Niccolo Machiavelli's The Prince

Wilhelm II: Our policy have both pros and cons. The pro of the policy of Germany is, its diplomatic works successfully delayed the final war for about 40 years. The con is, since Germany is a monarchy state which control by conservative nobles and powerful officials group, it haven’t enough flexibility to solve unexpected events such as the betray of Russia. It finally cause the failure of Germany because of the pressure from both France and Russia.

Niccolò Machiavelli was born in Florence, Italy in 1496. He was a diplomat in Italy 's Florentine Republic for fourteen years. This was during the Medici family exile, and when they returned, Machiavelli was dismissed and shortly imprisoned. After he was released, he wrote The Prince. It was written as a handbook for politicians to follow and is considered the most famous book on politics ever written. Machiavelli is known as the “father of modern political theory.” He died in 1527 in Florence, Italy.

Kaiser Wilhelm II did not have personal rule as he didn’t have the ability to control his chancellors. Wilhelm wanted too much from his chancellors, he desired someone who would do exactly what he said, yet was able to control the Reichstag. In other words, he wanted a

Wilhelm II (January 27, 1859- June 4, 1941) He was the last ruler of the German Empire and Kingdom of Prussia. He ruled for 20 years from 1888 to 1918. He left foreign policy and the war effort to Paul Von Hindenburg and Erich Ludendorff who were the best generals. He lost most of his power and respect with the public because of newspaper interviews, which often depicted him as unrealistic and weak.

The crippling aftermath of World War 1 had a devastating impact on the German economy, society, and political system was devastating. Reparations had to be paid to the Allies, hyperinflation was reaching senseless levels, and unemployment was high. The nation was angry, resentful, and almost every move made by their leaders was criticised. The traditional monarch, the Kaiser, was abdicated from his throne and fled the nation. This resulted in the foundation of a more contemporary and unfamiliar system of government – democracy; which had periods of prosperity and success as well as catastrophe and failure. The

Kaiser Wilhelm II was the last German Emperor and King of Prussia. A man that would come to be ridiculed and blamed for things perhaps out of his control, he was nonetheless one of the more prominent figures during the events of World War I. He showed very open enjoyment at his title, which would be used against him. Naturally, due to the ramifications of World War I, he was banned, and sought refuge in the Netherlands. His early life is an interesting affair, but his political career is clearly the focus of his life, not that you’d gloss over the story of his exile.

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

Hitler was a man of the people. He was a great orator and was talented at public speaking. Using that gift he was able to rally a crippled Germany behind him to become one of the world’s strongest super powers pre WWII. Hitler was loved by his people and feared by his enemies. His following of those early philosophers was how he founded the Nazi party. He would have pleased Machiavelli with his ability to be both the fox and the lion. Hitler was cunning and smart, he was able to turn himself around from seemingly homeless to the head of the German state. He was also able to rally the Germans behind him, he was courageous and strong and that appealed to the German people. “Extinguish the line of Princes” was a quote from Machiavelli meaning that the new Prince, in an effort to maintain his position, should remove anyone who posed a threat to his power. Hitler did just that when he elected himself Dictator and dissolved the parliament beneath him. He gave himself ultimate control over Germany. Hitler would have disappointed Machiavelli by being reckless. All of Machiavelli’s work boils down to a Prince gaining power and using any means necessary to keep it. The German war machine, while would have been impressive, caused Hitler to fall to exactly what Machiavelli warned against. Machiavelli is quoted saying “He who is blinded by ambition, raises himself to a position whence he cannot mount higher, must thereafter fall with the greatest loss.” Such a quote is very fitting of

Most people in Germany supported the emperor’s idea of “civil peace”. The other people who disagreed were forced to agree whether they like the idea or not. In August 1, 1914, German Emperor Wilhelm II gave a speech at the royal palace in Berlin filled with a crowd of 40,000 people. Wilhelm II desired to unite the country by telling his people that “all that matters now is that we Germans stand together like brothers” (Doc 1). The speech that he conveyed rallied up the Germans to hope for the unification of their country by standing up together as brothers to help unite Germany. Wilhelm II’s view of a “civil peace” was supported by an abundant amount of civilians.

