You will all be responsible to post at least twice about the following questions. Be sure not to repeat information and try to build off of one anothers posts. Try to post links and videos that might help to explain your point of view and allow the conversation to go where your intellectual curiosity takes you.
Assess the validity of the following and use evidence to prove your response: Prince Otto von Bismark could be considered Machiavelli's model of the ideal ruler in that, he was feared by his people and he used any ends to justify the tactics he used in bringing about the unification of the German states.
Otto von Bismarck was a very interesting man. His biggest goal was to unify Germany, but the way he achieved that was through deceit, manipulation, and the blood of his enemies. The most prominent event that supports this was the start of the Franco-Prussian war. By editing a conversation between Kaiser Wilhelm of Prussia and the Prussian ambassador from France, Count Benedetti, and publishing it as the Ems Dispatch, both countries felt their respective politicians were insulted. Hostilities rose between France and Prussia; Napoleon III was so angry that he declared war on Prussia. Now France was the antagonist, and the German people were obligated to fend off their enemies.
ReplyDeleteThis was the perfect way to bring the German states together. Enraged by the degradation and provocation of France, the German people were able to stand together under the Prussian king and go to war with France. If Bismarck hadn’t stepped in, none of this would have happened. The Franco-Prussian war was caused by a false conversation created by Bismarck. He knew France would act first, and he knew the German people would respond to that with an outrage that allowed them to come together as a common enemy.
Bismarck was a skilled politician who knew how to use his opponents to his advantage. He deceitfully “edited” important documents to set his plan into motion, manipulating the governments of both France and Prussia to start a war that would ultimately end in German unification, which, for Bismarck, is a personal victory. His ability to indirectly control two nations and the emotions of their people makes him a powerful politician who can on one hand be respected, and on another feared.
Informitive, and well done!
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNRNfo4Wo9c&feature=related
Here is a pretty good video that gives a lot of info on how things led up to the German unification and what happened during it.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=asxsxHbgStg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3k724JX-PY&feature=related
ReplyDeleteThis video I found very interesting and it shows the public opinion of Bismarck at the time. He was considered a madman and was not taken seriously. I found this interesting because he is never remembered as a madman, but as the great unifier of Germany. He would be a Machiavellian leader because he was able to unite the German people. For example, the people in Southern Germany were strongly influenced by the Austrian Empire. This empire was very strong and held a lot of influence in this area. Also, he was able to negotiate with the enemy of his enemy which would be Italy. He was able to use a common enemy to unite the new Germany. As Jackie said he was able to use various countries as a common enemy for the German people. He can easily have been feared for his military might in Prussia. However, he was loved by the German people for helping unite these people and destroy their enemies.
Jackie made a perfect point when she said that Cavour was an interesting man. I completely agree with the statement that he can be considered Machiavelli’s model of the perfect ruler in that, he was feared by his people and he used any ends to justify the tactics he used in bringing about the unification of the German states. In Jackie’s post she talked about the Franco-Prussian war, but I will begin with the taking of the throne by William I and the selection of Bismarck as prime minister.
ReplyDeleteOn taking the throne of Prussia, William I made the most important decision of his reign when he selected Bismarck as his prime minister. William was engaged at the time in a fight with his parliament over military reforms that he wanted in order to challenge Austrian supremacy in the German Confederation. To break the stalemate, William turned to Bismarck, a Junker, who was known for his arch-conservative views. Standing before the parliamentary budget commission, Bismarck delivered his “Blood and Iron” speech in which he said, “Germany is not looking for Prussia’s liberalism but for her power…it is not by speeches and majority resolutions that the great equations of the time will be decided, but by iron and blood.” Despite the colorful speech, the parliament still refused to vote in favor of the military budget. Never one to bother with constitutional niceties, Bismarck simply ignored them and collected the taxes and implemented the reforms. To their great discredit, the Prussian liberals did nothing to oppose this blatant disregard for their authority. Thus, this situation was a perfect example of the power that Bismarck held and the disregard he had for opposition against his policies. Bismarck was truly a great ruler and he used any ends to justify the tactics he used in bringing about the unification of the German states.
