Bismarck was a key player in the unification of Germany, as he successfully subdued the Austrian threat and solidified Prussian control over Germany, after Prussian victory in the Austro-Prussian War (1866). In 1871 after the Prussian victory in the Franco-Prussian War, Germany was unified under Prussian King Wilhem I. Bismarck was a Prussian patriot, not a German nationalist. As German Chancellor he exercised realpolitik which was aimed at strengthening Prussian hegemony through a strong continental European Germany. He used war and diplomacy as tools to achieve this aim. Bismarck wanted Germany to be powerful thus initially he was solely interested in continental Europe. However Bismarck was compelled to colonise the world, as a colonial school of thought developed in Germany. Although Bismarck personally opposed this as he believed German imperial expansion would require a strong navy and to construct one would lead to a dangerous rivalry with the British Empire. This would be later vindicated in the Dreadnought race. Bismarck was a great balancer of political affairs. He successfully isolated France through the Dreikaiserbund which was a political alliance between Germany, Austro-Hungary and Russia. He also acquired Tanganyika (Kenya), other parts of Africa and German New Guinea (whom Bismarck Sea is eponymous to). This appeased German colonialists. Bismarck was able to secure Pax Germania. However the outspoken, vacillatory and bombastic Wilhem II who had agressive designs on Europe sacked Bismarck in 1890 as both of there foreign policies were incongruent. From 1890 to 1914 Germany headed on a disasterous path to world war. Bismarck rightly predicited that if a major war conflagrated it would originate from the Balkans:

"One day the great European War will come out of some damned foolish thing in the Balkans."

– Reported by Winston Churchill, The World Crisis, C. Scribner's Sons (1923) p. 195, attributed to Bismarck by Albert Ballin




I would conclude that Bismarck was a powerful statesman who adeptly exploited a situation through dexteriously isolating France, appeasing the colonial school and strengthening Germany under Pax Germania.

Was Bismarck fundamentally a German nationalist or an old fashioned Prussian monarchist who succeeded in subordinating all Germany to his king?
this is my question do u think I should discuss events after 1871 in this essay

Bismarck was definitely an old fashioned Prussian monarchist who succeeded in subordinating all Germany to his king Wilhelm I. You should discuss events from Bismarck's foreign policy to subdue the Austrians especially the Austro-Prussian War to his dismissal in 1890. If you examine Bismarck's foreign and domestic policy it was more about Prussian power than German nationalism. Bismarck was a Prussian noble conservative to the old establishment. Domestically the Prussians were given the positions of distinction. Think about it: if your establishing a new regime you appoint who you trust and the Prussians were trusted by King Wilhelm I. The Dreikaiserbund, colonial expansion and isolating France were aimed at ensuring German unity in order to pursue Prussian glory.

Here's a picture that illustrates Bismarck's foreign policy:



If you have any more questions please ask and Good Luck for your essay!

The fact is Bismarck did not understand fully the bond between France and Russia, thus his plan to isolate France did not totally success. Although he was no doubt a skillful politician, his opposition and interference in the process of German parliament laid the seed of World War I.

He's not called "Iron Man" for no reason
His policies modernized Prussia which is good and all, and he start grabbing colonies like none before him.
however, Prussia's relationship intensified tension with United Kingdom, and evetually lead to WW1

hmmm ...

I didn't know there ever was solidarity between France and Russia,would you elaborate further.

There has always been solidarity between France and Russia, since Peter I, because at the time the French court is highly looked up upon. At this time it is more one sided. During the reign of Catherine II, Russian court spoke French. Most of everything is modelled after France. And Catherine eagerly seeks friendship with France. She personally sorresponded with figures like Voltaire, Diderot and d'Alembert. This is somewhat like a one-sided love, but .

All these is halted when Bonaparte took over, however friendship seemed to restored some after the Coalition threw out the little guy to his island.
By these time, French and Russian relationships were very unstable.

What Bismarck was trying to do is playing with the situation, turning a big rival from the east as allies.
and later Franco-Russian Alliance was announced, isolating Prussia.
Russia was part of the Allies in WWI.

19th Century European History has to deal with micro diplomatic issues, which can be quite confusing sometimes, I hope this helps clear things up.

Yea .. French was ' lingua franca ' among European elites before the rise of British Empire.

A twisted irony,Catherine The Great was a lower-rank German princess whose father Christian August ( Prince of Anhalt-Zerbst ) held the rank of a Prussian general.

The bond between France and Russia was rather economics than language. France had several interests in Russian railways before the Franco-Prussian War. Indeed, after the Crimean War, French and Russian relationship soured and not until 2 decades later that the warm-up came.