During the Second Reich, Germany was being molded for future generations to come. The positions which would be taken during this empire were very important for the German people. From the genesis of the Second Reich, many Germans believed that they were superior to other nations. This thought process instilled within the German base, a sense of Nationalism, which would a fundamental pillar throughout German history over the years. Wilhelm II helped fuel this sense of nationalism while emperor of Germany. Wilhelm infused a sense of pride in the Fatherland that was etched into German citizen’s minds all over the countryside. The German people worked each day for a greater Germany. If one worked hard, it was for the betterment of a greater

"Machiavelli identifies the interests of the prince with the interests of the state." He felt that it was human nature to be selfish, opportunistic, cynical, dishonest, and gullible, which in essence, can be true. The state of nature was one of conflict; but conflict, Machiavelli reasoned, could be beneficial under the organization of a ruler. Machiavelli did not see all men as equal. He felt that some men were better suited to rule than others. I believe that this is true in almost any government. However, man in general, was corrupt -- always in search of more power. He felt that because of this corruptness, an absolute monarch was necessary to insure stability. Machiavelli outlined what characteristics this absolute ruler should have in The Prince. One example of this can be seen in his writings concerning morality. He saw the Judeo-Christian values as faulty in the state's success. "Such visionary expectations, he held, bring the state to ruin, for we do not live in the world of the "ought," the fanciful utopia, but in the world of "is". The prince's role was not to promote virtue, but to insure security. He reasoned that the Judeo-Christian values would make a ruler week if he actually possessed them, but that they could be useful in dealing with the citizens if the prince seemed to have these qualities. Another example of Machiavelli's ideal characteristics of a prince

Kaiser Wilhelm’s foreign policy differed from Bismarck’s in many ways. Whereas Bismarck did things based on logic Kaiser Wilhelm did things more based on emotion. This resulted in incoherence and inconsistency in the German relations with other nations. He wanted an empire that could rival the size of the british. He also managed to alienate the English by aggressively expanding the navy. He was more aggressive and wanted Germany to be the best.

When Machiavelli wrote "The Prince" in the 1500's, his intentions did not apply to the twentieth century. Some very important figures of the twentieth century used basic ideals from "The Prince" to obtain and maintain their position in power. One of these individuals was Adolf Hitler. Hitler used numerous Machiavellian ideas to win his respective place in Germany's government. The two most important Machiavellian principles that Hitler used were winning the people and how he dealt with cruelty and murder.Adolf Hitler, the self-proclaimed "savior" of the German people, was an insecure, egotistical man, who ominously controlled the German people. Hitler thought that he could change things with force, which soon got him into trouble, and

Relying on the needs of the society of that time, Machiavelli comes to the conclusion that the most important task is the formation of a single Italian state (Machiavelli 15). Developing his thoughts, the author comes to the following inference: only a prince can become a leader capable of leading people and building a unified state. It is not a concrete historical personality but someone abstract, symbolic, possessing such qualities that in the aggregate are inaccessible to any living ruler. That is why Machiavelli devotes most of his research to the issue of what qualities should the prince possess to fulfill the historical task of developing a new state. The written work is constructed strictly logically and objectively. Even though the image of an ideal prince is abstract, Machiavelli argues that he should be ruthless, deceiving, and selfish.

Machiavelli’s lowering of politics creates an impact on the way ordinary subjects and citizens behave, a prince, according to Machiavelli, should be loved but most important to him, this sovereign should be feared, citizens need to obey and follow regulations and be faithful to the ruler, they are expected to honor and fight for their sovereign, in general, Machiavelli does not go into so much detail about the duties of the people, but he explains that by teaching the prince how to manage the system, he is working for the sake of people, as Machiavelli explains, a prince should follow two policies in which one of the two explains how a sovereign must keep balance and unchanged laws when conquering new territories, “not to change their laws or impose new taxes” (Machiavelli’s The Prince, page 8) what he means by this is that a sovereign should respect customs and traditions, the way people