Otto Von Bismarck Essay Example for Free

Otto Von Bismarck Essay Otto Von Bismarck was made Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of Prussia by I in 1862. He stayed in power until 1890. His conduct of foreign policy between 1862 and 1871 is one of the most fascinating and complex parts of the nineteenth century. It ended with the unification of Germany on 18th January 1871, under Prussian dominance, with King William of Prussia being coroneted as Kaiser in Versailles. The German unification is possibly the most important and significant events in history, as it has had so many effects and consequences across the whole world, and still does to this day. One of the most widely debated topics of the nineteenth century is to what extent is Bismarck responsible for the unification. Basically, was Bismarck’s foreign policy more about conscious design, or a policy by default largely determined by other key personalities and events? Some people try and say that Bismarck was always heading towards German unification, and that he had been planning how to get there all along; but actually, Bismarck hardly planned a thing – he instead was just very good at taking things as they came. His main aim was to strengthen Prussia, and make it into a stronger country. An example of how Bismarck did not plan what he did is how he came to power. He was not elected, so he was not planning ways in which to gain votes etc. ; instead, he was suddenly catapulted from being ambassador to St. Petersburg, and then Paris, to being chancellor of Prussia. Bismarck was also known for his personality. It was this that initially got him to where he was. He was nicknamed ‘The Iron Chancellor†, and he fitted this name very well. In 1862, when William was refused money by liberals to pay for his army, he threatened to abdicate, but was persuaded to elect Bismarck as chancellor instead. Everybody who knew Bismarck knew him as being wild, and a bully, a conservative, an army man, and as being a ‘Machiavellian’. He was cunning, scheming, unscrupulous, vicious, manipulative, calculating, brutal, and devious, and also very good at improvising. It was these things that William liked about him, and Williams’s expectations of Bismarck were achieved. Immediately after being put in office, Bismarck suspended the constitution and gave the army the money it needed. Now he was in control of Prussia as it was maturing and reaching power. Another event that shows how Bismarck did not plan things is the Danish Crisis in Schleswig and Holstein in 1864. Some people say that Bismarck planned this, and did it to get Austria involved, and to be nice to her by giving her some land, but which he could take at any time as it was next to Prussia, and cause up rise. In reality, Denmark unexpectedly attempted to annex Schleswig and Holstein, and Bismarck just saw a chance to gain some land, respect, popularity, and a small advantage over Austria; he did not previously plan any of this, he just ‘played the cards he was dealt well’ e. g. e ended up doing it with Austria – this made him look good in front of everyone else, and also lulled Austria into a false sense of security. This was a first step towards Bismarck thinking cleverly about how he could get an upper hand over Austria. Although Bismarck did not necessarily plan all of the things that he did, he was very good at playing what came along well, and thinking about all of the consequences of his actions, and how he could use what he had to his best advantage; because of this, he was a great man who was clever and quick thinking, so we have not at all been deceived about him. It has often been said that Bismarck never meant for what most of what he did to happen, and that what he did was just mainly luck e. g. there was an extraordinary interlude of calmness during his time. This meant that he was able to many things that he should not have been able to do without risking international intervention. Britain is a good example of this international calmness. We were far more concerned with looking after ourselves, and keeping our empire strong and wealthy, than in events in Europe. The one thing that we did have a view on, and it was a strong view, was that we hated France, and this ended up being good for Bismarck anyway. Austria and France were also calm when Bismarck needed them to be – after Austria lost the war, it took her a reasonable amount of time to recover, and Bismarck used this time wisely; France had previously been hammered during Napoleon Bonaparte’s conquest of Europe, and was hated by many, and so was lying low for some time, and again, Bismarck used this greatly to his advantage. A handful people believe that Bismarck’s legacy is too big for his own good. As some people say that he caused German unification single-handedly, because this was a huge event which had enormous consequences and effects, people automatically think of Bismarck as being a greater and better person than he actually was, and that he shifted history his way more than he actually did. But, without Bismarck, luck and other things would not have been a big enough factor to cause German unification, and so he was needed, and he was a great man. Bismarck is said to have unified Germany, but there are several other people who contributed to it more than people think, who are often forgotten about, and not so well known. One of these people is Napoleon III of France. Napoleon III was a very weak, feeble, useless and pathetic ruler. When he was anxious to gain compensation and maintain France’s role as a great