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 who was better for Germany depended largely on matter of opinion and the outcome of their actions over the years.
The strengths and weaknesses of Prince Otto von Bismarck and Prince Klemens von Metternich are first mostly seen in their character. A person’s character defines who they are and their ideals, and these two men’s characters did more t...
Niccolò Machiavelli was a man who lived during the fourteen and fifteen hundreds in Florence, Italy, and spent part of his life imprisoned after the Medici princes returned to power. He believed that he should express his feelings on how a prince should be through writing and became the author of “The Qualities of a Prince.” In his essay, he discusses many points on how a prince should act based on military matters, reputation, giving back to the people, punishment, and keeping promises. When writing his essay, he follows his points with examples to back up his beliefs. In summary, Machiavelli’s “The Qualities of a Prince,” provides us with what actions and behaviors that a prince should have in order to maintain power and respect.
Hagen W (2012). ‘German History in Modern Times: Four Lives of the Nation’. Published by Cambridge University Press (13 Feb 2012)
In 1866 the Austro-Prussian War broke out between the two German states of Prussia and Austria. There had been conflicts between the two in previous decades, but Prussia, under the command of Otto von Bismarck, had sought a more lasting split. Under Bismarck’s control, conditions had been orchestrated to make war possible between the two and to ensure Prussia’s victory. Thus, when the opportunity was presented by the Duchies question, Bismarck took his chance and provoked a war. The war itself was over in seven weeks, with a Prussian victory, it was important as it symbolized the permanent separation of the two states. Though the Austro-Prussian War of 1866 had origins before Bismarck, Bismarck actively chose to prepare for and provoke a conflict with Austria in hopes of removing its influence from the German states.
Bismarck believed that Germany should be united under Prussian leadership and that Austria should have nothing to do with Germany. Bismarck was chosen as chancellor by the Prussian king as he had a proven record as a monarchist and had little time for liberal and excessive parliamentary ideas. Bismarck helped his long term plan to unite Germany and to be the ruler by getting in a strong position with the king. The king owned Bismarck a 'favour´ as Bismarck had solved the king´s constitutional crisis. Bismarck played a crucial part in the unification of Germany as he helped to set up the Northern German Confederation after defeating Austria in the second of three wars.
The German nation was born in January 1871 at the Palace of Versailles. Many factors have been noted by historians as to what led to the eventual unification of Germany such as; economic and industrial factors and the role of Otto Von Bismarck. A debate that has emerged over German Unification is whether it was united by ‘coal and iron’ or ‘blood and iron’; this looks at whether economic or political factors were the main driving force behind unification. In this essay I will explore these factors and gain an understanding of how these factors contributed to German Unification and come to a decision as to whether it was a nation unified by economic
Kaiser, David E. Politics and War: European Conflict from Philip II to Hitler. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1990. Print.
In the late 1800s, Chancellor Otto Von Bismarck used different strategical plans in order to gain as much power possible, the majority of the plans consisted of him taking advantage of the different political parties. Bismarck used many traditional political strategies in order to gain the power he craved for, such as creating harsh laws and prohibiting certain beliefs or ideas. Unfortunately, these strategies did not satisfy the people, so Bismarck later started to increase the welfare of the working class, apologized to the Socialists, and did much more to obtain more political strength which eventually created a new conservatism. In an effort to increase political power for the Kaiser, Chancellor Otto Von Bismarck uses liberal and traditional
Nationalisms powerful and intense impact on individuals is demonstrated in Rudolf von Ihering’s Two Letters (1866). By offering individuals a group to be a part of became something which appeared to be boundless in its potential for prosperity and it gave individuals a sense of empowerment. Initially, Von Ihering had rigorously opposed Realpolitik’s policies which were employed by Otto von Bismarck, declaring that, “everyone [in Ger...
Research will be drawn from many sources including several historical studies and online articles. The sources used revolve around Bismarck's attitudes and actions toward German unification and general policy. Sources include works by historians A.J.P. Taylor and James Wycliffe Headlam. The policies of Bismarck during the interwar period were researched as well, through several scholastic journals and written works.
Prince Metternich was a gifted politician and understood the ideas of patriotism and nationalism in the balance of power in Europe. We see an example of his understanding of these ideas in how he treated France in the post-Napoleonic era that the Congress of Vienna was about. If you look at how gracious he was ...
Berghahn Books. 2000 Germany and the Germans. After the Unification of the. New Revised Edition. John Ardagh.
Metternich was an extremely intelligent man who turned his conservative beliefs into international policy. Metternich was a confident leader who put little faith in popular opinion or sentiment because he believed that the common man was too fickle in his loyalties and too inept to understand the magnitude of foreign policy. He was a loyal "servant" to the Austrian Emperor, even though Metternich was the true head of the Empire's government. Prince Klemens von Metternich was a complex individual that embodied the principles of 19th century conservatism and, through his Congress of Vienna, led the major European powers to a period of long-lasting peace and a strong balance of power.
Within Nazi government, Hitler acted as the final source of authority, which serves as evidence against the notion that Hitler was ‘weak’. Having consolidated power by 1934 Hitler was, at least theoretically, omnipotent, being Chancellor, Head of State and “supreme judge of the nation”. However, the notion that Nazi government systematically pursued the clear objectives of the Fuhrer is challenged by the reality of Nazi government structure. It has been widely accepted by historians that the Nazi State was a chaotic collection of rival power blocs. Mommsen’s explanation that this was the result of Hitler’s apathy towards government a...
The “German” nation, before it even became known as Germany, had undergone a period of transition from its inherited culture as a result of the French invasion and the Napoleonic wars. There was a sense that the German cultur...
“Bismarck and German Nationalism.” The American Historical Review Vol. 60, No.3 (1955): pg. 78. 548-556.