Suggest me an essay topic!

**Sarmatian** · 05-22-2009, 18:55

Good read, although I hoped for bit longer text that goes more into details...

That's basically how I see it, too. I just don't understand what were you trying to say with this "I think the system could only last up to certain period of time". All systems (of alliances) last only up to a certain period of time. In the 19th and 20th century we've seen Germany, Russia and UK allied against France; France and UK against Russia; France, UK and Russia against Germany etc...

That Bismarck's lasted for so long in a volatile climate that is 19th century Europe is a credit to his skill...

**Jolt** · 05-22-2009, 23:01

My teacher imposed the 10 page limit. I originally thought that would be fine but as I went through making a more detailed contextualization, I noticed it would be rather difficult, and tried to do an in focus observation of the system while putting tid-bits of details and opinions. As you can notice, my awesome and in depth description of the Austro-Prussian War and the Franco-German War is quite the example of generalization.

Sarmatian, by that I was referring to the Bismarckian attempt to keep France isolated, and keeping Russia and France from allying (Which was what happened in Wilhelm's II rule.), meaning that he would never be able to maintain the network which isolated France indefinetly. Thus, I wonder if Bismarck maintained control over Germany, would have Russia split from the Treaty of Reassurance signed in 1887 to ally with France, or would have kept following Germany. Financial issues may also be behind Russia's departure of Germany for France, since France, isolated as it was, and with Austria and the U.K hostile towards Russia, was the only viable alternative to Germany, and Russia needed foreign investment in its economy, something Bismarck or wasn't very interested in allowing. Since German investment was lacking, Russia might probably have ditched Germany for France even if Bismarck remained as Chancellor.

LG, it means my doubts that Bismarck would have succeeded in dealing with conflicting interests of its own allies, while keeping himself allied to everyone. Austria and Russia disputed the remnants of the Ottoman Empire and the Balkans, Germany had threatened Russia multiple times even by publicizing the Dual Alliance (Which was originally secret), while being at the same time an ally of Russia, against Austria. Then keeping France from allying any European power and attacking Germany due to the revanché. With his allies at odds with one anothers, there would have to come a time that he would have to take sides. And whoever he didn't pick would then go to France, which wanted to attack Germany. In time, nationalism, imperialism, economic and political interests would lead to one side declaring war over the other. So, both. It is disputable that war would be averted (As it wasn't) if the system of alliances failed (As it did).

**Ariovistus Maximus** · 06-02-2009, 04:54

Personally, I think the mess of politics that blew Franz Josef's assassination into WWI is quite thrilling! That'd make quite the study of int'l relations.

**Centurion1** · 06-02-2009, 22:27

The crazy thing about ww1 is the events leading up to it. Franz josef on the grand scheme of things really wasnt as major as it has been made out to seem. Europe at that time was a powder keg and that just lit the fuse
(thats what happens when you stick a bunch of egotistical absolute rulers with modern militaries in a land mass the size or smaller than america)

**Jolt** · 06-03-2009, 00:06

Franz Josef was just a person. While he wasn't important by the time of the assassination, he was the heir to the Austrian Dual Monarchy, and would surely continue the policies of his predecessors in regards to imperialism on the Balkans and expansion against the old Ottoman dependencies. The fact that he was visitting Bosnia goes to show that he viewed the protectorate as a part of his Empire, which would soon incorporate Serbia in the likes of Bosnia.

**Sarmatian** · 06-03-2009, 00:50

Except that Franz Jozef was the emperor and the heir, the fellow who got assassinated, was archduke Franz Ferdinand...

**Jolt** · 06-03-2009, 00:55

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

Except that Franz Jozef was the emperor and the heir, the fellow who got assassinated, was archduke Franz Ferdinand...

Bleh. I always get confused with them Franzs. >_> I was thinking Franz *Insert Random Name here* was the heir of the Austria-Hungary :P

**Ariovistus Maximus** · 06-09-2009, 01:23

I think it's amazing because, like you guys are saying, "Franz" was not really all that significant in the grand scheme of things.

His death was used as a pretext for Austria to steal land.

Austria stealing land was a pretext for Russia to mobilize, because THEY wanted more land.

Russia's mobilization was a pretext for Germany to mobilize, because they'd been scheming for global domination for decades.

And Germany's mobilization scared the French into counter-mobilizing, and also perhaps as a pretext to regain Alsace and all those places they'd been fighting Germany over for how long...

So, in the end, everybody bluffed to get what they wanted, and they each called each others' bluffs, and.......

Truly an unbelievable series of messed-up politics.

**Jolt** · 06-09-2009, 11:14

Marks are out. I got a 3 in a range of 0 to 4. My teacher said I didn't get a full mark due to technical issues (Lack of references). He said that otherwise it was a good essay.

**Ariovistus Maximus** · 06-09-2009, 15:51

Well done! You should post it in the Monestary; collect a few balloons! :)

Erg; I always have trouble citing my sources. It always interrupts my train of thought!

**Jolt** · 06-09-2009, 23:32

Originally Posted by Ariovistus Maximus

Well done! You should post it in the Monestary; collect a few balloons! :)

It is on the first page of this very thread. Read it if you like.