The key to his plan to create a unified German state was to modernize the Prussian army by giving it the latest weapons. The first stage in this plan took place in 1864 and involved an alliance with Austria against Denmark over the disputed territories of Schleswig and Holstein. After easily defeating the Danes in the Danish War, Schleswig came under Prussian control while Holstein was run by the Austrians. Bismarck cunningly set up this system, since he wanted the Danish dispute to help achieve his next goal – war with Austria. This Danish situation once again demonstrates the cunning and keen personality of Otto von Bismarck. Through these qualities he had the power to achieve anything that he wanted and as we can see here he could even trick and entire country to achieve his purpose of German unification.
ReplyDeleteAnother great video about German Unification!!! This one is a music video made by another AP History class.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HG1PrftVQyc
i spit a better rhyme then them no doubt haha. But that was good. i feel like they did a good job to asses Bismark's qualities within. They mapped out the events of unification and they commented on his tactics. It was nice to see how well they expressed his ideals. He would stop at nothing to get what he wanted. No matter who he had to trample to get it, as portrayed in Ray Allen's verse about the war with Austria. Thus making him a machiavellian ruler. He let nothing come between him and his goals. He was not affraid to exploit his people if he had to.
DeleteOtto von Bismarck was definitely a Machiavellian ruler. He can be compared very closely to Hitler, other than the fact that he is involved with Germany. Hitler had used his hatred towards the Jews to gain the support of the German people. He had no remorse towards the Jews, and continued to kill of thousands of them in order to take sole control of Germany. Otto used anything and everything to get Germany involved in a full out war with those who opposed the Germans. He was clever enough, as Jackie had stated, to “edit” the telegram from Kaiser Wilhelm to the French Ambassador to make it look as though the Kaiser had insulted Napoleon III. This made it look as though the French were the bad guys for starting the war. Otto did not care who he insulted, or what he had to do to create a united Germany. Bismarck’s famous line, “blood and iron”, refers to the fact that Bismarck was willing to do anything to get Germany together, which meant war. Though Germany and Italy were rival nations, they both had people who believed that war would bring about unification. You had the Danish War, Austro-Prussian War, and the Franco-Prussian were a few of the conflicts that finally led to German unification, and proved to the French, as well as other surrounding nations, that Germany was a force to be reckoned with. Germany, throughout the years, has always tried to prove itself as a nation by always trying to fight larger countries, and also trying to control its people through fear.
ReplyDeleteOtto von Bismarck exemplified the Machiavellian ruler through his political and militaristic prowess. In 1862, Bismarck reorganized the Prussian army and improved training in preparation for war. In 1864, he constructed an alliance with Austria to fight Denmark over Denmark's southern provinces of Schleiswig and Holstein. Prussia received Schleiswig while Austria administered Holstein. That situation, however, could not stand for long, as Austrian Holstein was now surrounded by Prussian lands. Bismarck provoked a conflict with Austria over an unrelated border dispute and in the subsequent Seven Weeks' War, Prussia crushed the collapsing Austrian army. The peace settlement transferred Holstein to Prussia and forced Austria to officially remove itself from all German affairs.
ReplyDeleteAn example of Bismarck using any ends to justify his tactics is his act of forgery in Prussia's communications with the French. With Austria out of Bismarck's way, his next obstacle was the skepticism of the southern provinces. Overwhelmingly Catholic and anti-militaristic, the southern provinces doubted Prussia's commitment to a united Germany of all provinces. Prussia's Protestantism and historic militarism made the gulf between north and south quite serious. Therefore, Bismarck turned to realpolitik to unite the Germanic provinces by constructing a war against a common enemy. In 1870, Bismarck forged a note from the French ambassador, implying that the ambassador had insulted the Prussian king. After he leaked this letter to both populations, the people of France and Prussia, roused by nationalist sentiment, rose up in favor of war. As Bismarck hoped, the southern provinces rallied to Prussia's side without any hesitation. In July 1870, France declared war on Prussia. Within a matter of weeks of fighting in Alsace-Lorraine, France lost this Franco-Prussian War. Alsace-Lorraine was transferred to Germany in the peace settlement, allowing Prussia to declare the German Empire, or Second Reich, on January 21, 1871.
