The author is Otto von Bismarck and he wrote the "Blood and Iron Speech" on September 30, 1862. I believe Bismarck intended for his words to be taken seriously in an attempt to bring Germany back together as a whole. I feel Bismarck's tone in this speech was a tone of reasoning and trying to get people to understand where he's coming from. I think he was targeting not only the Prussian parliament but all the people of Germany in this speech. Bismarck was hoping for a reaction of unity in Germany, I
As the citizens of Germany endorsed Hitler’s new cutting-edge ideas, they gained enthusiasm and determination to regain their power. Germany came to the conclusion that war was the only solution to their problem when Hitler wrote, “No nation can remove this hand from its throat except by the sword” (Document A). These words reveal that Hitler’s thoughts and opinions affected those around him. By saying this, he suggested that he understood what Germany wanted and knew that they wouldn’t get it unless they followed his methods. People who read what Hitler wrote were hugely impacted by it, so much so that they began to think with their emotions instead of their heads.
He then follows this claim by stating “In the years after 1930 this flaw split Northeim wide open, led to bloody riots and the deterioration mood, and culminated in the Nazi seizure of power. The Nazi answer to the problem of class division was to abolish its expression by force.” (The Nazi Seizure of Power By William Sheridan Allen, page 22). Although all of this was stated fairly early on in the book, to me these were impactful statements that foreshadowed later events in the book. For that reason I felt that the author was shrewd in making such big claims so early on. They also supported his thesis well because they (although somewhat generic) roughly gave the reader an idea of how the Nazi party would go on to take control through the flaws in social and political systems. Allen continues this idea throughout the book, for example on page 298, he writes “The single biggest factor in this process was the destruction of formal society in Northeim.” (The Nazi Seizure of Power By William Sheridan Allen, page 298) when referring to the Nazi seizure of power.
The book is broken down into four sections which explains his conception of the main argument, the ideas of national community, racial grooming, destruction of countries, and the perception of the war. The ideas of national renewal, while not something the German people supposedly wanted, would soon reshape the society even when they knew their former Jewish friends and neighbors were victims of genocide under the Nazi regime. The evidence given throughout the analysis include written letters between the day-to-day German people and diaries of both prominent and average members of society. The vast array of people proved that the Nazi regime had touched even the furthest people from society to accept their ideas of German
Those who were supporters of Civil Peace in the beginning of World War 1 in Germany had yet to feel the effects of total war. In document one, Emperor Wilhelm II at the royal palace in Berlin in 1914 stated that he “[sees] no more political parties, only Germans...all that matters now is that we Germans stand together like brothers...to victory!” Wilhelm II is saying that the Germans should all forget their civil disputes and issues in order for the German state
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
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
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
When considering the effects of a bipolar disorder on human life, one will realize that it is no simple disorder. In fact, bipolar disorder is immensely complex and bewildering even through a large amount of research and time has been spent studying it. Although there is a lot of information not known about bipolar disorders, it is important to recognize the current knowledge. Thus, the goal of this paper is to provide an analysis of current knowledge of bipolar disorder, including explaining the effects, causation, and incidence of the disorder.
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 was an unrivalled diplomat during his reign. His German Reich constitution of April 1871 allowed him to dictate the government on his own terms. However, the parliament only “had the power to initiate debate upon any point of his (Bismarck’s) policy, but neither he nor any other minister was responsible to the assembly for his actions" (T. A. Morris, p116). Furthermore, the constitution was designed to give the impression that
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.