i think that the fall of the Iron Chancellor, Otto von Bismark, had as great of an impact as his rise. His fall, expedited by the new Kaiser, altered the course of German history in that one of Germany's greatest political influences was no longer there. Bismark was a remarkable man. He took an dynamic fractured "confederation" and solidified it into a static, unified nation. Not only did he unite these individual kingdoms/dutchies/provinces, but he turned them into a viable, powerful entity. In the middle of nowhere was a militarized country. Its a fear inspiring prospect.
I wonder what the ratio of skill to luck there was in Bismarks success. In the very least he had the wit and cunning to turn potentially neutral situations into an advantage for Germany. For example: what if the King of Denmark hadn't died? Or if he had died even just one year later. Would the impact have been the same? Would Austria have been as vulnerable (does anyone know if they were getting better or worse at this time)? I mean, even if the new Danish King hadn't been so aggressive with trying to absorb Schleiswig and Holstein, would Bismark have been able to nullify the threat posed by the Austrian Empire? His success at defeating the French was also based on the "lucky" timing of the deposition of the Spanish Queen Isabella II. These events cannot be planned out. I mean you could guess that something might happen given the temperament of a country or the health of a king and I dont know if Bismark had that advantage. But even with the luck, Bismark had to have an extraordinary knack for turning these situations into a positive for Prussia. He had almost a sixth sense about it (which i feel gives alot of credence to the mittelege idea of geopolitics).
By taking out Bismark, Willhelm II got rid of the key behind the Empire. Wilhelm was certainly not the strategizer or the stabilizer that Bismark was. (Which, by the way, I dont think its possible to evaluate the rise of the german empire and not recognize Bismarks influence). With Bismark gone, who would be able to do for the Empire what he did? He had decades worth of knowledge and experience. I feel that those who came after him did not understand the nature of the politics to the extent that Bismark did and by neglect harmed the power and position of the Chancellor.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Well I have to say: I agree with everything that you said. Bismarck's influence in turning the loose confederation of states into a powerful European entity was brilliant. I doubt that he had anymore ability than anyone else to see the events as they came down the road, but still, he had the ability to turn situations that could have done absolutely nothing in the future to be something in the favor of Germany. Bismarck's removal later on must have had a huge impact on the stability of the country. And, again, I agree that the people involved in politics at the time of Bismarck's exit must have had no idea what they were going to be dealing with after he left.
ReplyDeleteBismarck certainly looms large in any discussion of German history and has received both credit and blame for his actions. He definitely had some lucky breaks but I also agree with you that he seized his opportunities and made the most of them. While Bismarck might not have been able initiate all of the events of his reign, he certainly was willing to take chances and to recognize the ways in which politics and society were changing. As far as his dismissal, I don't think many people would argue that William II was a responsible or dedicated leader but what many historians have pointed out is that Bismarck perhaps was lossing his grip on the situation and that events had arguably progressed to the point at which even the Iron Chancellor could not control them. For example, instead of recognizing the growing power and appeal of Social democracy, Bismarck sought increasingly to oppress and outlaw the party, a strategy that was not in keeping with political developments in the 1890s.
ReplyDelete