ReplyDeleteThis video is very informative and comical. It greatly praises Otto von Bismarck's leadership in the German Unification.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HG1PrftVQyc
As Mike said, Otto von Bismarck boosted up the Prussian army, and was preparing for war against Austria. When referring to a Machiavellian leader, one must keep in mind that most Machiavellians, most of the time, focused on building up a strong army, which helps to spread fear to other nations. With Bismarck’s focus on war, Germany was becoming more industrialized. Coal and iron production increased due to more weapons being made to support the growing armed forces of Germany. Production, exports, and manufacturing continued to grow during the years that Germany was at war. Despite all that Germany was gaining from Bismarck, he had slowly begun to lose power though after he tried to establish his own set of domestic policies that did not agree with his confederation. Once a leader like Bismarck begins to lose support, he begins to lose his influence as well. By the 1890’s, Bismarck had lost a lot of popularity amongst his people. A Machiavellian leader must have a firm support from his or her people because without them, they would be powerless. Bismarck had tried to unite the Germans through war, but eventually lost their interest and support. Power tends to go to most people’s heads when they start to gain to much, which is what happened to Bismarck in a way. Having defeated the Austrians, and proving Germany has a powerful nation against the French, Bismarck had felt the need to try and decide things for himself. Keep in mind that he was only Prime Minister, which meant he did not hold all the power of Germany, which is why when he started making decisions on domestic policies, many of which were aimed at religion, he began to lose support from his people.
ReplyDeleteMatt! I totally agree with you about the Machiavellian ruler's focus on the military strength. Bismarck proved his wisdom of the nature of war and his acute awareness of his surroundings.
DeleteWell, lets remember what a Machiavellian Ruler is. Someone who has virtues, someone who is intelligent, someone who uses what he has, and someone who has the support of the people.
ReplyDeleteBismarck didn't come out of thin air, he had to work his way to the top from Chamber of Deputies to Imperial Chancellor. The man obviously was doing something right to get to there.
Yet Bismark Wouldn't have gotten to where he wanted had not been for his involvement in the Franco-Prussian war. Yes the people were behind him against France, but he made his own war. Was war inevitable without his involvement with the documents, maybe. War could have happened anyway since France was a long time annoyance.
I guess you could call him a Machiavellian ruler after all. France and Germany were on the verge of war, all they needed was a spark.
A good example of Bismarck’s ruthlessness is through his religious toleration, or lack thereof. He believed the Catholic Church held too much power; one-third of the population was Catholic. As devout Protestant, he feared the growth of the Catholic Centre Party, and, with the help of the National Liberty Party, he abolished the Catholic Department of the Prussian Ministry of Culture, which left the Catholics without a voice in the higher circles of government. The Kulturkampf, and anti-Catholic culture struggle, was launched in 1871. Under this policy, all Prussian bishops and many priests were imprisoned or exiled, and the Jesuits were expelled from the country. Unfortunately for Bismarck, the socialists started using the Kulturkampf to attack all organized religion. It was abolished; Bismarck decided he needed the votes from the Catholic Centre Party to aid him in the fight against socialism.
ReplyDeleteThis abuse of Catholicism shows how cold-hearted Bismarck was. He had no sympathy for those who didn’t agree with him, whether it is in religion or politics. All he cared about was what he wanted and what he thought was best for Germany as a whole. Unfortunately he let his supposed good intentions get in the way of what the people wanted.
Bismarck didn't really end his winning streak there though. Infact, he made sure Germany would prosper by trying to form alliances between Germany, Austria and Russia. Unfortunately, rivalry in the balkans delayed this alliance (Bismark actually attempted to relieve things himself in meetings at Berlin).
ReplyDeleteItaly would join this alliance and so would Russia, eventually. His policies involved a Laissez-faire economy.
He tried to abolish the Roman Catholic church as well, believing that there needed to be a clear separation between church and state, which is ironic since he tied alot of religion inot his motivational speeches.