Didn't Kaiser Wilhelm II disrupt Bismarck's policies and long term plans? As I recall Germany and Russia fell out after Bismarck was sacked by Wilhelm. Kaiser Wilhelm, if I recall, was one of the factors that ruined Germany's fragile diplomatic relationships which inadvertently led to WW2. When Bismarck was in power Germany had an alliance with Russia, but after he was thrown out Russia had drifted apart from Germany, so I do not think he is the one to blame. Kaiser Wilhelm's policies tended to conflict with Bismarck's. WW2 occurred 20-30 years after Bismarck's time. That is about 1 generation after Bismarck during which time Kaiser Wilhelm had more influence on Germany's course of action than Bismarck did.

In my own opinion it is similar to blaming past presidents like Jimmy Carter for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that the United States is currently fighting in, rather than placing more blame on the current president. Not a perfect analogy, but nevertheless it would be somewhat of a stretch.

Yeah, that's right. Bismarck pursued a more diplomatic policy by not offending Britain, isolating France and being friendly to Russia. However Wilhelm II wanted a more aggressive foreign policy, he wanted Germany to be the best empire in the world. He was rather deluded and unrealistic, as he thought he could expand Germany by building a massive navy (leading to the Dreadnought Race with Britain) and army. However this upset Britain bringing it out of its "Splendid Isolation", France was no longer isolaed as the Cordiale Entente between Britain and France was created and Russia looked to France and Britain for diplomatic relations. Germany practically isolated itself with Austro-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire. Consequently the world ended up looking like how it was just before WWI, due to Wilhelm II.

If there was a politician who could claim to had achieved just quarter of what Bismarck actually achieved, he or she still would be considered a political genius. Bismarck's track record is incredible. He united the constellation of tiny German kingdoms and duchies into a unified state that reached status of a global superpower. He did this by both war and skillful diplomacy. At the end of his political career he brokered global peace during the Berlin conference. He was definitely one of greatest statesmen ever.

Consider for a moment the political skill of Adolf Hitler. If he had stopped his aggresive expansion prior to invading Poland, he would probably be considered one of the greatest statesmen of history, rivaling even Bismarck. After all, he undid the Versailles treaty without taking Germany to war, brought Austria in via the Anschluss, gobbled up the Czechs, and restored Germany to the status of a world power.

If Hitler stops before invading Poland, one of the greatest statesmen ever.

If Hitler hadn't attack Poland, he would be rather remembered as the man who brought greatest economic disaster to Germany. Seriously, the militarization of Germany was financed mostly by borrowed money and wealth plundered from Jews. When Hitler annexed Austria, the gold reserves of that tiny country surpassed by far the reserves of the Reich itself. Put the picture together by youself about how thin was the line on Hitler ballanced. Previous sources of cash were almost depleted by 1939. Hitler needed war and more plunder or he would face a complete economic crash.

I agree that Bismarck's achievements mark him as a great statesman, but the unification and rise of Germany was made easier by men such as Napoleon, the Fredericks, and many other things. I suppose that is what makes history so fascinating. Many pieces are interconnected and no single piece can be completely isolated from the rest.

That is true! The ineptitude of many people around Bismarck made his job easier.

Actually I was referring more to things like Napoleon's consolidation of the many German statelets into several larger ones, and the Fredericks' roles in helping Prussia gain the military capability and prestige which allowed it to be recognized as a great power.

Sorry that I misunderstood you! Yes the merger of tiny states into bigger states by Napoleon inadvertantly helped Bismarck unify Germany. Also Frederick the Great's militarism certainly inspired Bismarck. Sir Issac Newton's quote "If I have seen further it is only by standing on the shoulders of Giants" certainly applies to Bismarck, who achieved greatness from the precedent set by past leaders such as Napoleon and Frederick.

Bismarck, without a doubt, was one of, if not THE leading power behind the unification and rise of Germany.
How important he was in terms of foreign policy and stability in central europe can be illustrated with the fact how fast the political climate within europe shifted against Germany after he was replaced.
Which shows, in my opnion, the only thing he ultimately failed to achieve: a lasting long-term equilibrium within europe.
I'm not sure whether this was possible at all though.



All this is pretty hypothetical though, because there is no doubt that Hitler wanted war from the beginning.
Therefore he had good reason to militarize Germany to this extent.
The treaty of Versailles left Germany severely weakened and Hitler didn't make it a secret that he planned on revising all of it.
That said, in my opinion, Hitler as a statesman and general was incompetent. His rhetoric ability was undoubtedly great though.



