figures in history that have left a significant mark on it especially with their political tactics. Bismarck was an important politician in the mid to late 1800s who was at the head of German affairs. He instigated a series of wars to unify the German states into one nation. Hitler was also an influential politician who helped to lead Germany out of a economic depression but also lead them into a disastrous world war. They used their political maneuvers and tactics to outsmart

At the Convention of Gastein, Austria took over a German state. This bad feeling for Austria made Prussia more popular. Bismarck then isolated Austria by persuading Russia, France and Italy to remain neutral towards her. Prussia then defeated Austria in a war. Afterwards, the Prussian king and generals wanted to finish Austria off, however, Bismarck showed strength and wouldn't let them. Instead he made peace with Austria to ensure her future support. Bismarck stated: "We shall need Austria's strength ourselves". A good example of opportunism is when Bismarck goaded France into declaring war by editing the EMS telegram. Bismarck edited the telegram to make it seem as if Prussia had insulted France. This angered Napoleon and he declared war. This made France seem like the aggressor, which ensured the neutrality of the other powers. Bismarck described it as: "a red rag to a Gallic bull". All of these points show that Bismarck undoubtedly played an important role in unifying Germany.

After the 1881 elections, his party no longer controlled the Reichstag (The German House of Representatives). He had to do something to regain some of the lost power since the elections (Sempell 148). Bismarck did not see the need for colonies in Africa, but public opinion forced him to enter upon the global game of imperialism (150). This pleased Germany's constituents, and it eventually led to the obtainment of many valuable resources.

Kaiser Wilhelm II came to power in 1888 after Wilhelm I died and a brief reign from Frederick III, his behaviour could be unpredictable and although he was the grandson of Queen Victoria he was anti-British, however he admired them at the same time. He believed in the divine right of kings, the theory claimed that, kings were only answerable to God, and it was sinful for their subjects to resist them. Wilhelm II was determined to exercise much more direct control over government than his grandfather, this was apparent in 1890 when Wilhelm disagreed with Bismarck’s anti-socialist policies, colonial expansion and relations with Russia, consequently Bismarck retired

Otto von Bismarck was the prime minister of Germany during the time of German unification, formerly the prime minister of Prussia. Bismarck struck quite the nationalist chord in the German peoples, convincing the southern German states to join the the northern ones. He was known as a hardcore conservative, however he was a practitioner of realpolitik, and was able to approve policies that appealed to different ideologies for the sake of the country. Otto von Bismarck’s specific brand of conservatism was different than classic conservatism in that Bismarck attempted to appeal more to the working class, and he had a good few liberal policies. However, Bismarck also had traditionally conservative ideas, such as suppressing opposing views.

Prussia-Germany had become one of the most powerful nations in Europe prior to World War I.[footnoteRef:9] There were two main alliances formed, the Triple Alliance, which contained Italy, Germany and Austria-Hungary, the second being the Triple Entente containing Great Britain, and Russia.[footnoteRef:10] The United States, would join the Triple Entente and “entered [the] war because violations of [right’s] had occurred.”[footnoteRef:11] The United States would have a President who would demand for “the world be made [fair] and

Bismarck was an unrivalled diplomat during his reign. His German Reich constitution of April 1871 allowed him to dictate the government on his own terms. However, the parliament only “had the power to initiate debate upon any point of his (Bismarck’s) policy, but neither he nor any other minister was responsible to the assembly for his actions" (T. A. Morris, p116). Furthermore, the constitution was designed to give the impression that

As president, Bismarck led Germany into unification through his opportunism and his various policies. Charismatic yet aggressive by nature, Bismarck was known for his ability to seize opportunities and manipulate situations to his advantage. It is debatable whether or not Germany would have achieved unification under the power of anyone other Bismarck. In his 1996 book The Problem of the German Nation State, Wolfgang Mommsen said, “Bismarck’s policies- admirable or satanic... occupy centre stage.” This is particularly true for his infamous policy of “blood and iron”. Also, Bismarck’s diplomatic abilities are able to be seen when looking at his foreign policy of 1871 to 1890. Bismarck’s policies and opportunism are predominantly evident when looking at the Three Wars.