¹ The author wishes to express his appreciation to the American Council of Learned Societies for a grant which made possible some of the research for this article. In the preparation of the manuscript he received helpful suggestions from Glenn Tinder.

² On the character of this synthesis see the author's “Bismarck and German Nationalism,” American Historical Review, LX (04, 1955), 555 ff.Google Scholar

³ This term was coined by the German liberal publicist August Ludwig von Rochau in his Grundsätze der Realpolitik, angewendet auf die staatlichen Zustände Deutschlands (Stuttgart, 1853).Google Scholar

⁴ Quoted in Hearnshaw, F. J. C., The Social and Political Ideas of Some Representative Thinkers of the Age of Reaction and Reconstruction 1815–65 (London, 1932), p. 61.Google Scholar

⁵ The Philosophy of History (New York, 1944), pp. 38–9.Google Scholar

⁶ Quoted in von Laue, T. H., Leopold Ranke, the Formative Years (Princeton, 1950), p. 86.Google Scholar

⁷ Historische und Politische Aufsdtze (3rd ed., Leipzig, 1867), p. 519.Google Scholar

⁸ Politics (New York, 1916), I, 94.Google Scholar

⁹ Ibid., p. 17.

¹⁰ Ibid., p. 106.

¹¹ See Zechlin, Egmont, Die Staatsstreichpläne Bismarcks und Wilhelms II (Stuttgart, 1929).Google Scholar

¹² Landtag debate of January 27, 1863. von Petersdorff, Herman and others, eds., Bismarck; Die Gesammelten Werke (Berlin, 1924–1935), X, 157.Google Scholar

¹³ Ibid., I, 40, 70, 104; II, 219 ff.; III, 190; VII, 38; XIV (1), 441.

¹⁴ Ibid., II, 231; XIV (1), 473. Although written in 1857 this judgment was already implicit in one of Bismarck's first letters from Frankfurt (June 29, 1851). Ibid., I, 17.

¹⁵ Ibid., XIV (1), 468, 549; I, 238; III, 148. On the relationship between politics and morality in Bismarck's thinking see Vossler, O., “Bismarck's Ethos,” Historische Zeitschrift, Vol. 171 (1951), 264 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁶ Mombauer, Hans, Bismarcks Realpolitik als Ausdruck seiner Weltanschauung. Historische Studien, Vol. 291 (Berlin, 1936).Google Scholar

¹⁷ The only previous attempt to evaluate this material in terms of Bismarck's Realpolitik is the inadequate one of the German civil servant, Brauer, A. v., “Bismarcks Staatskunst auf dem Gebiete der auswartigen Politik,” in von Poschinger, H., ed., Neues Bismarck-Jahrbuch (Vienna, 1911), I, 298–339.Google Scholar

¹⁸ For the context of this remark see [text marked by note 33].

¹⁹ Werke, XIII, 555.Google Scholar

²⁰ Ibid., XIII, 559, 570; IX, 8 ff.

²¹ Ibid., XIII, 558.

²² Ibid., IX, 161; XIV (1), 483, 544; XIV (2), 752, 879; XIII, 304, 456–7.

²³ Ibid., XIV (1), 249.

²⁴ Ibid., XI, 46; XIII, 304.

²⁵ Ibid., XIII, 468.

²⁶ Zechlin, Egmont, Bismarck und die Grundlegung der deutschen Grossmacht (Stuttgart, 1930), p. 101.Google Scholar

²⁷ Werke, IX, 397 ff.Google Scholar

²⁸ Ibid., IX, 90.

²⁹ Ibid., IX, 93, 420.

³⁰ Ibid., IX, 90.

³¹ Ibid., IX, 399; to Hofmann; also XIII, 177.

³² Ibid., XIII, 468, to a delegation from Jena.

³³ Ibid., IX, 93, to Memminger. See also III, 251, “Die Politik ist eine Wissenschaft der Relativen.

³⁴ Ibid., IX, 90.

³⁵ Ibid., IX, 93–4.

³⁶ Bismarck's use and conception of history has been critically analyzed by Wolff, Helmuth, Geschichtsauffassung und Politik in Bismarcks Bewusstsein (Munich, 1926).Google Scholar

³⁷ Werke: (1) To Hofmann, IX, 400Google Scholar; (12) to a delegation from Jena, XIII, 468; (3) To Hofmann, IX, 400.

³⁸ Ibid., IX, 50.

³⁹ Max. Freiherr Pergler von Perglas, Bavarian envoy in Berlin, quoted in von Rummel, Fritz, Das Ministerium Lutz und seine Gegner 1871–1882 (Munich, 1935), p. 2Google Scholar; also von Srbik, H., Deutsche Einheit (Munich, 1935–1942), III, 70.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Werke, II, 302 ff.Google Scholar; III, 35 ff, 38, 251; XIV (1), 544.

⁴¹ Ibid., XIV (1), 441; Meyer, A. O., Bismarcks Kampf mit Österreich in Frankfurt (Berlin, 1927), pp. 549 ff.Google Scholar

⁴² See Lipgens, Walter, “Bismarcks osterreich-Politik vor 1866,” Die Welt als Geschichte, X (1950), 240–62Google Scholar; also Becker, Otto, “Der Sinn der dualistichen Verständigungsversuche Bismarcks vor dem Kriege 1866,” Historische Zeitschrift, Vol. 169 (1949), 264–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Holborn, Hajo, “Über die Staatskunst Bismarcks,” Zeitwende, III (1927), 6 ff.Google Scholar

⁴³ Werke, I, 285–7, 291Google Scholar; XIV (1), 289–91.

