• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

"Bismarck's Foreign policy was a Success." Is This Statement True?

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

"Bismarck's Foreign policy was a Success." Is This Statement True? The balance of power in Europe had been suddenly altered after the German victory over France in 1871. The resultant German Empire, with its large population great economic power, strong army and extensive resources, looked clear to be an important factor in international relations. However, even for Bismarck this looked set to be a challenge, due to the need not only to establish the Empire as a nation, but to also found an external security that would prove to be vital throughout his reign as Chancellor. Although was this set policy an overall success? Bismarck's main objectives in the proposal of the instituted policies were to isolate France in Europe; maintain the balance of peace on the continent - particularly between Austria and Russia, who Bismarck feared would come to blows over the escalating problems in the Balkans - as well as maintaining his secured German territory; avoid fighting a war on two fronts and the Chancellor also desired, perhaps greedily, to have the control and power of two other powers in Europe as well as in Germany. The ideal for Bismarck was to establish a run of successful policies to achieve these goals and thus substantiate Germany as both the most powerful and influential of the Great Powers in Europe. ...read more.

Middle

Once more this was successful for Bismarck in that it isolated France and prevented the situation of having to choose between Austria and Russia. The final of Bismarck's foreign policies also secured successes for the Chancellor. The Triple Alliance of 1882 between Germany, Austria and Italy reassured Bismarck that unless a Franco-Russian alliance was formed then the prospect of war from either nation whilst standing alone could be easily contained. This alliance was, from Bismarck's viewpoint, aimed directly towards the segregation of France, as he was aware that she could not, and so would not attack Germany single-handedly. However, yet again the Dreikaiserbund was destroyed in 1885 due to further problems in the Balkans, and it became clear that disputes in this area were unlikely to ever be fully resolved. This time Bismarck needed to desperately to avoid the prospect of a war on two fronts. This concluded in the Reinsurance Treaty of 1887, which tried to localize the problem by assuring Russia that Bismarck would not support Austria in a clash over the Balkans territory. By documenting that in the case of a war between two of the powers that the remaining power would remain neutral, Bismarck succeeded in both preventing a war on two fronts and obtaining the neutrality he desired. ...read more.

Conclusion

The Reinsurance Treaty was very similar in that it was only short-term as France and Russia did eventually join in the 'Entente'. Bismarck further created himself problems, as the Second Mediterranean Agreement left him with no alliance to Russia, and so creating possible problems for the future. Finally by the end of Bismarck's office in 1890 France still viewed Germany with contempt and searched for revenge, while the situation in the Balkans continued to flare as did the tension between Austria and Russia. This leads me to believe that although Bismarck's foreign policy was successful in achieving his main objectives and solving problems in the short-term, all they did for the long-term was to simply delay the problems rather than resolving them. The Chancellor in fact made it difficult to maintain neutrality over the Balkans crisis in the long-term and it could even be said that too many alliances were made in an effort to obtain his goals, that it became too difficult to retain such a documented relationship with the other powers, and that perhaps Bismarck did not leave himself enough loose ends to play with the policies in the way he saw fit. Conclusively, it was probably an advantage for Bismarck that he left office in 1890, as it left Kaiser William II with the resulting problems to resolve and he was able to leave behind the tangle of long-term problems he had created. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Modern European History, 1789-1945 section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Modern European History, 1789-1945 essays

  1. Assess the view that the failures of the Congress of Vienna outweighed the successes.

    contended that the peacemakers at Vienna failed because they created a system relying too heavily on themselves to enforce it, and assumed their continuing desire to work together. Britain, having avoided any continental entanglements in 1814-15 was to grow increasingly independent over the following years, and less inclined to cooperate

  2. Assess the effectiveness of Napoleon III's foreign policy. How did his foreign policy affect ...

    Furthermore, he burdened the economy of France with the cost of an expensive and unproductive war. To conclude, his foreign policy in Mexico Campaign was undoubtedly ineffective in achieving his aims. His foreign policy in Austro-Prussian War also proved ineffective.

  1. Reasons for Napoleon's Success (to 1807).

    1807 represented about a third of the total strength of his armed forces. vi) Napoleon's Strategic Planning * It used to be stated in campaign histories that Napoleon planned his campaigns and battles well ahead and in meticulous detail, and that his victories cam from following his plans minutely; but

  2. Stalins Russia, 1924-53 revision guide

    * The central bureaucracy also provided jobs for many members, so Trotsky's attack was not likely to be popular. * October 1924 Trotsky attacked Zinoviev and Kamenev in an essay, Lessons of October. It drew attention to the fact these two had opposed Lenin when the decision to launch the October Revolution was made.

  1. Why was the league so ineffective in dealing with the Abyssinian Crisis?

    However, the sanctions were not placed upon the essentials for war, iron, coal and oil because Britain and France were worried about provoking Mussolini any more than they had to.

  2. "Mussolini was an all powerful dictator" - How accurate is this statement?

    they would have had to fight the OVRA and militia who they were so merged with. This again made Mussolini even more powerful as it greatly reduced the power of the army, who would have been a massive threat to him if the King ever decided to use them.

  1. Hitlers Germany

    rose in apartment blocks that imposed a sensible order on a small area. These structures often conflicted sharply with the architecture of the old city. In almost all the cities the rubble has left its marks. In West Berlin, for example, much of the rubble has been moved and planted to form artificial parks and hills.

  2. Mussolinis’s Foreign Policy

    During the 1920 therefore, Italy remained a member of the League of Nations and acted as good citizen of Europe. Mussolini's foreign policy therefore followed a peaceful path. However, the peaceful pattern which Mussolini's foreign policy followed during the 20s was to be changed suddenly in the 30s, and thus also the slight consistency it had been following so far.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work