None the less, Bismarck was no fool; he took advantage of a situation which he hoped would never come. If he could strike an alliance with the Centre party in some way, he would be able to strengthen his political position elsewhere. For example, he was confusing the Austrians with his anti Catholic policies and as Bismarck wanted to make stronger links with Austria, by ending the Kulturkampf he could bring Austria and the Papacy both on his side. This is what Bismarck was able to do as in 1879 he agreed an alliance with Austria, showing his end to the Kulturkampf as a cleverly thought out political strategy. Despite this, the Kulturkampf coincidently came to an end the same year Pope Pius IX died and was replaced with Pope Leo XIII.
Hitler became favoured by the German people, especially the strong nationalistic middle-class, who believed Hitler would finally unite the nation with his strong leadership. The image manufactured for the German people of a strong leader was far from reality. With his complex personality, Hitler has been a subject of much research by historians. The image that was to emerge from such research was not that of a strong dictator, but of a moody and lonely man who rarely showed his feelings and had a great difficulty of relating to people on an emotional level. He was a man who showed great brutality and ruthlessness but was also able to show personal charm.
And how did such an advanced society allow itself to be seduced and then destroyed by its own capacity for senseless barbarity? The Germans in the thirties were seduced by the glittering success of Hitler in creating jobs, generating a vibrant economy and restoring Germany's military might. William Shirer, who was on the scene in Germany during these critical years, candidly sums up the mood of the country at this juncture: "Not many Germans lost sleep over the arrests of a few thousand pastors and priests or over the quarreling of the various Protestant sects .." It was this apathy and moral indifference in Germany that empowered Hitler and fueled his military juggernaut that was poised to roll inexorably over Europe. Why did Hitler hate the Jews? Holocaust happened because Hitler and the Nazis were racist.
While both peace treaties intended on maintaining a lasting peace, The Treaty of Versailles would quickly fail and contribute to conflicts leading up to World War 2 and on the contrary, the successful Congress of Vienna would stabilize Europe for nearly a century until the Great War. The Treaty of Versailles sparks a savage, war spirit to be born within Hitler’s Germany, thus preventing any long lasting peace to avoid battle. The Congress of Vienna however utilizes Metternich’s principles to sustain conservative order. Ultimately, the fundamental objective of each peace treaty was to maintain some sort of lasting peace, to prevent war. Metternich, desiring to contain France, successfully unites Europe through the conservative Congress of Vienna.
This was because the new middle class that had emerged in the 'German states', from industrialisation, wanted political representation, and felt that it could only be achieved in a united Germany. The Congress of Vienna wanted to make sure that no country could take over Europe in the way that France did in the early 1800s, it aimed to do this by allocating more land to Prussia and creating a 'barrier' that would block any attempts of French expansion and also war from Russia in the east. The German Confederation divided Germany into thirty-nine states, as Napoleon did during the French occupation. A reduction in the number of German states may seem like a move towards nationalism and in turn unification, however it was in fact a direct move against it, as can be seen in the second amendment of the confederation. This is known as 'particularism', the principle of leaving each state in a federation free to govern itself and promote its own interests.
Assess how vital Bismarck is to the process of German Unification Intro and historians shifting views: In January 1871 King Wilhelm became the first German Kaiser of the new German empire. The creation of the empire was one of the most important developments of the nineteenth century. However, the process by which Germany came to be unified has been an area of heated historical debate ever since. Historians always have argued that German was not unified by the push for the nationalist ideology lead by the “bloody and iron” chancellor Otto Von Bismarck. In order to shift attention away from the liberal pressure to reform and modernizing Prussia, Bismarck was able to keep modernization forces at bay by pushing for a united Germany.
Kaiser, as "King of Prussia", dominated the Reichstag which protected the Conservatives, who were supported, and arguably, controlled by the elites (Junkers) who wanted to preserve their status and power. Some saw the Kaiser, and the elites, as claiming authority of Germany, but at no time was this challenged. Bethmann-Hollweg, 1910, suggested increasing the middle-class vote, but the Conservatives quickly rejected the idea, as there was
The most popular methods were propaganda and some forceful coercion and many historians see these as the most significant factor with Hans Rothfels stating “hundreds of thousands were defenceless and without legal remedy” suggesting that many Germans had succumbed to the regime purely down to fear and not due to them believing in the viscous Nazi policies, other historians justify this view such as Hinton and Hite they argue that “the night of long knives showed how brute force was used to maintain power by eliminating the potential threat of the SA leaders" this is pointing to that if a threat was seen it was eliminated before it could grow and challenge the regime which is showing how effective coercion and force can be in maintaining power. But on the flip side of the argument historians such as Ralph Fleny state that consent was the major element in the maintenance of power as they were giving the regime “vote after vote of overwhelming confidence” and also down to tradition through the previous authoritarian state so they were seen as “meek before authority”, the latter statement here is inferring that the German public seen the authoritarian way of life as more beneficial due to the failings of the war, being blamed on the Weimar republic and this shown democracy in a bad light and less favourable, because when under control by the emperor Germany was very
This is one of the reasons he was so successful in building such a loyal following in Germany. Hitler was charming and a great public speaker, but he was still a ruthless leader whose cruelty helped him maintain order. Machiavelli stated in the prince that a good leader will "find a greater security in being feared than in being loved," Machiavelli also described the different types of troops a prince can have. There are mercenaries, men who fight for money, auxiliary troops, men borrowed from another country, and native troops, a rulers own troops. Hitler did not use mercenaries, auxiliary troops or an army that combined all three types.
The new government was the body that signed the treaty of Versailles, and to many it was a betrayal and most Germans referred to it as the ‘stab in the back theory’. The consequences of Versailles, such as reparations and land loss, were severe to Germany. Many people were looking for someone to blame and the government was the perfect choice. Communists and the right wing saw an opportunity to create a state that they wanted and were prepared to challenge the new republic. Many richer Germans had lived well under the Kaiser and distrusted the new government.