power, he was looking at Bismarck and Prussia for anything to grab onto and attack, but Bismarck gave him nothing to react to. This just angered Napoleon even more, and made it easy for Bismarck to use Napoleon when he wanted. Napoleon was such a weak and terrible ruler, that he automatically gave Bismarck an advantage, as Bismarck could easily control Napoleon, and trick him into doing things that he did not realize the consequences of. Bismarck very easily irritated Napoleon on purpose, but he did not go too far e. g. the Hohenzollem candidature, where Bismarck tried to put a Prussian prince in the Spanish throne. This would mean that Prussia would have a massive advantage, as France would be surrounded by Prussia, and could even face fighting on two fronts. Obviously Napoleon was furious when he heard about this, but Bismarck quickly withdrew the candidature, meaning that Napoleon did not act at all, and Bismarck looked good, as he had withdrawn it ‘to be nice to France’. Napoleon did not see what was happening, which meant that Bismarck could do almost what he wanted around him. Ludwig of Bavaria was an obstacle to Bismarck. He led the biggest German state (apart from Prussia). When Bismarck was making all of the head of the states agree to letting, acknowledging, and going to William’s coronation of becoming Kaiser of Germany, Ludwig was the only person to refuse, but Bismarck easily got around this problem by coming to an agreement with Ludwig, which was that Ludwig would accept the demands if Bismarck let him keep his ornate postboxes. This was a major victory for Bismarck, as it was the end of the very old state of Bavaria, which had lots of history, and patriotism, and was at one point a very strong power. Bismarck was controlled and told what to do mainly by William and also by the conservatives and the middle class taxpayers. William especially had absolute control over Bismarck. He had promoted him to chancellor. Prussia’s General (Moltke) was also very important. He was a superb General, and led Prussia’s army very well to its victories. Bismarck was not a military leader, and without Moltke could possibly not have done nearly as well as he did. Russia was massively important. She did not intervene during Prussia’s wars against Denmark and Austria in 1864 and 1866. If she had, Prussia would have probably lost, leading to a whole different outcome; the war with Austria led to the North German Confederation in 1867. Russia never once stopped the new central power from emerging, even though it was given plenty of opportunities. This may have been because of the Tsar. He always blamed Austria for his father’s death, and so refused to help her. Bismarck was helped on several occasions by certain countries not intervening in 1870 with the war with France, Britain did not intervene as she still hated France, neither would Italy, as she owed her acquisition of Venetia to Prussia’s victory over Austria in 1866 and also wanted to get the French out of Rome; and Austria was still recovering, and was held back by Russia, who threatened to send in 300,000 men if she got involved. This meant that Bismarck did not need to be scared of fighting on two fronts at all. Also, without the realignment of the great powers that resulted from the Crimean War, German Unification would probably not have happened. Bismarck himself even said: â€Å"It all began with the Crimean War†. Although all of these people and events were important, Bismarck was the fundamental key to the unification. Without him, it would not have happened, so we have not at all been deceived – he was a great man who was the key to the German Unification. When Bismarck came to power, Prussia was coming to its peak in almost every way. She had a brilliant General (Moltke), she was industrializing she had amazing railways and weapons and she had a thriving economy. Another help to Bismarck was the fact that Prussia was physically a large state. Some people believe that Bismarck did not need to do much, and he just did well, as it was a coincidence that he was in the right place at the right time. But, although Prussia was doing well at Bismarck’s time, it needed Bismarck to bring it all together, and make it happen! Many people say that German unification was inevitable, and would have happened even if Bismarck had never lived, because of certain preconditions. For example: nationalism had been growing for many years. This can be shown in the 1848 revolutions; also, it still kept on growing after the revolutions. Nationalism was now a talked about thing – people had written about it, and apart from the monarchs etc. who too were scared of it, people were discussing it among themselves. Also, gradually over the last few decades, there had been becoming less and less German states. Originally there were more than a hundred very small states, similar to the size of a large estate, or maybe a small county today; but as stronger states had engulfed other weaker states, fewer and larger states emerged. By the time Bismarck was around, there was not much more than twenty states. This gradual reduces in the number of states shows that eventually, there would have been a German unification without Bismarck anyway – he just sped the process up. The 1848 revolutions also showed that there was a want for change already there with the people, even before Bismarck, and so again, there would have been German unification without him. Another thing that shows that there would have been German unification without Bismarck anyway is that the Hapsburg Empire had