No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Otto Pflanze's Bismarck Trilogy
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 16 December 2008
Abstract
An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Review Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Conference Group for Central European History of the American Historical Association 1990
References
1. Böhme, Helmut, Deutschlands Weg zur Grossmacht (Cologne and Berlin, 1966).Google Scholar
2. On this point I follow the convincing study by Good, David F., The Economic Rise of the Habsburg Empire, 1750–1914 (Berkeley, Los Angeles, London, 1984), esp. chaps. 3, 4, 5, and 8.Google Scholar
3. E.g., Avineri, Shlomo, Hegel's Theory of the Modern State (Cambridge, 1972)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Taylor, Charles, Hegel (Cambridge, 1975)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The latter points out that Hegel in the 1850s and 1860s “fell into virtual oblivion” and in Bismarckian Germany was only “vaguely remembered as the state philosopher of Prussia” (537).
4. Cf. Schroeder, Paul W., Austria, Great Britain and the Crimean War: The Destruction of the European Concert (Ithaca and London, 1972);Google ScholarPottinger, E. Ann, Napoleon III and the German Crisis 1865–1866 (Cambridge, Mass., 1966);Google Scholar and numerous articles by Austensen, Roy A., including “Count Buol and the Metternich Tradition,” Austrian History Yearbook 9–10 (1973–1974): 173–93;CrossRefGoogle Scholar“Austria and the Struggle for Supremacy in Germany, 1848–1864,” Journal of Modem History 52 (05) 1980): 195–225;Google Scholarand “The Making of Austria's prussian Policy, 1848–1852,” Historical Journal 27 (1984): 861–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar On Rechberg see in particular Elrod, Richard B., “Austria and the Venetian Question 1860–1866,” Central European History 4 (1971): 149–70;CrossRefGoogle Scholar and same, “Bernhard von Rechberg and the Metternichian Tradition: The Dilemma of Conservative Statecraft,” Journal of Modern History 56 (1984): 430–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Gall, Lothar, Bismarck: Der weisse Revolutionär (Frankfurt, a. M., 1980);Google Scholar and Engelberg, Ernst, vol. 1, Bismarck: Urpreusse und Reichsgründer (Berlin, 1985)Google Scholar, vol. II, Bismarck: Das Reich in der Mitte Europas (Berlin, 1990).Google Scholar
6. Rosenberg, Hans, Bureaucracy, Aristrocracy and Autocracy (Boston, 1966);Google ScholarGillis, John R., The prussian Bureaucracy in Crisis 1840–1860 (Stanford, 1971);Google ScholarArmstrong, John O., The European Administrative Elite (Princeton, 1973)Google Scholar. To these works one could add dozens more by such well known figures as Rolf Dahrendorf and Eckart Kehr, which is not to say that agree on all particulars.
7. See most particularly Bonham, Gary, “Bureaucratic Modernizers and Traditional Constraints: Higher Officials and the Landed Nobility in Wilhelmine Germany, 1890–1914” (Ph.D. diss., Berkeley, 1985)Google Scholar soon to be published by Garland Publishing, Inc., as Ideology and Interests in the German State.
8. Morsey, Rudolf, Die oberste Reichsverwaltung unter Bismarck 1867–1890 (Münster/Westfalen, 1957), esp. chap. 4.Google Scholar
9. Although Pflanze reached the above conclusions independently, he owes much, he informs us, to private exchanges of views with Lamar Cecil, Whose Wilhelm II, Prince and Emperor 1859–1900 appeared only a few months earlier, adding many corroborating insights from Hohenzollern sources.