Unmanageable Divisions: The Result of Bismarckian Politics in Turn of the Century 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.

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

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.

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

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 reflected the actions of famous men and their assent to power in his book The Prince. If Machiavelli's advice was followed, a ruler could almost guarantee success. But perhaps the first politician in the modern world to follow the advice of The Prince, was a man by the name of Otto Eduard Leopold von Bismarck.

While the religious division of the Prussia Protestant and that of the dominating Austria Catholics was an important factor, the opposition from Austria and the rulers were more important. Nationalism became this progressively intensifying cycle that eventually climaxes into war. Many began to put aside the idealistic ideas of society and began to embrace the realities of society as competitive and combative. Under the calculated guidance of Otto von Bismarck, Germany would finally be on the promising path of unification.

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.

The Nazi Party’s strength in three main areas allowed it to precipitate the failure of democracy in Germany. Ideologically, structurally and politically the Nazi party was superior to the Weimar Democracy especially in the period 1928-1934. Ideologically, historian Hans Mommson claims the Nazi Party was a “catch all party” in that the party’s nationalistic, socialist and racist policies

had one of the best education rates to be seen in a long time. Along

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 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.

Another sign of a “Sonderweg” in Germany during Bismarck’s reign was his attempts to repress threats through force. “Bismarck always held that the best foundation for an alliance was to have a common enemy.” This was illustrated in his Kulturkampf policies in which he attempted to appeal to the Protestant population in the German Empire which made up 61% of the populous by restricting and persecuting the Catholic population. For example, in 1872, religious schools were forced to undergo official inspections carried out by the government and religious teachers were banned from government schools. Then in May 1873 when the May Laws were enacted, nearly half of all seminaries in Prussia closed as a result. Bismarck’s failed attempts to suppress the threat of the socialists through use of the anti-Socialist laws was another sign of a special German path. The laws did not ban the SPD directly but instead aimed to cripple it, so that it was no longer a threat, through various means. Groups meeting who aimed to spread social democrat principles were banned and trade unions were outlawed. Bismarck also introduced old age pensions, accident and unemployment insurance and medical care in an attempt to win the support of the working class and keep them content with the current regime. Despite these attempts to cripple the socialists, the party continued to gain popular support.