slowly been on its downfall for many years, starting well before Bismarck’s time. At the height of its power, the Hapsburg Empire was enormous, and extremely powerful and very autocratic, but it had slowly been becoming less and less of a major power, and other countries were beginning to be able to almost rival it. Many people also say that the struggle between the German states and the struggle between Prussia and Austria had to be settled some time, and this would have happened regardless of whether Bismarck was there or not. By the time Bismarck came to power, there was as well a want for unification already there, which some say would have caused it anyway if Bismarck had not been there (liberals had wanted unification for a long time, but now there were also others who wanted it, like some of the working class, and some of the middle class – also, there were many who did not think about unification, but would have probably supported it if they could more easily). Also, in 1866, the southern states were becoming increasingly hostile to Prussia, and the other northern states. A war to resolve the hostility between France and Prussia, and to force the southern states into joining the North German Confederation seemed likely in 1869. This showed that even if Bismarck had not been there, then there would have been the unification anyway. People say that these points show that it was not Bismarck who caused the unification, but it was in fact going to happen anyway; but actually, it was Bismarck who brought all of these separate points together to make the unification happen. Without him these points would not have led to it, they need Bismarck! He brought these points together, and therefore it was Bismarck who made it possible. So we have not been deceived, as Bismarck was a great man, who shifted these points his way, leading to unification. Bismarck was a great man, and he had a great personality, and was always willing to do things. Bismarck was a great Machiavellian. He was brilliantly sly and cunning, and his truth was flexible. He was happy to put down anyone he needed to, even his friends. He always desired a stronger Prussia, and it was this desire that led to him unifying the German states. He was fundamentally a conservative, but he cleverly managed to get all different sorts of people to like him, and to be on his side – even many of the liberals. He was very gifted at making people believe something he wanted them to believe, or do what he wanted them to do e. g. he got William to agree to becoming the Kaiser, as he got all of the rulers of the other states to give him the crown. Bismarck was also very good at knowing when to stop – he would irritate someone a lot, but stop just before they exploded. He did this with Napoleon III. Bismarck also never took any risks that were too big. He always knew what he was doing, even though it often looked the opposite. He would only proceed with something if he was satisfied with his chance of success. This was his key strength – he was an unbelievable decision-maker. This meant that he was also very good at ‘playing things by ear’, which meant that he never had to plan things too far in advance, and he was very good at putting himself into other people’s shoes, and seeing what the consequences of all of his decisions could be. Bismarck was also very strong willed. He always did what he wanted, and never stopped or hesitated for anything. He was like a steam train going full speed, and having to make hundreds of decisions of what path to take – he was unstoppable. Proof of this is that when he came to power, the majority of people did not want unification, but he still managed to make it happen. William was also nearly useless without Bismarck. He was too weak and slow. Bismarck was a great man, and he certainly did shift history his way when he wanted to.

Nuclear Weapons: Destructors Or Saviors? :: Nuclear Weapons Essays

When one thinks of complete and total annihilation, the plumage of an infamous mushroom cloud is undoubtedly an image which comes to mind. This ominous image is ". . . a tiger which must be looked in the eye," (Looking the Tiger in the Eye, 1982). The reason for which we must examine the issue of nuclear weapons, is best stated in the words of J. Robert Oppenheimer, ". . . until we have looked this tiger in the eye, we shall ever be in the worst of all possible dangers, of which we may back into him." In an attempt to prevent ourselves from backing into this proverbial tiger, we will discuss the following subheadings of nuclear arms: should countries dismantle their nuclear arms; and whether a nuclear war can occur, without resulting in a total nuclear holocaust of both conflicting parties. Virtually all, who know of the rise in modern-day technology, oppose the first subheading, dismantling nuclear weapons; but, before stating their reasoning, we will change our viewpoint to that of the naive (no insult intended) or too optimistic. Assuming all nations dismantled their nuclear weapons tomorrow; the world would be peaceful: no more nuclear weapons, no more eminent destruction, no more bad guys. What? Exactly! How can we eliminate the evil side of humans, their inherent dark side? This leads to the reason supporting the maintenance of existing, and the development of future nuclear weapons. When a nation, terrorist group, or someone with ill intent secures sole-control of nuclear capabilities, the world will be at the mercy of this group's sanity, since the world is currently nowhere near an acceptable defensive system. So