The Oxford English Dictionary defines the word leader as “One who leads;” yet to characterize Frederick the Great, Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, and Otto von Bismarck as men who led would not do their lives justice. They are notable historic figures because they exceeded the requirements of their respective titles. Both Fredrick and Bismarck shaped the Prussian and German governments in a dogmatic style and maintained their personal and incontrovertible identities. This however, did not mean that their sense of self harmonized with their political agenda. Goethe differs from them in the sense that he was a socio-cultural leader and not a political one. Nonetheless, his achievements in the progression of German literature influenced society between Frederick and Bismarck’s reigns, culturally shaping the nation, and making his work equally as important as the two political leaders. Through their relentless visions and interpretations of what the Germanic lands should emerge to be, revolution and eventual unification spread among the states, establishing Germany as a prevailing world power. Because of their keen intellects, the country of Germany came into existence, but more importantly, they outlined the characteristic that personifies a German. Frederick, Goethe, and Bismarck approached their roles in a static and rigid manner that often opposed their innovative and artistic freedom, formulating a German nationality based on their narcissistic individualities and not on the distinct German states. Frederick’s enlightened views clashed with his militaristic agenda; Goethe’s literary works negated his political views; and Bismarck’s Junker identity disclaimed his imperious ruling style. The strain that all three figures faced in prese...
... middle of paper ...
...al part of German society does not sit well with Goethe, and he obviously expressed his views against it. Yet these views did not extend to him. Goethe eventually became a government official under the Grand Duke of Saxe-Weimar-Eisenach, and was ennobled in 1782 (HIST.146 2/5/14). Social order and class were issues that eventually led to World War I, and Goethe was right in opposing them. His inability to resist conformity, like Frederick the Great, shows his contrasting personality. Goethe played a crucial and essential role in German unification, and he stayed on that path by criticizing the royal court. His acceptance of nobility showed that he was not immune to the ideas of the state and that German nationality depended on his own opportunistic views. Like Frederick, what Goethe defined as German was his personal ideas and actions, not the views of the people.
Prussia had been a relatively conservative nation for a while with the monarch as the central point of power and Fredrick William did not want to change that at all, he spent years passing constitutions and electing representative bodies to keep his control. When in 1848 when rebellion began in Berlin to avoid upsetting many he refused to send in troops hoping the rebellion would fissile out. He even made concessions in their liberal favor and allowed a re-election. When the rebellion didn’t diminish a few days after his announcement of concessions he sent in troops to clear out the square, which ending in killing a few people. When angry protestors surrounded the palace Fredrick William IV showed respect to those who had died in the clearing of the square the day before and made even more concessions allowing an assembly to form. However soon the assembly soon revealed it was full of strong liberal radicals and he soon dismissed the assembly and filled it with more conservatives, showing just how deeply conservative Fredrick William was and how unwilling he was to change.
Hagen W (2012). ‘German History in Modern Times: Four Lives of the Nation’. Published by Cambridge University Press (13 Feb 2012)
The understanding of European politics during the latter half of the extended nineteenth century, particularly from 1848 onward to the First World War, is as much about the European political climate as a whole as it is about the key figures within this climate. For example, one cannot fully understand the multitude of independence and nationalist movements in the Balkans during this time without first understanding the outside pressures placed on these movements by the three competing empires of the Russians, Habsburgs, and Ottomans; and only then delving into the multitude of persons whom inspired the individual movements. Likewise, understanding the German situation at this time is just as much about the European picture as a whole, as it is about the people within the German system itself; of which, Otto von Bismarck is clearly the synonymous figure. With that said, it follows that a purely biographical approach to this turbulent time in German politics, focused on Bismarck, will leave one largely without the knowledge of the greater European situation; however, this same biographical approach also helps to understand the political interworking and personal relationships that forged a unified Germany, something that the study of the European climate as a whole fails to do.