All in all, the guy not only stuck to his word, he made sure Germany was on the right path towards greatness, overshadowing the one thing he had to do to get a unified Germany, mainly, starting a war himself.
Otto von Bismark could be considered the ideal ruler in Machiavelli's model due to his brilliant tactics of war and the help in unifying Europe. He did use whatever tactics it took to bring Germany together to unify them. Such as when he purposally provoked the Franco- Prussian War in order to get what he wanted. Which ended up being him obtaining Alsace and Lorraine from France. Part of the main reason that Bismark wanted to unify Germany in the first place was because it would help him. However he wasnt exactly straight out feared by his people but their were probably people who did fear what he could do and would do. However I dont think that Bismark complelty fits the description of the ideal ruler because he often tried to maintain peace. He was all about blood and iron but when he could he focused on keeping peace such as the way he used his skills to attempt to keep the peace in Europe for a generation.
ReplyDeleteOtto von Bismark was definitely a Machiavellian ruler. Although he ruled with an iron fist, he was a ridiculously smart individual. I agree with Matt, Otto, as a ruler of Germany, was very similar to Hitler. He was able to plan everything three steps in advance, which led to his rising in politics. For example, in 1863, there was a revolt that broke out in the Russian controlled Poland, that he sent Prussian troops to assist stabilize the situation. Therefore, Russia "owned him one". Also, he formed an Alliance with the newly unified Italy. Just as Hitler did, Otto formed useful alliances with larger, most established countries that surrounded Germany. Also, against the constitution of Germany at the time, Otto von Bismark collected taxes, and reformed the military, without the Landtag. He claimed that he would not settle for Parliament's vote, but only by "blood and iron". He outright disobeyed the former workings of the Germany government, just as Hitler did when he was in power.
ReplyDeleteOtto von Bismark's tactics upon unifying Germany also lead to the belief that he is a Machiavellian ruler. He was able to unify Germany through using his allies to drive out the Austrians. He used Italy to assist them, and for both Germany and Italy to gang up on Austria as a common enemy. This tactic led to the successes that both countries gained. According to Jose's definition of a Machiavellian ruler, one must be virtuous and have the support of his people. Otto von Bismark, although he did use deceit to gain his power at the top, he had the support of his people. This showed through the fact that he wasn't kicked out of power from the beginning. Although people did think he was crazy, the public knew that he would be crazy enough to unify their country.
ReplyDeletedougie with Otto von B, anyone?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gGBtGCdq9M
best thing ever. seriously. i cannot think of a better and quicker way to learn about him and german unification. legit.
DeleteId like to prove that Bismark was a machiavellian ruler by comparing him to another ruler who i see as an easy match. That ruler is Joseph Stalin. Stalin was a dictator who's actions seem to be overlooked when looking back in history, as they took place around the same time as the holocaust. Stalin was a strict authoritarian. He was in charge, and if you had a problem then your life was over. He was also paranoid, always wondering if he was in danger. These qualities certainly prove true with Bismark as he was ready to crush the Austrian nation for countering his thoughts. He was also worried that with great power, came great risk. Always wondering if someone was out to get him, killing suspected treacherous fiends. The obvious and most valid statement made about both men is their love of manipulation. Dictators thrive on their power to manipulate their people. Bismark could twist around even the words of the bible to get his people seeing things his way. This is his strongest machiavellian quality.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nep3GbAkCFg&feature=related
ReplyDeleteDo disregard the creepy voices. Putting that aside the information that was presented through this video showed the progression of Germanys unification. The German states supported the Prussians and gave them a better chance to be separated from foreign forces.
Otto von Bismarck is seriously the definition of a Machiavellian Ruler, for the obvious reasons posted above. He actually in many ways is like Niccolo Machiavelli himself. There positions greatly resembles one anothers, Bismark was the minister of Prussia and Machiavelli’s role in the Florentine government was to rule the state under their sovereigns authority. They were both super manipulative and used the idea of fear to rally thier people. Bismark used it to unify Germany by telling his people that God had strategically placed them smack between the two most hostile countries in Europe, France and Russia, that way to make them feel that the only way to unify was through war. However, the most Machiavellian aspect of his ruling was when he provoked France into war. He manipulated After meeting with the French to discuss the Spanish thrown Bismarck made it seem as though Germany had been screwed over by France, and when they said that to the French it greatly angered them. He also intercepted a message from France to Kaiser Wihlelm and changed it which escelated the issue. He also like Machiavelli had a huge passion for nationalism.Bismark hoped that nationalism would help the people of the independent German states join the Northern German Confederation. Machiavelli demontrated his nationalism in his novel The Prince.
ReplyDelete-Sarah Walters
Otto von Bismarck was, without a doubt, Machiavelli’s model ruler; there is no doubt that he was feared by his people and that he used any ends to justify the tactics he used in bringing about the unity of the German states. However, I think it is super important to mention that despite his apparent brutality and determination to unify Germany, he was flexible and very pragmatic.
ReplyDeleteThe “Iron Chancellor” knew how to get the job done. To begin, he did what he had to, whatever that was, to unify Germany. This began in 1861 after the Prussian parliament refused to grant the military budget that Bismarck and Wilhelm I requested. He secured finds by ignoring the constitution and the legislature; he collected taxes and ruled illegally until 1866 when the Prussian parliament sanctioned his actions. He was the one who started the whole process of unification! Due to his illegal strengthening of the army, Prussia would be strong enough to drive Austria out of the picture and unify Germany. Breaking the law, or a few, to unify a nation seems pretty rational to me.
He knew Germany wasn’t going to be unified by making friends and having tea parties. It was going to be “by blood and iron.” As others have said, the best example of this is the Franco-Prussian War. His secret editing of the telegram between Kaiser Wilhelm of Prussia and the French ambassador, Count Benedetti was the single most important thing he could’ve done. The “EMS Dispatch” insulted both nations and caused a war that resulted in the deaths of thousands of men. Napoleon III was furious about the insults and declared war against the Prussian aggressor, just like Bismarck anticipated. It also rallied German national feeling, it was no longer the Prussian-dominated North German Confederation. It does not matter when, where, or why, a common enemy will always unite a common group of people. It was perfect. There was a rallied German national feeling and the war swiftly executed thanks to the monstrous Prussian forces. As expected, the four Southern Catholic states, delighted over the victory over France, joined the north and the German Empire was officially proclaimed. German unification was the ultimate justification for a war with France, and none of these events would have occurred if it hadn’t been for Bismarck. He, like no one else at the time, was acutely aware of his surroundings and seized upon once-in-a-lifetime opportunities.
Bismarck also was remembered for his apparent brutality. It seems as though he had no regard for human life when he provoked a war with France. He was willing to sacrifice the lives of his people for something that might or might have not actually happened. However, he knew that that was what had to be done and was willing to take the risk.
Jackie mentioned Bismarck’s campaign against the Roman Catholic Church in the 1870s as evidence of his brutality. I do agree that it was an example of his brutality, yet I don’t see him having any other option. He was out to unify Germany and the Church was getting in the way. He wasn’t carrying out any personal vendetta with the institution at all, but there was no place for it in Germany, especially considering the type of nation it was turning into. Formed by war and militaristic aggression, the German Empire was autocratic. Bismarck, as Chancellor, pursued a policy that was conservative and nationalistic. In order for the nation to succeed the people must loyal to the nation above all else. Thus, Bismarck’s goal was to make Catholics put loyalty to the state above loyalty to any religion. (The Catholic Church was the strongest religious entity in Europe at the time... makes sense, no?)
As I mentioned previously, Bismarck was also flexible and practical. When his move against the Church (Kulturkampf) backfired and led to the strengthening of the Catholic Centre Party, he made peace with the institution. This proves that he wasn’t out to brutally destroy all remnants of religion. He was trying to unify a people and make sure that Germany would last. Sadly, that led to the imprisonment and banishment of many clergy members. He could’ve killed them instead, no? He even could have made examples of those who defied him to warm others not to support organized religion, but he didn’t.
