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

"In the period 1871-1890 Bismarck was better at crushing his opponents than at producing constructive new policies." Explain why you agree or disagree with this statement.

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Peter Towell "In the period 1871-1890 Bismarck was better at crushing his opponents than at producing constructive new policies." Explain why you agree or disagree with this statement. "Better-pointed bullets than pointed words," this quote by Otto Von Bismarck really shows his attitude to politics and how he dealt with problems and opposition. It also helps me in an extensive way to answer the essay question given. "In the period 1871-1890 Bismarck was better at crushing his opponents than at producing constructive new policies." Looking at an overview of Bismarck's life and work it is very easy to agree with this statement and not question its accuracy at all, but after studying Bismarck in depth several queries arise as to whether this statement is totally accurate. The quote at the beginning of this paragraph shows which method of ruling Bismarck preferred, this was force and not democracy. It tells us that he would much rather crush the people questioning his leadership rather than listen to them and make appropriate changes, but it doesn't necessarily mean that because he preferred this method he was better at it. During this essay I will discuss whether he was better at crushing his opponents or whether introducing constructive policies was his strength. In 1871 the National Liberals were the largest party in the Reichstag, holding 155 seats. They were not in total opposition to Bismarck but they did not agree with many of his policies. They were in great opposition of his constitution that many said was a total sham. It simply disguised the fact that Bismarck held Germany in the palm of his hand along with all the power to go with it. The National Liberals wanted the constitution to be revised by a council made up of representatives from each party so it would share power evenly and take the leadership of the whole of Germany away from just one person. ...read more.

Middle

Due to this ill feeling the Germany did not rule the area locally. Instead it was ruled directly from Berlin. After 1874 the Alsatians were given the right to elect deputies into the Reichstag. Even though they were given this privilege the Alsatians felt they were being oppressed. Between the years of 1871 and 1914 400,00 people left the area to live in France. Bismarck was not happy with this mass migration of people who were meant to be part of his country, so he tried to win them back by appointing Edwin von Manteuffel as chancellor in 1879. He worked hard to improve relations between Bismarck and the Alsatians. To a certain extent he was successful, but the Alsatians were still in opposition to what they regarded as German occupation, and were particularly against the German troops occupying the area. Out of the three national minorities mentioned here Bismarck really only tried to crush one of them, which was the Poles. He was very unsuccessful in doing this and if anything he strengthened the Poles as a unit rather than dividing them. While trying to suppress the Polish nationalism he didn't actually make any constructive policies to aid Germany. This shows that although we have seen that he is successful when introducing constructive policies like he did when trying to remove the National Liberals he still prefers to crush his opponents. Although in the case of the Poles he failed miserably. In the case of the Danes he didn't actually carry out any real action to crush them or introduce any constructive policies, he simply refused to carry out a promise for them. This did give him some control of the Danes in a way but it did not crush them at all. The same can be said for the French occupants in Alsace-Lorraine, He didn't crush them in anyway; he actually tried to persuade them to stay by giving them a popular governor. ...read more.

Conclusion

The government and employers would fund all of these. These were ground breaking social reforms and pleased the socialists, but not enough to silence them. They still pushed for even more social reform and better working conditions. So if Bismarck was trying to get rid of them by doing this he failed, but in the process of doing so he introduced some of the best and most constructive policies of his career. These policies were totally ground breaking in Europe at the time. So much so that our present welfare system is based on these policies. W.N Medlicot said Bismarck's social policies were, "his greatest claim to statesmanship." This is very true and shows just how much better he was at introducing new policies than he was at crushing his opponents. I feel the statement; "In the period 1871-1890 Bismarck was better at crushing his opponents than at producing constructive new policies" is totally wrong. Bismarck clearly favoured the method of crushing his opposition over introducing new policies but by no means was he better at it. The only opposition he succeeded in crushing was the National Liberals and even when he did this he introduced a policy to protect Germany from depression. His other attempts to crush groups of opposition failed, including his attacks on national minorities, the church and the socialists. In contrast to these failures his constructive policies were very successful. His free trade policy made trading between Germany and other countries and between the inner states very easy. This is a factor that helped bring Germany towards unification along with his economic policies. His later policies of state socialism where so successful that they not only changed Germany at the time but have caused significant changes throughout the world right up to present day. In my opinion Bismarck was much better at producing constructive new policies than he was at crushing his opponents. This quote by the man himself, "Better-pointed bullets than pointed words" certainly shows which method he preferred, however he was much better at politics rather than ruling by an iron fist. ...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. To what extent was Bismarck responsible for German unification?

    Bismarck was very clever in the way that he provoked war with Austria he complained that Austria was not running Holstein properly. The German confederation backed Austria so Bismarck had what he wanted an excuse to attack the small German states which he quickly defeated Prussia with.

  2. To what extent was Gladstone's religion the driving force behind his attempt to 'sabotage' ...

    could be interpreted as only having been undertaken for social gain and not true faith. Shannon suggests that Gladstone's return to the political arena could have been for selfish reasons; that he wanted to restore his 'bond of moral rapport with the 'masses''19 and adds that 'it was less a

  1. TO WHAT EXTENT WAS BISMARCK IN CONTROL OF GERMAN DOMESTIC POLICY FROM 1871-90?

    Similarly to before, Bismarck wanted to reduce the political and social influence of the national minorities, and the importance of non-German culture. He therefore concluded in adopting a policy of Germanisation. This included, for example, forbidding the Polish language in education and administration, and the same with Alsace Lorraine, and

  2. "To What Extent Can Bismarck Claim The Credit For German Unification".

    The way in which he isolated and neutralised countries as it suited him shows how skilled he was. His skilful diplomacy and strength of character were crucial. He increased tension deliberately between the Prussians and the Austrians, and still managed to make Austria appear as the aggressor.

  1. Hitlers Germany

    These were, in the first place, ethnic Germans expelled from Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Yugoslavia, Rumania, and Poland, in order to cleanse those countries from German minority problems. Secondly, there were Germans who fled or were expelled from the former German territories annexed by Poland and the Soviet Union in the east, namely, Silesia and East Prussia.

  2. How far did government policies change towards agriculture in Russia in the period 1856-1964? ...

    Like Stolypin and Stalin, he believed in the economics of larger farms.[32] With this, many of the smaller collective farms were merged to form his preferred state farms.[33] In September 1953 he set out his plans for the failing

  1. How far can the impact of the depression be seen as a key turning ...

    As Foreign Minister, Stresemann achieved a great deal. He was able to get Germany accepted back into the European community through his philosophy of abiding by the Versailles Treaty, which won him allies in Western Europe, and it was France that sponsored Germany?s entry into the League of Nations in 1926.* Not only did his abiding of the

  2. Stalins economic policies were successful, to what extent do you agree?

    The targets for the second FYP were more realistic than the First, and its achievements were more modest. The government announced again that the targets had been met a year early and in fact been overfilled by 3%, the output of steel for example trebled, largely due to production from the new plants such as Magnitogorsk.

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