⁴⁴ Ibid., XIV (1), 473; II, 150, 223.

⁴⁵ Egmont Zechlin was the first to give an adequate description of this strategy as Bismarck developed it in the fifties. Grundlegung der deutschen Grossmacht, pp. 88 ff.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Steefel, L. D., The Schleswig-Holstein Question (Cambridge, 1932), p. 95.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ In the early days of the conflict the only deputy who publicly voiced the demand for the Prussian annexation was the leader of the radical minority of the Progressive Party, Waldeck.

⁴⁸ Steefel, , Schleswig-Holstein, pp. 113 ff.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Among German scholars the order of priority which Bismarck gave these alternatives has been disputed. His admirers have found it hard to believe that he had been willing to leave Germans under alien rule rather than accept a solution disadvantageous to Prussia. See Meyer, Arnold Oskar, “Die Zielsetzung in Bismarcks schleswig-holsteinischer Politik von 1855 bis 1864.” Zeitschrift für Schleswig-Hohteinische Geschichte, Vol. 53, 103–34Google Scholar. His critics, on the other hand, have been only too glad to affirm it. See Eyck, Erich, Bismarck, I. 550Google Scholar. Bismarck's own testimony varied according to his political purpose of the moment. In early 1864, while seeking to coerce Augustenburg into making certain important concessions in return for Prussian aid, he gave the second alternative as his preference. Later after concluding his alliance with German nationalism, he reversed himself, insisting that Augustenburg had been his second choice. Meyer, , op. cit., 128–30, 105–6Google Scholar. This was also the order he listed in his memoirs. Werke, XV, 254Google Scholar. Considering Bismarck's general approach to political strategy, it seems unlikely, however, that he had any rigid order of preference between the second and third alternatives. Everything depended upon the circumstances under which the final decision had to be made.

⁵⁰ Although Steefel, Srbik, and Eyck have given good accounts of Bismarck's diplomacy in the Schleswig-Holstein question, it is impossible to comprehend fully the astonishing skill with which he maneuvered his way through and over the many obstacles in his way without reading the two great documentary collections which record the day to day diplomatic transactions in the Wilhelmstrasse. Friese, Chr. and others, eds., Die auswärtige Politik Preussens 1858–71 (Oldenburg, 1933–1945), Vol. IVGoogle Scholar, and von Srbik, H., ed., Quellen zur deutschen Politik Österreichs 1859–66 (Oldenburg, 1934–1938), Vol. III.Google Scholar

⁵¹ Werke, VII, 140Google Scholar. The pattern of political strategy evident in Bismarck's diplomacy of the fifties and sixties appears also in that of the seventies and eighties.

⁵² Bismarck's draft is printed in Binding, Karl, ed., Deutsche Staatsgrundgesetze in diplomatisch genauem Abdrucke (Leipzig, 1901), I, 75 ffGoogle Scholar. In an earlier and incomplete form it is printed in Werke, VI, 187Google Scholar ff. The best source in which to study the development of the constitution is: von Völlendorff, Otto, ed., “Deutsche Verfassungen und Verfassungsentwürfe,” Annalen des deutschen Reichs (1890), pp. 241–401.Google Scholar

⁵³ It also did not provide for a central judiciary. There was no court to decide questions of constitutional interpretation. Cases of treason were to be handled by the superior court of the Hansa cities (Bremen, Hamburg, Lübeck).

⁵⁴ It was originally intended, in fact, for Friedrich Karl von Savigny, the last Prussian delegate to the Frankfurt Diet.

⁵⁵ Politische Geschichte des neuen deutschen Kaiserreiches (Frankfurt a. M., 1925–1930), I, 216–7.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Becker, Otto, “Wie Bismarck Kanzler wurde,”Google Scholar in Thurau, Harald, ed., Beiträge zur deutsehen und nordischen Geschichte, Festschrift für Otto Scheel (1951), pp. 336 ff.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Herzfeld, Hans, Johannes von Miquel (Detmold, 1938), I, 450 ff.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ See von Vietsch, Eberhard, Die politische Bedeutung des Reichskanzleramts für den inneren Ausbau des Reiches von 1867 bis 1800 (Leipzig, 1936).Google Scholar

⁵⁹ Laband, Paul, “Die geschichtliche Entwicklung der Reichsverfassung seit der Reichsgründung,” Jahrbuch des öffentlichen Rechts, I (1907), 22–5.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Werke, XV, 448.Google Scholar

⁶¹ Ziekursch, , Politische Geschichte, II, 294–7.Google Scholar

⁶² Goldschmidt, Hans, Das Reich und Preussen im Kampf um die Führung (Berlin, 1931), pp. 75 ff, 80 ff.Google Scholar

⁶³ Zechlin, , Staatsstreichplane, pp. 3 ff.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ The Hero in History (New York, 1943), p. 154.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ Marcks, E., Müller, K. A. v., and Brauer, A. v., Erinnerungen an Bismarck, pp. 210–12.Google Scholar