ReplyDeleteUltimately, Bismarck was a man on a mission. He wasn’t a man without a heart or born out of evil. It isn’t like he enjoyed the wars or deceiving diplomats. There was no time for friendships or rivalries. Who knows, Bismarck may have been religiously tolerant had he believed religion would be a great unifying force for the nation. It isn’t that he didn’t care, it’s that he didn’t have time. He had to achieve his goal and moved in the direction that would lead them to it. He even tried to win votes from the Catholic Centre Party, which he tried to eliminate from Germany, when he needed them to combat Socialism, thus proving that he was doing all that he needed to for the unification and strengthening of Germany. That is what Germany needed to develop and survive. Germany was always first and that philosophy worked out pretty well for him, considering that he essentially built the German Empire from the ground up.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_FQWMB9l_0&feature=related
ReplyDeletewell, this is interesting... a little out there but fun to follow.
In Otto von Bismarck’s path to unifying Germany he went through several hoops and ladders to make sure he can be free from foreign influence. The first event was the Blood and Iron speech that he will use military force in order to achieve his goals. It shows that Bismarck did not want to have Prussia slip like they did in the 1848 revolutions, but instead he wants them to stay strong through the fight and settle for only victory, anything below that is unacceptable. In the Defeat of Denmark he went and excluded Austria and made sure that Prussia was the most powerful and dominate component of New Germany. Gave Prussia an authoritarian state rather than a liberal parliamentary regime. As Bismarck defeated Austria in 1866 he used a sneaky move with him charging the Austrians with the violation of the Convention of Gastein. With this charge he provoked them and made them gather troops and attack the Prussians, which then led to the Austro-Prussian War.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watchv=9hOXFUVXVyU&feature=related
ReplyDeleteI found this video to be both informative, and creative. It is a project in which a student acts out as well as explains how Otto Von Bismarck is responsible for the unification of Germany as a whole.
Bismarck was out for the common wealth of the German people, even though it benefitted him too. As Steph and Jackie said the idea of KulturKampf/culture struggle was a prominant part of Bismarck's beliefs. He wanted to unite Germany under a particular religion. He would turn against the Roman Catholics through this policy. It is similar to his ideas in politics. He wanted to unite the German people under the one ruler. He was a strong believer in monarchies and the conservative ways. Also, he attacked the various socialist political groups such as the communists and socialists. This was Bismarck's way of trying to create an extremely stable German country. The people I feel loved this man. He led them through three very successful wars. They annihilated their enemy the French. Bismarck would finally unite Germany after many failed attempts. THe German people I feel were also thankful for the sthbility that Bismarck created. The Germans would from now one be remembered as a war-like people. They would eventually start two major world wars. Bismarck gave the Germans a new powergful identity. The days of the Holy Roman Empire seemed to be ages behind them.
ReplyDeleteOtto Von Bismarck to me was a coach of a football team. Well in his case one giant football team called Germany. The goals of a football coach are to rally your team, show them the pride in their team, give them a game plan on what they need to do to win and win at all costs for the team. Bismarck optimizes this to the fullest extent. The amount of nationalism he showed in rally his nation was like no person I had ever seen before. We saw the evidence in our homework by reading one of his speeches. He had so much pride in his nation that nobody could shake. In football, if your coach believes in you then your team will believe in you. Bismarck believed that they could do it so why shouldn’t the nation his is leading? His confidence got Germany on board in believing that they could be independent and they could finally be their own nation. Obviously they could, just look at what they did after they became their own independent Germany. Not only did they crush France with Bismarck’s “blood and iron” mentality but they stayed as the world power. The liberalism aspect of politics was challenged throughout Europe because now the man on top was running with conservative methods. In a way this was a bit of a step back but hey, to make an omelet you have to break a few eggs. If the conservative method of government was the one that won Germany their independence then they must be doing something right over there.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBC1Qob27sM
ReplyDeleteThis scene from Iron Man came to mind as soon as I thought of Bismarck. He was feared and respected but that is exactly what made him such a great leader. In order to be taken seriously by everyone else and have them know that at the helm they have a good leader, they must rule with a little iron fist. By doing so he gained unification for Germany and spawned one of the great powers leading into the 20th century and then after.
http://www.historyorb.com/europe/bismarck.shtml
ReplyDeleteShows how Bismarck was or wasn't the key factor in the unification.
