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
Ben Hale Mr. Jamieson Mod. History (4) 16, November 2017 Otto Von Bismarck was a Planner During the 19th century, Nationalism was a big player when it came to unity in Europe. The man who played the main role in unification in Germany was Otto von Bismarck. He made progression through three wars. The question people still ask today is, did Otto von Bismarck plan to unify Germany, or did he just take advantage of the opportunities that fell into his lap. Otto Von Bismarck was most definitely a planner as shown through countless actions and statements shown threw his time of power during the three wars. The first war was the Danish war were Germany with the help of Austria took control of the provinces of Schleswig and Holstein. The second war was the Austrian-Prussian war, where there was a disagreement over administrations of Schleswig. The third and final war was the Franco-Prussian war, were France was determined to prevent German Unification.
Otto von Bismarck-German Unification Nationalism and liberalism were two popular political philosophies of the late 19th century. Nationalism is the aspiration of a people with a common language, culture and traditions to be unified. Nationalism grew into a movement after 1815, influenced by literature, music, politics and economic developments between the northern Germany states. By 1848, nationalism was strong among Germans, but the course to unify German would prove to take time.
Throughout history men have been struggling to become the strongest or most dominant force in society. Scores of men, throughout history, have taken notice that it is easier to control several smaller states as opposed to one unified state. In the late 15th and early 16th centuries a man by the name of Nicolo Machiavelli
Eden Potter Mr. Loker AP Euro 19 February 2018 DBQ #2 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
The Importance of Bismarck to German Unification When Bismarck became chancellor of Prussia in 1862 nationalism had already started 47 years ago in 1815. Although Bismarck greatly helped the move towards unification there were also many other factors involved. These factors included things such as the economic power of the Zollverein and the fact that having a strong country would make them safer, and they all shared the same enemy: France. It is necessary to compare these factor with each other in order to asses the importance of Bismarck to German unification. Historians such as Frank Eyck believe that unification of Germany 'was a natural and desirable development.' In many ways this is true. The German nationalists called a National Assembly in Frankfurt to prepare the unification of Germany. The people all wanted a unified Germany and this was their first attempt at it. ''Coal and iron' not 'blood and iron' were the Prussian power base' (Stiles the unification of Germany 1815 - 1890) Economic power, and especially the Zollverein, was of course one of the biggest factors contributing to German unification. After 1850 Germanys industries really began to take off. Factories were built at a spectacular rate, railroads grew connecting different parts of the country and Prussia had one of the best education rates to be seen in a long time. Along
Most would not recognize Adolf Hitler of being a political theorist, due to the fact of the horrific events that transpired under his control. However, he indeed was one for better or worse. His views about the political world were extreme to say the least and he often wrote
Otto Von Bismarck Otto Von Bismarck was a great leader in the unification of Germany. His skill as a diplomat was unrivalled during his reign as chancellor of Prussia. The mastery he showed in foreign policy was such that he was able to outwit all other powers and make their leaders appear inadequate.
Realism is seeing the problem as it is and dealing with it accordingly. Many people in political power tend to see problems through a realistic lens. This is because in a democracy you are elected into power by the people, so a politician needs the people to love him. However, who loves you today may not love you tomorrow so, a politician must always be a ‘people pleaser’. While a politician in a communist power uses fear which is the best for ruling because they will not disobey you. How fear can lead to hate which is the worst way to rule because people will plot against you and impede everything you try to accomplish.
Maya Epstein Mr. LeRoy Honors History 1 21 October 2015 1. 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.
Realism is a theory that depicts world politics as a ceaseless repetitive struggle for power. In other words, political realism seeks to explain international relations between states in terms of power. Realist “views that nation-state as the most important actor…because it answers to no higher authority;” in other words, it is an anarchic system (Kegley, 27). Some traits of realism are that states are sovereign, non-cooperation among states, and the exclusion if morality in policies.
How important was the role of Bismarck in the unification of Germany? 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
Bismarck was the man who did the most to unify Germany. It was clear that unification was one of his major objective which he announced in his famous ‘Blood and Iron speech’. I was fascinated by how he managed to unify the so many divided states. Thus, my historical investigation examines the question, to what extent was the Franco-Prussian war Bismarck’s final step to unify Germany? To assess whether the Franco-Prussian war was Bismarck’s final step for unifying the loose net of 39 German states or not, the investigation analyses the previous steps made by Bismarck to unify Germany. It investigates the events between 1962, when Bismarck became Minister president of Prussia and 1971, when Germany became officially unified. The events analyzed are the Danish war, The Prussian Austrian war and the Franco Prussian war.
Otto Von Bismarck: The Unification of Germany 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.
When discussing whether or not a nation-state should enter a war and when to do so, three beliefs on foreign policy and war exist. The three different diplomatic stances are that of pacifism, just war theory, and political realism. Political realism, or realpolitik as it is often referred to, is the belief war should only occur when it is in the national interest of the particular nation-state. Henry Kissinger, a political realist, in his book Diplomacy argues that realism is the only logical answer. Just war theorists, along with pacifists, on the other hand oppose these arguments and therefore critique of this form of diplomatic action. To construct a valid understanding of the realist perspective the arguments Kissinger puts forth in