But Bismarck never actually attached himself to the National Liberal aims, and instead he ‘mainly sought to safeguard the position of the federal states, above all Prussia, and ensure their rights were protected’, so therefore it can be seen that he had planned unification from the outset, thus Bismarck playing a very important role in the unification of Germany. Furthermore his ‘domestic policies were driven by his determination to consolidate the new national state’, once again showing his large impact on the unification of Germany. However it is undeniable that the national liberal movement did play a large and important role in the unification of Germany and the most obvious and clear example of this is that ‘the National Liberals were the most powerful political party in Germany by the end of the unification process’ showing their political power. However, without Bismarck it could be argued that they would not have been able to get their views across but also Bismarck sought unification through war to secure the Germany he supposedly wanted. This is seen as Bismarck knew that ‘an agreement with Austria to divide Germany was always unlikely and that ultimately force would have to decide the issue’, this clearly linking into the Wars of Unification that followed which in the end secured the unification of Germany
Until the nineteenth century, music was generally regarded as an international language. Folk music had always been in place and linked directly with particular regions. On a larger scale though, European music was a device for expression through the application of Italian techniques and styles. In other words, its technical vocabulary was Italian, and from the time of the early baroque, European music, in general, had evolved its styles and technical devices from the developments of Italian composers. Furthermore, court opera was nearly always performed in Italian, whether in Dresden or in London, no matter who composed it or where it was performed. For example, in 1855, Queen Victoria suggested to Richard Wagner that he translate his opera Tannhauser into Italian so that it could secure a production in London. Thus, European music, regardless of where it was composed could be (and was) performed throughout Europe and understood through the common Italian commands, descriptions, and styles. It was unacceptable for most to compose in any other way. The international idea began to collapse in the early nineteenth century as embattled nations or nations subjugated by a foreign invader began to think of music as an expression of their own national identity, personality, or as a way of voicing national aspirations.
In September 15, 1935 Nazi Germany’s Reichstag enacted the Reich Citizenship Law. This law was not the beginning, but one of many of the Nazi government’s attempts to create a uniform sense of community in Germany. Prior to 1933, Germany’s government was ruled by the Weimar republic, which took over after WW1. Citizens of Germany were upset with the economic and political problems that plagued the country following the Treaty of Versailles, and were desperate for a charismatic leader who offered change and promised to fix these plaguing issues. Their leader’s name was Adolf Hitler and by the means of consolidating power, Hitler was able to rebuild Germany, and instill in its citizens a unified sense of pride of their country. To achieve absolute power, Hitler passed certain laws that defined what a citizen was, and what was required of them. These laws created would in effect destroy the rights of certain people, and in turn allow for
Bonhoeffer was born in Breslau Germany on February forth 1906. His father was a doctor who worked with Hitler, but not for him. This was when he was in jail before he came to power in World War I. Dr. Karl Bonhoeffer tried to deem Hitler insane while he was in jail. That was his attempt to keep him there in jail before he could hurt anyone. In jail Hitler liked to talk about what he was going to do when he became the leader of Germany. His ideas were of what later happened what he accualy did become a leader in Germany. His parents were not very religious, but they still distilled him with lots of values such as discipline, kindness and many others. These were some of the reasons that he decided to fight the fight he chose. Bonhoeffer went to an all boys’ school and later studied at the University of Berlin and wrote his doctor discretion at the age of twenty-one.
In the time leading up to and during Hitler’s reign in Germany, German citizens felt the impacts of the political as well as the economic situation of the country. These conditions in Germany led to the building of the Nazi party and to the Holocaust. The new government headed by Adolf Hitler changed the life of all Germans whether they joined the Nazi party themselves or opposed the ideas of Hitler or aided Jews to fight the persecution they suffered under this government.