from this scenario, one can infer that in the present, the only deterrent to nuclear war is the existence of nuclear arms in opposition to each other. The second subheading, whether a nuclear war can occur without escalating into a victorless, nuclear holocaust, is an evolving argument due to its dependency on modern technology. The two stances on this topic are known by their acronyms of NUTS and MAD (Nuclear Utilization Target Selection, and Mutually Assured Destruction respectively). The position taken by NUTS is that limited use of nuclear weapons can occur, without igniting an all-out, nuclear holocaust-resulting in the devastation of both conflicting parties, and hence a mutual loss. The major fault on which NUTS lies is that no nuclear nation possesses, or is expected to soon possess, an acceptable defensive shield against nuclear weapons. While this fault is not due to our ability to destroy inbound weapons, it is due to our accuracy in destroying the sheer quantity in Nuclear Weapons: Destructors Or Saviors? :: Nuclear Weapons Essays When one thinks of complete and total annihilation, the plumage of an infamous mushroom cloud is undoubtedly an image which comes to mind. This ominous image is ". . . a tiger which must be looked in the eye," (Looking the Tiger in the Eye, 1982). The reason for which we must examine the issue of nuclear weapons, is best stated in the words of J. Robert Oppenheimer, ". . . until we have looked this tiger in the eye, we shall ever be in the worst of all possible dangers, of which we may back into him." In an attempt to prevent ourselves from backing into this proverbial tiger, we will discuss the following subheadings of nuclear arms: should countries dismantle their nuclear arms; and whether a nuclear war can occur, without resulting in a total nuclear holocaust of both conflicting parties. Virtually all, who know of the rise in modern-day technology, oppose the first subheading, dismantling nuclear weapons; but, before stating their reasoning, we will change our viewpoint to that of the naive (no insult intended) or too optimistic. Assuming all nations dismantled their nuclear weapons tomorrow; the world would be peaceful: no more nuclear weapons, no more eminent destruction, no more bad guys. What? Exactly! How can we eliminate the evil side of humans, their inherent dark side? This leads to the reason supporting the maintenance of existing, and the development of future nuclear weapons. When a nation, terrorist group, or someone with ill intent secures sole-control of nuclear capabilities, the world will be at the mercy of this group's sanity, since the world is currently nowhere near an acceptable defensive system. So from this scenario, one can infer that in the present, the only deterrent to nuclear war is the existence of nuclear arms in opposition to each other. The second subheading, whether a nuclear war can occur without escalating into a victorless, nuclear holocaust, is an evolving argument due to its dependency on modern technology. The two stances on this topic are known by their acronyms of NUTS and MAD (Nuclear Utilization Target Selection, and Mutually Assured Destruction respectively). The position taken by NUTS is that limited use of nuclear weapons can occur, without igniting an all-out, nuclear holocaust-resulting in the devastation of both conflicting parties, and hence a mutual loss. The major fault on which NUTS lies is that no nuclear nation possesses, or is expected to soon possess, an acceptable defensive shield against nuclear weapons. While this fault is not due to our ability to destroy inbound weapons, it is due to our accuracy in destroying the sheer quantity in

‘Otherwise’ by Cilla McQueen Essay

Love can be a great emotion full of joy though it is not the case in ‘Otherwise’, Cilla McQueen seems to cut into one of the rather disheartening issues, a long distant relationship. The free verse structured poem written in first person tells the story of two lovers living on ‘opposite’ sides of the world. The title indicates that otherwise expresses contrast between what is reality and what is hoped for. McQueen divided her poem to reflect this contrast, and uses it to symbolize an essential difference between these lovers. The Poem consisting of two stanzas begins with examples of how hopeless the speakers love is. McQueen Specifically in the first stanza illustrates the way things are and uses the line endings of the lines to emphasize the images which clearly clarify the division between the two people. The speaker also defines the distant loved one as the ‘other’ which indicates her or him, being the ‘opposite’ which is supported by the stars which ‘assemble in unfamiliar patterns’. The speaker furthermore continues explaining how different there cultures are since the speaker doesn’t ‘often watch traffic or television’ and instead watches nature and how ‘hour by hour the huge tide’ comes in and leaves again. One can conclude that the speaker is trying to define himself and express how things are not equal between them. But at the same time the speaker is contradicting himself by still showing how in love he or she is. For example when she notices how the ‘Tide absently fingers rocks and shells’, which shows how the speaker is absent from the world noticing the smallest things trying to get his or her mind of the beloved one. The dissection here of stanza one and two is most certainly deliberately put in by McQueen at this point because the division of the stanzas physically represent what could be the â€Å"otherwise† in the