Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T00:44:42.923Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The German Historians and Bismarck

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 August 2009

Andreas Dorpalen
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The examination and evaluation of Bismarck's statesmanship has been resumed with much vigor in Germany. The topic has always — and naturally — been a favorite of German historians. Yet the current discussion differs from previous examinations of Bismarck's policies. It is concerned not so much with a factual analysis of these policies as with their overall significance and validity.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Review of Politics , Volume 15 , Issue 1 , January 1953 , pp. 53 - 67
Copyright
Copyright © University of Notre Dame 1953

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Eyck, Erich, Bismarck: Leben und Werk (Erlenbach-Zurich, 1941–44)Google Scholar. Recently an abbreviated one-volume edition has been published in English; Bismarck and the German Empire (London, 1950)Google Scholar; it fails to measure up, however, to the full-length German original.

2 An example of the old Bismarck orthodoxy may be found in Meyer, Arnold Oskar, Bismarck: Der Mensch und der Staatsmann (Stuttgart, 1950)Google Scholar, which was, however, completed in 1943, before the German collapse. This same attitude is still reflected in a postwar paper of Kaehler, S. A., “Der 1. April 1895 und sein zeitgeschichtlicher Hintergrund,” Nachrichten der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen, Phil.-Hist. Klasse, 1948, pp. 30–41.Google Scholar

3 See, for example, Ritter, Gerhard, “Bismarck und die Rhein-Politik Napoleons III,” Rheinische Vierteljahrsblätter XV/XVI (1950/1951), 339Google Scholar; and Lipgens, Walter, “Zwei unbekannte Bismarck-Briefe,” Historische Zeitschrift, CLXXIII (1952), 322–24.Google Scholar

4 Meinecke, Friedrich, Die deutsche Katastrophe (Wiesbaden, 1946), pp. 26–30Google Scholar; Schnabel, Franz, “Das Problem Bismarck,” Hochland, 10, 1949, pp. 11–14Google Scholar; Ritter, Gerhard, Geschichte als Bildungsmacht (Stuttgart, 1946), pp. 46–49Google Scholar; same, Europa und die deutsche Frage (Munich, 1948), pp. 100–05Google Scholar; same, “Das Bismarck-Problem,” Merkur, 06, 1950, pp. 665–66.Google Scholar

5 Rothfels, Hans, “Problems of a Bismarck Biography,” Review of Politics, IX (1947), 370–72, 375–77Google Scholar. See also his paper on “Bismarck und das neun-zehnte Jahr-hundert,” in Hubatsch, Walter, ed., Schicksalswege deutscher Vergangenheit (Düsseldorf, 1950), p. 241.Google Scholar

6 Schnabel, , loc. cit., pp. 6–9Google Scholar; Ritter, , Europa, pp. 73–75.Google Scholar

7 Schnabel, , loc. cit., pp. 6–8Google Scholar; Ritter, , Europa, pp. 72–74.Google Scholar

8 Rosenberg, Arthur, Die Entstehung der deutschen Republik (Berlin, 1930), p. 60.Google Scholar

9 Schnabel, , loc. cit., pp. 8–13Google Scholar; Ritter, , Europa, pp. 83–90, 94–100Google Scholar; Rothfels, , Review of Politics, IX, 370–72, 378Google Scholar, and in Hubatsch, , op. cit., pp. 273–74Google Scholar; Schieder, Theodor, “Das Problem der Revolution im 19. Jahrhundert,” Historische Zeitschrift, CLXX (1950), pp. 251–52.Google Scholar

10 Schnabel, , loc. cit., pp. 16–24.Google Scholar

11 Rothfels even denies that the Bismarck Empire was a nation-state in the proper meaning of the term; Review of Politics, IX, 378Google Scholar, and in Hubatscn, , op. cit., p. 245.Google Scholar

12 Noack, Ulrich, “Das Werk Friedrichs des Grossen und Bismarcks als Problem der deutschen Geschichte,” Würzburger Universitätsreden, No. 7 (Würzburg, 1947), pp. 9–12.Google Scholar

13 Noack, Ulrich, ed., Die Nauheimer Protokolle (Würzburg, 1950).Google Scholar

14 Ritter, , Merkur, pp. 660–64Google Scholar, and “Grossdeutsch und kleindeutsch im 19. Jahrhundert,” in Hubatsch, , op. cit., pp. 177–201Google Scholar. See also Schieder, Theodor, in Historische Zeitschrift, CLXX (1950), pp. 210–11.Google Scholar

15 von Srbik, Heinrich Ritter, “Die Bismarck-Kontroverse,” Wort und Wahrheit, 12, 1950, pp. 924–29.Google Scholar

16 See Deutsche Einheit, Vol. IV (1942), pp. 462–84Google Scholar, esp. 464–66, 468, 474.

17 von Bismarck, Otto, Aie gesammelten Werke, ed. by Windel-band, Wolfgang and Frauendienst, Werner (Berlin, 1923–1935), XV, 278, 411Google Scholar; also VIII, 106–07.

18 Bornkamm, Heinrich, “Die Staatsidee im Kulurkampf,” Historische Zeitschrift, CLXX (1950), 289–94, 300–01.Google Scholar

19 Schnabel, , loc. cit., p. 12Google Scholar; also Ritter, , Europa, p. 125Google Scholar, and Vossler, Otto, “Bismarcks Ethos,” Historische Zeitschrift, CLXXI (1951), 287–92.Google Scholar

20 Schnabel, , loc. cit., pp. 9–14Google Scholar; Ritter, , Europa, pp. 83–86.Google Scholar

21 See, for example, Oncken, Hermann, ed. Rudolf von Binnigsen: Ein deutscher liberaler Politiker (Stuttgart and Berlin, 1910), II, 35.Google Scholar

22 Ritter, , Merkur, p. 674.Google Scholar

23 Vossler, , loc. cit., pp. 263–92.Google Scholar

24 Bismarck, , loc. cit., VII, 238.Google Scholar

25 Ibid., V, 457, VII, 176–77, 260.

26 Vossler, , loc. cit., p. 290.Google Scholar

27 See footnote 24.

28 See, for example, Gesammelte Werke, XIII, 183, 304, XIV, 1, 533.Google Scholar

29 Ibid., XV, 366, 398–99.

30 Vossler, , loc. cit., 296.Google Scholar

31 Schnabel, , loc. cit., p. 26.Google Scholar

32 Srbik, , loc. cit., p. 930.Google Scholar See also Rothfels, in Hubatsch, , op. cit., p. 244.Google Scholar

33 Ibid., p. 931.

34 Apparently Vossler, does, loc. cit., pp. 291–92.Google Scholar

35 Meinecke, , loc. cit., pp. 26–28Google Scholar; Ritter, , Merkur, pp. 665, 674Google Scholar; Rothfels, , Review of Politics, IX, 380Google Scholar; Schnabel, , loc. cit., pp. 14–15.Google Scholar

36 Ibid., p. 27.