I want to start by saying that no matter how you feel about him and his methods, there is no denying that Bismarck was a fantastic leader. Bismarck definitely knew how to spark his people's passions and get the support to achieve his goals. I do think he's a good example of a Machiavellian leader because he was respected by his people and he was intelligent in generating support by his people. One good example of his intelligence was when he changed the content of a letter from Wilhelm to the French ambassador to make Napoleon think they were insulting him. This was extremely smart on his part because it allowed him to start the war he wanted without actually starting the war himself. Since Napoleon felt insulted, he declared war, which then made Germany seem like the good guys. He was also smart in gathering support from nations such as Austria because he knew which nations hated France and would come to Germany's aid to help the war effort.
ReplyDeleteI didn't read everyones but I did read Steph's and she does make a good point. Bismarck wasn't being brutally for giggles, he thought that if he was polite and not stern about his polices or actions, that no one would take him seriously. Adding on to what Jeff was saying about Bismarck being a Coach, I thik that to be very acurate. When reading the documents for homework, especially document three, he was inspiring the people of soon to be Germany to fight together as one, to come together as one. It's the theme for every unification or revolution, working as a team and fighting for one purpose. Nationalism is definitely contagious and Bismarck was trying to affect as many people as possible.
ReplyDeleteI wondered as we talk about the unification of Germany, whether or not the same effect or unification process would happen if Bismarck wasn't such a Machiavelli ruler in his style of ruling was, being feared by his people and using any ends to justify the tactics he used in bringing about the unification of Gernamy? I quickly dismissed the thought because, like many other posts, Bismark had to rule with "Blood and Iron". He had to take control and not care if he hurt anybody, they would just be casualties in the process of unifying Gernmany. Those people, unfortunatly, were just a small price to pay for another strong nation rising.
ReplyDeleteEven though I strongly dislike the man, Bismarck is like another great leader, Adolf Hitler. Both of them were out of their minds as far as I'm concerned, but no one can deny they got the jobs done very efficiently. Like Hitler, Bismarck used current events to spark the interests of his people. He encouraged his people to blame other nations for Germany's problems and led them to believe the only answer was "blood and iron". This was very smart because it got people to fight even if they weren't really sure about it, because they knew the cause was worth it. After giving the people this mentality, they did whatever was necessary to win. I like Jeff's comparison to a football team because in essence, they're the same thing. You want to pump your people up for what's to come and make them believe in you. Like football, if you don't believe in your leader, you don't truly buy in to the cause, which could lead to people abandoning you. In both cases, this almost always leads to loss, except in the case of war, it could cost more than just a game. However, Bismarck was able to unite his people for the fight, and Germany ended up being very efficient in their battles, and ultimately achieving unification.
ReplyDeleteGerman unification is often viewed as a response to the call for power due to French exspansion. Otto von Bismarck was the German Chancelor who saw the need for Germany to be the country to rival the power of France. He said that the only way to unify Germany was through "Blood and Iron" Where Italy had three figures, Otto von Bismarck was able to complete all the jobs neccesary. He used the army to keep the great dangers of France and Russia at bay and build up Germany as a world power. He used many cunning tactics to provoke France into conflict including changing a letter from wilhelm to the French console to make it look like he was insulting Napoleon. This aggravation eventually paid off and the Franco-Prussian war began.
ReplyDeleteI find it funny that just like Napoleon people have such conflicting views over who Otto von Bismarck was as a man. People either view him as a hero or a villain depending on how they see him morally. I see only the facts and the facts point to him being the savior of the german people. He secured many treaties with several european nations against france thus protecting his people and saving a future for them in which they could prosper up to the first world war. He also passed several reforms, most of which focused on preserving the status quo so as to exstinguish any possible uprisisngs in the newly unified Germany. Bismarck also took several oppurtunities to crush the social democratic party.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure if this counts anymore but I figured I'd give it a shot....I am going to talk mostly about the beginning of Bismarck's career as well as an interesting idea that I had thought of while I was reading about him and his personality.