relationship. Therefore it is also the turning point in the poem where the speaker stops elaborating on how different there worlds are and instead dreams of how wonderful it would be though if they could get together. Interesting to notice at the beginning of the second stanza is how there the first word is not capitalized this seems to be an indication from McQueen to  additionally illustrate how the first stanza is not so important singularly and that the second stanza is a type of personal reply to signify, how even though the speaker can find hundreds of reasons for himself why it cant work, he or she still does not want to give up the hope that it might still work. In this stanza the speaker also seems to be very distant from his or her ‘real’ world and lost in his own mind, which again reflects how in the first stanza the speaker states how he or she often ‘absently fingers rocks and small shells’ and that the speaker seems to be at this state during this part of the poem. The Speaker begins with the wishful phrase ‘if you were with me now’ and then thinks and try’s to imagine how it would be with his or her loved one, were as one notices here the metaphors and hyperboles very well, such as the speakers wish to ‘watch the distant seismograph [together]’, meaning how nice it would be to just look into the distance at the rigid landscape filled by mountains with ‘silver peaks’. During all this McQueen uses really powerful imagery to better express herself, such as the ‘silver peaks’ which ‘darken into indigo’. This continues with the great ‘flock of terns [seabirds]’, this part being very significant again because after the birds ‘wheel up shrieking’ they ‘land again behind them’ showing how the loved ones are now one and that nothing can easily get between. The poem now continues to the point were the speaker really seems to long for his or her loved one and wishes that they could at least just be together where the speakers ‘cold hands’ represents the loneliness and the need of the other ones love to feel well again. The speaker continues describe how they ‘would walk together quietly right to the very end’ signifying the strength of there love and how the speaker thinks he or she will love the one forever. At the very end of stanza two the speaker slowly returns to reality again bearing the ‘big chained rocks hold[ing] back the same Pacific Ocean’ being remember again by the problems, but this time the speaker is more relaxed again and doesn’t use such harsh words but instead ends it with ‘the same pacific ocean, lumbering in.’ The second stanza also consists of a more relaxing flow, in the first stanza there are really few punctuation giving the reader the feeling of nervousness and stress compared to the second stanza were there is an increased usage of punctuations such as commas, creating a more relaxed and comfortable setting. The Poem overall is a very deep work portraying the strange ways of love, and how love can even survive when one is in pain of being far away from a loved one, this problem can also occur between family and even very close friendships, giving the poem a much broader field of affection. The poem is very loving and brings up a lot of feelings which can be positive as well as negative giving the possibility to the reader that the individual to make up his own thoughts to the issue.

The Impact Of Transnational Industries And Global...

This essay aims to explore and critically analyse the impact of transnational industries and/or global financial institutions such as the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) in the sub-Sahara Africa. It will explore the impact on health, economic, and environmental, political and cultural determinants on developing countries. A country in the sub-Sahara Africa region will be used as a prime example in dealing with some of the above institutions and their outcomes, and a conclusion given. INTRODUCTION The World Bank and the IMFs strategies and its impacts in the sub-Sahara region has come under scrutiny. This has prompted concerns of the region s development with some Africans and international organizations questioning if†¦show more content†¦Nevertheless, some political economists have argued that the continents underdevelopment is due to how the states were created with their political and economic link with industrialised nations. This as a result has led to industrialised countries experimenting ill designed development concepts in developing countries. Rodney (2012) argued that every nation has developed, however not on even economic grounds. He further stated that ‘’underdevelopment’’ is used by industrialised countries to exploit other countries. Background Body (1600-1800 words) The word bank and IMF are the two main global financial institutions that lend money to various developed and developing countries. According to Wolff (2013) these institutions came into being in 1944 after the Bretton woods conference to establish a firm global economy after the world war two. The purpose of these institutions was to stimulate a stable development and offer unconditional loans to nations in economic crisis so as to achieve their developmental needs (Wolff, 2013). However, these never saw the daylight, due to pressure experienced from the US legislatures, also known as the ‘‘Washington Consensus’’ which as a result led the IMF and World Bank to lend money with harsh conditions. Kingston et al. (2011) suggests that the Structural Adjustment Policies (SAP) programs in most cases have led to poverty in developing countries