Compare And Contrast Bismarck And Metternich

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.

Europe experienced a great deal of change during the 1800’s. Camillo di Cavour and Otto von Bismarck were experienced and influential diplomats, having traveled Europe extensively. They were both incredible pioneers in the unification of their respective countries. The one thing they wanted most was unification; however, they achieved their goals in similar, yet also different ways. Both men were avid believers of realpolitik and used nationalism to surge on their movements, in addition to many other similarities in their mission towards unification. However, they had their differences: Bismarck favored war whereas Cavour favored political arrangements, as well as Bismarck’s main plan towards unification was through war, while Cavour had a

First, Bismarck's policies reflect a new kind of conservatism. Legislation passed by Bismarck’s government are described in document 1. In 1869 through 1878, the government under Bismarck granted freedom of religion and access to citizenship, civil rights, and political office. These policies were created by Bismarck to gain support for his position as chancellor. In document 3, Wagner, a supporter of Bismarck, explains that “the

It has been said by several historians that the second half of the nineteenth century was the ‘Age of Bismarck.’ In the mid 1800’s Bismarck provided dynamic leadership- a trait which had been lacking during the events of 1848-89. Ian Mitchell stated “Bismarck was everywhere.” However, there has been a considerable degree of debate concerning the role of Bismarck in the unification of Germany. Some argue that unification would have been inevitable and had nothing to do with Bismarck, although others argue that the unification was solely down to Bismarck’s role. There are differing opinions on whether Bismarck was a planner or an opportunist or whether he was merely just

Gustav Stresemann was a politician in the Weimar Republic, serving as Chancellor and Foreign Minister. In this essay, the word significance refers to the extent to which an individual or event shaped history. Stresemann’s significance will be assessed through the prism of how broad, deep, and lasting it was, considering the nature of his impact and its relationship and continuity with other events. This essay will seek to show that Stresemann was the single most positively significant cabinet members during the Weimar Republic, but that his positive significance was short lived, did not strengthen the Weimar Regime enough to save it, and overall, his only lasting significance was negative.

Prince Otto von Bismarck and Prince Klemens von Metternich can be compared to the dual sides of a German Mark. A German Mark that has sported different faces when repeatedly tossed over the years. After 1871, the Prussian-friendly German historians hailed Bismarck as the national hero, who had united Germany while Metternich was deemed a failure. Then after the loss of the two world wars, the coin sides were flipped and Bismarck was seen as a bloodthirsty power monger while Metternich was hailed as the national hero. The things that lead to the diverse opinion of these two men were their characters, ideological backgrounds, goals and the means by which they reached their goals, their achievements and lastly, their failures. The question of

Otto von Bismarck is widely known as the first modern politician. Because of this, his interpretation of conservatism is different and is the first of its kind. The reason Bismarck represents a new and different kind of conservatism is that unlike traditional conservatives, Bismarck is willing to adapt his views to fit the people's current needs. While Bismarck's methods can be considered traditionally conservative in his early days as a political leader, with things such as the Anti-Socialist Acts, by looking deeper and analyzing what he did later in life shows that he was a more modern conservative. Some examples of Bismarck’s modern conservatism were his restraint on letting Germany go to war with any other country, and his policy of separation of church and state. Compared to other leaders like Napoleon III, Bismarck had the ability to plan and invest in Germany’s future. Bismarck supported this by being able to change his views and ideas when it became necessary. Bismarck’s time was born when the Franco-Prussian war began. This is what led to Bismarck becoming so famous at the time, as his military victories were heard of all over

Under the guidance of Bismarck, the Prussian chancellor, the unification of a Kleindeutsch (small Germany) took place in 1871 after Prussia defeated France. There is often historical debate over who was responsible for the unification of Germany. Controversy is caused amongst those who believe that Bismarck was fully responsible for German unification and those who believe other factors played an equally or even more important part. The historian Pflanze is an example of someone who considers Bismarck to be solely responsible, as opposed to Bohme, who gives full credit to economic factors in unifying Germany. However, there is also a middle view, supported by historians such as Medlicott, who argue that Bismarck and other relevant factors

The leading drive in Prussia for unification was a man named Otto Von Bismarck. Otto Von Bismarck was a master strategist that initiated a series of

Value: As this source is written from previous biographies and a few monographs, it’s value is that it covers the events from the time Bismarck rose to power up to the unification of Germany and beyond. It reveals how Bismarck made all his political moves and it gives a better insight of Bismarck’s personal life and decisions he made regarding the at the time when the issue of German unification was

Germany started out as a divided nation fighting for dominance in Europe. Otto Von Bismarck was able to take this struggling complexity and unify it. During this process Bismarck turned the small country of Prussia into a powerhouse, growing the population from 11 to 18 million. Bismarck sprung from a landlord class and moved his way up the political ladder as realpolitik, realistic Politician. He was a man of simple ideals; he stressed duty, service, order, and the fear of God. These ideals along with manipulative tactics are what lead Bismarck on his journey of the unification of Germany, proving that without Bismarck’s diplomatic efforts between 1871 and 1890 Europe would not be the stabilized continent it is today.

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.

Bismarck and Kaiser Wilhelm were two German officials around the time of world war one. They both had foreign policies and they were both pretty different. Bismarck’s foreign policy had many aims. One of the aims was to leave territorial expansion behind. He unified Germany and to do so had to incorporate many other states into Prussia. He was also very much in favor of peace instead of war. He also never tried to strengthen the naval forces of Germany especially not to ruin the relationship with England. Next, he decided to keep France isolated as well as friendless so that could not start a war as revenge. He also focused on Germany 's relationship with Austria and Russia. He also distrusted Italy.

Bismarck’s political successes were remarkable, but he demonstrated an undeniably unethical way of treating internal opposition, coupled by significant opportunism. However, he was succumbing to the broad demands of the public only to be able to carry out the foreign politics necessary to secure the German Reich for the future.

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.