bismarck 1860's review

Otto Von Bismarck and the events of the 1860’s played a very significant role to the unification of Germany by 1871. Some historians dispute upon the concept that Bismarck was solely a “master planner”, arguing that he was in fact a pragmatist or an opportunist meaning that he took advantage of the situations around such as the conditions of the countries. Historian Mosse notes that due to the conditions of intentional opposing countries (such as; Russia, Britain, France and Austria) Bismarck was in fact lucky with his successes.
In 1862, Bismarck reorganised the Prussian army and improved training in preparations for war which could lead to the assertion that Bismarck planned the events to come. An event to agree with this statement was the question of whether to back the Polish in Russia at the time. Pragmatically and opportunistically Bismarck decided against backing the Poles and stayed neutral. This event is seen as pragmatic due to his want for Russia to not intervene in any wars or decisions to come for Prussia. Another reason was due to the percentage of the polish population in what was to become the united nations of Germany, Bismarck successfully caused immobility of Polish revolution. Give other side – to not encourage Poles in Prussia to revolt, too
Due to his success of not intervening in Russia’s Polish revolt, Bismarck gained Russian goodwill to inevitably not interfere with Prussian wars. In 1864 just two years after becoming Chancellor, Bismarck took Prussia to war with Denmark of the succession and future of Schleswig and Holstein. This can be was seen as an act to get support from German nationalists inside and outside the Prussian parliament to then push towards unification. Bismarck carefully involved Austrian due to his was for safety as Austria was head of the confederation at this time. However it was also to weaken Austria, Bismarck did this by giving the state closest to Prussia to Austria. This is portrayed as a ‘trap’ to strain Austrian economic resources. This weakening of Austria is split in the opinion of historians as Mosse views this as a strike of luck due to no interference from other countries whereas others see it as an opportunistic success with master planning. Explain a little with examples

This was the catalyst to start a war with Austria. In it lasted just seven weeks and concluded with a generous peace treaty excluding Austria from North Germany and ending Austria’s confederation leadership. The generous treaty was to avoid future retaliation and to make Bismarck and Prussia seem fair and just in their actions. Although this event seemed well planned Bismarck was still relying heavily upon the army and his tactical friendship of Von Roone and Von Moltke. However opportunistically, Bismarck took advantage of Austria’s diverted diluted? powers due to their lack of economic power since the Crimea. This is a significant point towards unification as Bismarck now had the Northern Germans within Prussia.
In 1867, Bismarck tactfully negotiated with Louis Napoleon the terms of ownership of Luxemburg. France wanted to buy Luxemburg and initially Bismarck said yes on the terms that the French would stay out of Austro-Prussian conflict. Bismarck then went public with the negotiation causing humiliation to the French making Great Britain suspicious of them and to get smaller states to side with Prussia for nationalism. This helped isolate France as other countries then began to distrust French motives; this was a sign of clever planning from Bismarck isolating the French.
In 1870 the French were upset by possible German royal family taking power in Spain after the constitutional crisis. This is seen as a classic example of Bismarck’s opportunism to plan another war. The ems telegram was a tactical master planned event from Bismarck. This led to the humiliation of Louis Napoleon and his poor handling of foreign policy and to a full German state due to the southern Catholics integrating into the Reich.
Although Bismarck seemed to have achieved these successes off his own intervention, however without the close military friendship with von Roone and von Moltke perhaps these close steps to unity would not have been so successful. Although this is a coherent argument, historians such as Mosse argue that it was infact luck that allowed Bismarck this success and his close relationship with the Kaiser.
Overall, Bismarck had all three attributes; master planning (for example the dastardly planning of the Em’s telegraphs), an opportunist (taking advantage of situations of the countries) and also had pure luck on his side.