No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 16 December 2008
1. Cf. Gall, L., ed., Das Bismarck-Problem in der Geschichtsschreibung nach 1945 (Cologne, 1971);Google ScholarHallmann, H., ed., Die Diskussion der deutschen Fachhistoriker 1945–1955 (Darmstadt, 1972).Google Scholar
2. Surely, Professor Schmitt would not dispute the differences in principle between diplomatic relations between sovereign states on the one hand and Prussia and her allies after 1866/71 on the other. Even where a façade of diplomatic activity was kept up by a German Einzelstaat after 1871, such as Bavaria, the reality was rather sobering; cf.Reiser, K., Bayerische Gesandte bei deutschen und ausländischen Regierungen 1871–1918 (Munich, 1968);Google Scholar see also Binder, H.-O., Reich und Einzelstaaten während der Kanzlerschaft Bismarcks 1871–1890 (Tübingen, 1971).Google Scholar First-rate material on the practice of Reich-Einzelstaaten relations is to be found in: Fuchs, W. P., ed., Grossherzog Friedrich I. von Baden und die Reichspolitik 1871–1907, i: 1871–1879 (Stuttgart, 1968).Google Scholar
3. Der Staatssekretär des Auswärtigen Amtes Fürst v. Hohenlohe-Schillingsfürst an den bayerischen Aussenminister Freiherr v. Crailsheim, May 14, 1880, printed in: Binder, H.-O., op. cit., pp. 199f.Google Scholar
4. von Ballhausen, R. Lucius, Bismarck-Erinnerungen (Berlin, 1920), pp. 21f.Google Scholar
5. Bismarck, O. v., Die Gesammelten Werke, viii (Berlin, 1926), 492.Google Scholar