Communities throughout history have always sought to define who they are as a collective whole. Over the course of time, it was this that helped bind nations together through a collective sense of national identity and belonging. Although there are some set definitions that people use to define who collectively are, such as their own language and national history, this is not the only explanation of how groups of people have conceived who they are. In reality, communities have primarily conceived who they are by comparing themselves to an ‘other’ who they are not. As the historian Peter Sahlins put it, national identity over the course of time has been constructed “by the social or territorial boundaries drawn to distinguish the collective self and its implicit negation, the other.” As this argument suggests, throughout history, definitions of ‘us’ have been dependent on the contrasting definitions of ‘them’. I propose that communities have used this concept of the ‘other’ in order to elevate their own perceived superiority over groups that they deemed inferior. This essay will explore how these definitions have shaped history, from the time of the Romans all the way up to the twenty-first century. It will also be necessary to look at the varying ways in which groups are differentiated from each other, such as in terms of religion, nationality, race, and political beliefs. It is only through this exploration that we can fully understand the ways in which people have defined themselves and interacted with others over the course of time.
Taylor, A. J. P. Bismarck, the Man and the Statesman. New York: Knopf, 1955. Print.
The WW2 in Europe finished as a result of the unequivocal surrender of Germans back on May in the year 1945. The Germans surrendered and surrendered to their Western adversaries who were Americans and Britain, and it occurred on eighth May, and the partition surrender occurred on ninth May. In this way, the German pioneer Karl Donitz surrendered and assumed control or Hitler to end the war. Then again, the Pacific war initiated when Japanese besieged the Pearl Harbor in December 1941 in Hawaii City. Thusly, this was trailed by a few arrangements and fights yet Americans shelled Japanese urban communities in retribution and this made Japanese to surrender on 14th August. The Japanese marked the surrender yet a discussion still exists on what
To begin with, Otto Von Bismarck’s mother, whose name is Wilhelmina Mencken, impacted him the most, when he was in his young ages. She didn’t want her son to become another insipid landowners, or as they were called Junkers, as his father was. “She had high hopes for her gifted son. She pushed him mercilessly to study hard and make something of himself”(19). However, as any other young boy he didn’t like to study, but it’s mother, who decides what is the best for the child. This made Otto hate her, when he was a kid. Nevertheless, his mother was not the only important person in his childhood: “The second great power in Otto’s life was his father, Ferdinant von Bismarck.”(19) The Bismarcks had been Junkers for centuries. They had the reputation of being tough, unimaginative, and absolutely loyal to their king. “Otto later confessed that he wa...
The Unification of Germany Bismarck Otto von Bismarck achieved the unification of the disjointed German states through the skillful understanding of realpolitikand the Machiavellian use of war as a political tool to eliminate Germany's rival nations, gain the support of the German people and gain territory. This ultimately created a German legacy of strong militaristic tendencies, scheming national relations, and economic clout challenging the European heavyweights like England and France. Bismarck's plan for unification began with his instigation of war with the small German states of Schleswig and Holstein over an insignificant dispute concerning the governing of the states. Bismarck's next move was to bring on a war with Austria resulting from minor disputes over the Schleswig-Holstein conflict. With a victory for Prussia in this second conflict, Bismarck's remaining European rival was France.
Germany is a beautiful country of rich and bold history. Since its birth at the Congress of Vienna, this nation has undergone many changes. Many changes good, and some not so good. From the rise of the Nazi Party to the demolition of the Berlin wall to the Berlin Olympics, these changes are evident in the nation’s flags. Its government was responsible for most of these changes, and just as the national anthem is tied to the nations government so is its flag. Because the government changed so much about the nation throughout time, we can analyze it by looking at the many different flags the country has had. In fact, one could learn about the history of Germany by analyzing the history of its flag. Germany has had upwards of 11 flags, and each change of flag symbolizes a major change the country has undergone.
Otto von Bismarck was extremely hard working. When he had a goal or task in mind, he completed it. The willingness to give up school in order to take care of his family’s estate shows that he was very family oriented. Bismarck most likely looked up to his parents greatly and as Bismarck lead, he intended to do great things and accomplish what he needed to in order to gain his father’s pride and respect. Overall, the main influence of Otto von Bismarck was his parents and his drive to succeed in what he set his mind to. During his almost 30 year reign, he developed in a family of nobility and through the process became a prime minister, controlled most of Germany and claimed the title of chancellor. On March 20, 1890 Bismarck resigned and to certain historians of the Weimar period who saw “1890 as the end of a golden age”. (Williamson 90-91)