**Ariovistus Maximus** · 06-12-2009, 02:21

oops!

*shoves foot into mouth*

hehe I guess I missed it when I first posted, and then just kept going to page 2 after that...

**Jolt** · 06-12-2009, 03:09

You can give your opinion on it if you wish. :)

**Ariovistus Maximus** · 06-12-2009, 03:35

Didn't want to comment 'till I had read it. :)

Very good! Truly, I was amazed how it all came together. Some real insight into politics and diplomacy. I was not quite sure of your conclusion, though?

Do you think that it was inevitable, or that it could have been averted but for the aggressiveness of the new king and the lack of another Bismark at the helm?

I did have some trouble, though, following it due to grammar. I understand it is a translation? That's probably it then.

Thanks Jolt!

**Jolt** · 06-12-2009, 03:45

Originally Posted by Ariovistus Maximus

Didn't want to comment 'till I had read it. :)

Very good! Truly, I was amazed how it all came together. Some real insight into politics and diplomacy. I was not quite sure of your conclusion, though?

Do you think that it was inevitable, or that it could have been averted but for the aggressiveness of the new king and the lack of another Bismark at the helm?

I did have some trouble, though, following it due to grammar. I understand it is a translation? That's probably it then.

Thanks Jolt!

I say it was innevitable even if Bismarck remained with the office. And indeed it is a translation. I did some minor edits to correct parts where the translation wasn't any good. Thanks, glad you enjoyed it! :)

**Marshal Murat** · 06-13-2009, 04:40

The translation errors were annoying, but it was a good piece overall.

among which was where the King Prussia, Frederick William was forced to create a constitution, to calm the rebels.

- When Frederick William (FW) was threatened, Bismarck actually appeared and hoped that FW would launch the army against the rebels.

"iron and fire."

- I assumed this was a translation error, "iron and blood".

Bismarck then turned its attention to the question of Schleswig and Holstein, two ethnically German principalities ruled by the King of Denmark. The government of Denmark planned to attach the two principalities as parts of the Danish nation, which led the Prussian King to convince the Austrian emperor to occupy the region together to prevent a possible annexation.

I think the key missing aspect of this was the mention of the treaty that prevented Denmark from annexing the two provinces, which would've tied the Austrians and Prussians together more easily than what you wrote.

As such, in 1870, Bismarck encouraged the Prince Leopold, Prussian and a relative of William I to become the candidate for the throne of Spain. Bismarck as expected, France was angry with such progress, and demanded a retraction of Leopold as a candidate for the throne. Wilhelm I agreed and withdrew support to Leopold, but that was not enough for France.

I would've included in here the reluctance of Prince Leopold to apply for the Spanish throne candidacy.

I also think that you should've, in this paragraph, given a little to how Bismarck created the entire German constitution ensuring that Bismarck was made Chancellor by the King or his invulnerability to any actions by the Reichstag.

Bismarck Russia managed to sign the "Treaty of Reinsurance," where Russia and Germany agreed to remain neutral in case of either being attacked by a third party.

As I understand it, the Treaty of Reinsurance was a secret treaty (the next Chancellor Caprivi(?) only found out about the treaty when the Tsar asked for it to be re-instated!)

(German Bankers financed projects in the French colonies, often)

First I've heard of this!

William II succeeded him on the throne. His was a vision of how Germany should act in the world was completely different from Bismarck, which William II had a plan entitled to make Germany the largest superpower in the world with a great and strong empire. Bismarck saw the aspirations of the new monarch, particularly its intention to build a naval fleet to the equivalent of Great Britain as a serious risk to security and peace of Germany that Bismarck had both sought to maintain.

This is ironic since Bismarck practically created Wilhelm II and all his political ideas (along with stroking his ego to prevent the liberal-overthrow by his father who died of throat cancer)

Attempting to do so, he went to Morocco in the year after the agreement of the Entente Cordial, saying that the people of Morocco under French administration should be free. This instigated a sense of fear in Europe, because Germany was now to intervene directly in matters that were not directly related to Germany.

This was more difficult not because Germany was intervening directly (they had a right based on the treaty which governed Morocco years before) but that they were not only intervening after they gave their acceptance of the French intervention but they also sent Delcasse to the pits and pissed off both the Brits and French.

It is difficult to say if the system failed with his resignation,

I would say this was the primary fault. The next 3 ministers to William II (WII) were all unable to correctly handle the volatile and childish WII, especially Bulow (a total sycophant who actually turned down the British alliance that was offered by Chamberlain). Had the Chancellor been both capable of handling WII and also realizing the situation at hand more clearly (and limiting the influence of Tirpitz on WII) Plus, Bismarck built the role of "Imperial German Chancellor" too much around his personality, unlike the role of Prime Minister in the UK or US President which was built on a responsibility to run the country and such based on popular decision. Bismarck was capable and powerful. If the successor had been capable and powerful enough he could've also led the German Empire to peace, but what can ya do?

**Jolt** · 06-13-2009, 15:33