Otto Von Bismarck 's Foreign Policy Affect The Creation Of Germany

To answer the midterm essay assignment I will detail my view of the Sonderweg thesis. I will then offer my opinion on the relationship of Sonderweg within the timeframe of Imperial Germany. I will summarize the thoughts of two historians who I believe to have an impressive influence on the debate of the Sonderweg theory: Wehler and Blackbourn. My essay will include a description of German character and how it impacted the perpetuation of the Sonderweg thesis, and the role of the “elites” in doing so as well. In conclusion, I will give my impression as to the influence that Imperial Germany had on the rise of Nazism within the context of the Sonderweg thesis.

Germany and why it has gone through First World War has been subject of debate among scholars, academics and historians. Several documents have been analyzed in order to understand the subject and aims of Germany were when it went on war. Wide ranging literature is available on the subject, which concentrates on discussing the start of World War I. History is based on evaluation and examination of facts. The

The majority of people thought Bismarck was a German enthusiast but in reality he was Prussian. The idea of creating a unified Germany developed only gradually in his mind as an addition the strengthening of Prussia. With this objective in mind, Bismarck transformed the small country of Prussia into a large European superpower with an unbeatable army. To Bismarck, enemies and alliances were only considered important if they were convenient at the time. He was practical and an opportunistic, taking advantage of situations as they developed and prepared to act in many different directions depending on the outcome. For instance, In 1862 Bismarck was appointed chief minister of Prussia; however this title alone was

The following is a critique of the article “Good Times, Bad Times: Memories of The Third Reich” by Ulrich Herbert. In this critique, I will explore the themes of the article, discuss the main arguments, and address the significance of the author’s insight to the world of Nazi Germany.

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

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

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.

In the words of Max Weber, “This lecture, which I give at your request, will necessarily disappoint you in a number of ways.” I begin here to let the reader know I do not intend on conforming to the regular hypothesis in the case of Paul Ludwig Hans Anton von Beneckendorff und von Hindenburg, more commonly known as Paul von Hindenburg. This general hypothesis on his character may paint him as a villain in the eyes of history, however, I will argue here that he was forced into a situation of unfortunate circumstances. His case consists of many political and military ups and downs and he is most famously known for appointing Adolf Hitler to the position of chancellor and therefore plunging the Nazi party into power. This one choice by Hindenburg was the first domino to fall in the sequence of events leading to the second world war and ultimately for the death of 50

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

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

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’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.

In the book Friedrich, an unnamed character is telling the story of his best friend Friedrich. The unnamed character and Friedrich grew up together in germany in the 1930’s. Towards the beginning of the book it seemed like friedrich and his family had extra money to spend and enough money to support their family. Hs father had a fairly good job, yet his friend's father had no job. Hitler eventually came in the book and had power f Germany, after that things started getting a little bit different.

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

Purpose: The purpose is to learn more about Bismarck’s personal life and personality. Since Taylor had already written two previous books describing Bismarck’s foreign policy this biography helps to understand his policies better.