Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: robowombat
Lots of context here. Germany had never been united, the Thirty Years' War had taught them one potential price of disunity, and Prussia had long been an aggressive state over-willing to upset the existing European modus vivendi in order to deflect a threat to Prussia - Frederick the Great's forcible annexation of Silesia is a case in point. Bismarck simply brought this pattern of activity to a higher level in forcibly uniting Germany under Prussian leadership. It is difficult to imagine a peaceful way of accomplishing that.

His basic foreign policy following this period of expansion was rather conservative and avoided war - that eventually got him fired in 1890 by the young and very aggressive Wilhelm II, whose own policies came to a thundering head in August 1914. That one didn't end well for Germany.

10 posted on 04/02/2013 5:01:03 PM PDT by Billthedrill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Billthedrill

Not to mention the fact that the Hapsburgs had set themselves up after the Napoleonic Wars to block German unification by Austrian manipulation of the German Confederation post-1815, which was a significant obstacle. We tend to forget the Austro-Hungarian Empire had its own agendas, even in its dotage.....


12 posted on 04/02/2013 5:34:50 PM PDT by GenXteacher (You have chosen dishonor to avoid war; you shall have war also.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson