Otto Von Bismarck and Bismarckian Germany

The historical interpretation of Otto von Bismarck and Bismarckian Germany has undergone extensive transformation, as historians have had access to a wider variety of sources and evidence, and have held differing social and political presuppositions influencing their portrayal of the German unifier. The changing historical interpretations can be seen over time, as differing contexts and sources influence the portrayal, as early interpretations of Bismarck from the 1870s to the 1920s portrayed Bismarck as a man in charge and as a necessity for Germany to move forward. The interpretation of Bismarck continued to change throughout the 1930s and 40s as a result of Nazism and the collapse of the Third Reich, the interpretations shifted, and throughout the 1960s, 70s and 80s the interpretation of Bismarck has become more balanced, not significantly influenced by political desires, whilst still influenced by social context. Through the study of historical debate focussing between the 1880s and 1980s, the changing interpretations of Bismarck can be illuminated and assessed.

Historiographical debate of Bismarck’s impact upon Germany began almost immediately following his rise to prominence, as the primary initial historiography within Germany demanded a “strong man”[1], “who would cut the Gordian knot of nationalistic aspirations”.[2] Thus, German historians and the public throughout the 1850s and 1860s desired Bismarck to be portrayed as a benefactor to the German society; however Bismarck was also criticised as being detrimental to the development of Germany. The differing interpretations of Bismarck throughout the 1980s were “between the kleindeutsche and groβdeutshe historians”.[3] As the kleindeutsche historians argued that the unification was a “natural birth”, the groβdeutshe viewed it as a “caesarean section”.[4] The kleindeutshe school of though was largely composed of nationalist historians Heinrich von Sybel and Treitschke. Treitschke argued that the