ReplyDeleteSo this guy Bismarck that everyone is talking about was a pretty big deal. Was he a Machiavellian ruler? Yes. In fact, Bismarck was probably one of (if not the first) dude in European history to be perfectly titled a Machiavellian ruler. This guy was intelligent, deceiving, manipulative, determined, and heroic. He was also a jerk, but I guess the words "deceiving" and "jerk" often go hand-in-hand. He was known for his "blood and iron" policy, as well as for his silly looking hat. These are not initially how he became known, however. Bismarck's political chapter started during the Revolution of 1848. As a conservative, he was devastated to learn that the king had been locked up in prison. He rose up out of the failure of the revolution, and was prepared to take things over himself. Bismarck, at first, hated the idea of a unified Germany, fearing that Prussia would lose its independence. But these ideas soon changed.
I can't get over this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XchE2q5ubB0&feature=fvst
I'm sure someone posted it already.
I know that everyone talked about Otto von Bismarck and Napoleon III already..so I'd like to take a different road and instead of re-stating the facts that everyone has said I'd like to compare him with the other Napoleon! (which I love to do because the other Napoleon is still my fav).
ReplyDeleteNapoleon Bonaparte (Napoleon I/The Grand Emperor) vs. Otto von Bismarck (The Chancellor):
Although these two men are from such conflicting countries, they do indeed have some things in common. Both Bismarck and Napoleon were very intelligent political leaders and military leaders who completely changed Europe. Each sought to unify their country through war, and succeeded pretty dang well at it..at least for a while. They were the reason for their nation to be introduced as a European super power.
Now, as I was reading about Bismarck, one guy kept popping into my head. In AP English, we recently read Shakespeare's Othello. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Bismarck constantly reminds me of the character of Iago. Bismarck was manipulative and deceitful, just like Iago. He was so darn clever with his manipulations of diplomacy. It's hard to tell if Bismarck's plans were opportunistic or if he'd laid out a skillful plan, and that's just like Iago, who didn't have a set plan at the beginning, but carefully laid out his spider web of a plan as time went on. Also, at the beginning of his career, he was against unification only for that to change by the time his career was over, just like how Iago's reasons and motives for murdering Othello changed as well. I hope this makes sense, and it might not make sense to you, Mr. Lubisco, unless you've read the play, but I'll try to bring it up in class to see if anyone else might feel the same. I looked it up to see if anyone else on the internet saw this but I couldn't find anything.
Oh, I forgot to say.. I usually listen to podcast for these..and I'm not sure if anyone else does but I could only find two decent ones for the subject of Bismarck. If you go to iTunes and type in "Otto von Bismarck" there's one titled "In Our Time History: Bismarck" and there's another titled "Lecture 15: German Unification and The Long Fuse Introduced." They are both decent, kind of boring, but not too long so it's not that bad...if anyone is interested.
ReplyDeletemmorpg oyunları
ReplyDeleteİNSTAGRAM TAKİPCİ SATIN AL
TİKTOK JETON HİLESİ
TİKTOK JETON HİLESİ
antalya saç ekimi
Referans kimliği nedir
İNSTAGRAM TAKİPÇİ SATIN AL
mt2 pvp serverlar
instagram takipçi satın al
Tül Perde Modelleri
ReplyDeletesms onay
turkcell mobil ödeme bozdurma
nft nasil alınır
Ankara evden eve nakliyat
trafik sigortası
dedektör
web sitesi kurma
Aşk Kitapları
SMM PANEL
ReplyDeletesmm panel
iş ilanları
instagram takipçi satın al
HİRDAVATCİBURADA.COM
WWW.BEYAZESYATEKNİKSERVİSİ.COM.TR
Servis
tiktok jeton hilesi
ümraniye toshiba klima servisi
ReplyDeletependik lg klima servisi
ataşehir lg klima servisi
beykoz samsung klima servisi
üsküdar samsung klima servisi
beykoz mitsubishi klima servisi
üsküdar mitsubishi klima servisi
pendik vestel klima servisi
pendik arçelik klima servisi