Hitler, even before invading Poland, planned and started to carry out the final solution. A plan to exterminate all Jews from the European continent.
This fact alone disqualifies him as a potentially great statesman.
The versailles treaty was undone successfully, because the UK and France tried to preserve peace. They simply did not want to risk another all-out war after the experiences of WWI. Not because of Hitlers diplomatic skills.

The reliability of counterfactual history or virtual history is a pertinent historiographical issue when writing history. It is hard to say "what if Hitler didn't invade Poland" or "what would happen if Bismarck wasn't sacked by Wilhelm II, could WWI be avoided?" It is purely speculative and dependent on the person's imagination. The various variables led to the actions of the past. The assumption of hypotheticals does not consider these variables.

Of course with such questions you're entering the realm of opinion and guess.
As for the question whether WWI could have been evaded with Bismarck staying in power, I'd go for a strong "no".
I'm just turning towards this question, because it can fit in this thread/topic.
The militarization of European societes, high status of military and the conflicts within Europe would have lead to such a war eventually.
War was an accepted solution for conflicts (see the German-French war of 1871 for example).
WWI was so shocking, because it was a testing ground for new hightech weapons which endabled the military to mass-kill enemy forces.
It's no secret that the people in Europe didn't expect this war to turn out like that, they thought it would be over within weeks.
So in a way it was inevitable, yet a reason (Next to WWII.) Europeans nowadays can live in such a peaceful, demilitarized environment.

That is a fair point! 19th Century Europe was a very militarist and hostile world. Bismarck was successful in preventing any major scale war, by isolating France, being friendly to Russia and avoiding conflict with Britain by not expanding the navy. Once Wilhelm II took charge, Germany was certainly headed for war as they antagonisd their neighbours through their militarist policies. What if Bismarck was still on the job?

I reckon Bismarck's militarist "peace" (I know that is a strange oxymoron!) would have been sustained for a little longer, but eventually there would be a major catastrophe, such as the horrifying world conflagration known as World War I.

It is an undeniable fact that not only Germany, but most of the big European military forces were on a course to confrontation and war, eventually leading to WWI. That Germany started the war by giving Austria the absolute guarantee ("Blankoscheck") to side with it in case of war, was Wilhelm II intention as well as it was Russias, Frances and Britains intention to engage in war, trying to suppress an ascending middle-European military power. The Schlieffen-Plan ( to eliminate the threat of a 2 front war which Germany (i.e. Bismarck) feared, bypassing the heavily fortified southern border between Germany and France) was in existance due to this fact.
If all other nations were friendly and non-hostile, there would have been no need for a plan like this.
To my understanding, Bismarck did nothing more than delaying an inevitable war.

A funny example of the militarized society of Germany during this time is the story of the so-called "Hauptmann von Köpenick" (Wilhelm Voigt, you might check out wikipedia), a guy who abused the high social status of a military uniform and the blind obedience towards it) for theft. The story is still very well known in Germany.

I don't quite understand the point of this new argument. Are we saying that it is Bismarck's fault that WW1 occurred, or is there any point to these new arguments at all?

I'd say it's about the level of political impact and influence Bismarck had with his foreign policy.

The new argument is that WWI was inevitable with or without Bismarck. However Bismarck may have prolonged "peace", until war was inevitable.

I see. I was thinking the argument was veering towards blaming Bismarck for the war, which would be absurd. But, yes I suppose the war was inevitable and Europeans themselves saw it as inevitable. The French was getting worried that their population was not growing fast enough to keep pace with some of the other European powers in time for the "next war". They simply assumed there would be a next war. Turned out that next war would become World War 1. A war every generation wasn't it? We seem to forget how savage and competitive the world once was. After all that Europeans have learned to lay down their arms and reconcile. To come to an understanding. Perhaps the rest of the world could learn to do the same.

If history has taught us anything, it is that war is always somewhere. Even modern day Europe is not so peaceful, with the Yugoslav Civil War and the Cypriot dispute still an issue. But Bismarck's time was much more militarist. Although there is greater peace in the world compared to half a century ago.

Yes, there are ongoing conflicts there is no doubt about that. However, the pressure towards peace has never been greater. Compare the past with the present and there is no question that the present is infinitely more peaceful than the past. Perhaps the present and future can teach us a bit more than what history has to offer us in the ways of peace.

I don't think so, he would be considered a tyrant and a mass murder.

In the past anti-Jewish attacks were "allowed" by various governments in Europe with some unofficial support from local government leaders (speaking about the time after the Enlightenment in Europe) but Hitler created a government run death factory. If that came out, which it would have eventually, he would have lost international prestige.

If Hitler did the same thing 400 years earlier, likely no one would care.