. Whywasthissourcepublishedin1863?Explainyouranswerusingdetailsofthesourceandyour
knowledge.
The caricature is published to ridicule Bismarck. Being published in Frankfurt, a smaller pro-Austria German state, the cartoonist uglified the Prussian military ambition. The ‘iron and blood’ saddle represents his policy of strengthening Prussian industrialization and militarization, and France is caricatured to be a proud cockerel that Bismarck rides in lieu of a horse. The cartoonists implies that the pound nature of the French army is being overpowered by Bismarck and this creates a ridiculous image of Prussian ambition in general, fueling the local zeitgeist of disdain for Prussia.
However, the cartoon also gloomily foreshadows the potential future in hold for such a city as Frankfurt. In the worsening of relationships between Austria and Prussia between the years 1860-1866, it is cartoons like this that further polarize both parties. By putting Bismarck in the role of Blucher, the cartoonist implies that Bismarck will lead Prussia to defeat France again in the future and possibly other nations such as Austria as well. (7/6)
(Immediately after the army reform bill in 1862)
DoesSourceGprovethattheAmericanpolitician’saccountinSourceFiswrong?Explainyour
answerusingdetailsofthesourcesandyourknowledge.
Source G proves Source F to be erroneous in the exact motive of Bismarck’s waging of war with France through the dissonance between the two sources. Source F claims that Bismarck is not so much responsible for the Franco-Prussian war as he believes that it would be the French King who will initiate the conflict, while Source G states that Bismarck was more responsible for preparing for war and trying to make Prussia ready for it. While source F’s main unreliability lies in that it’s an American politician’s recollection and hence will suffer memory errors, it is also prone to error as Bismarck may be simply creating a good diplomatic image with America. Source G, however, comes from Bismarck’s own words that confirms his motive from a primary point of view.
Despite this, Source F is correct to some extent in its agreement with Source G and in instances, more reliable than Source G. Both sources confirm that Bismarck had expected war with France during the periods leading up to 1871, and both sources place some responsibility on France – Source F heavily, Source G less so. However, seeing that Source F is published three years before the war in 1868, and knowing that Bismarck had provoked France intentionally with the Spanish succession question and in the Luxembourg Crisis, Bismarck may simply be manipulating politically to place the blame on France since he has been working to engineer war. Source G however, is published in Bismarck’s memoirs 27 years after the war, and hence it glorifies Bismarck’s manipulations in strengthening the army and gives a noble cause of unifying Germany to wage war. Hence, while Source G and F have some dissonance, source G is insufficient to prove source F wrong.
. AreyousurprisedbySourceH?Explainyouranswerusingdetailsofthesourceandyour
knowledge.[7]
I am surprised by Source H as:
-nearing Franco Prussian War
-after luxembourg crisis and confederation of north germany
-should be ambivalent yet supportive with emperor
-outward display of military weakness
Hoever
-france is always liberal mission
-denies that germany is threat to calm citizens
-just hearsay to promote national image
COMPARE WITH OTHER SOURCES!
Responsible: B C E G
Not responsible: D F H
Militarily
Unifying germany
Throughout the years 1862-1871, Germany moved closer to unification by kleindeustchland due to the rise of Prussia as a global power in this period of time. The power of Bismarck as a statesman brought about great diplomatic advantages to Prussia, and in his realpolitik he manipulated the entirety of Europe to satisfy Prussian ends. To do this, major wars such as the Franco-Prussian War, the Austro-Prussian war and the Danish war was engaged as a means to unification by force. Evaluating the sources at hand, German unification was brought about more so by violence compared to diplomacy.
The three wars between Prussia and other states was paramount to establishing Prussia as a military power and to unify the German states under Prussia leadership. The Army Reform Bill of 1862 consolidated Prussian military power, as seen in Bismarck’s determination in Source C’s “blood and iron” being the way to gain power in German states. The Danish war was a international rehearsal and display of Prussia’s army strength and aggression, as Source D portrays the bloodthirsty King Wilhelm in his pursuit of danish blood and human flesh, echoing the zeitgeist of Prussia aggression’s international reputation. The thread of war continues as the paramount showdown between Austria and Prussia erupted by July 1866, as Source E depicts the quarrel between Prussia and Austria in swords and Source A claims the “Austro-Prussian War [as] a landmark” of Prussia’s “needle gun and organization of army,” showing that technological and military strength guaranteed victory by violence. Perhaps war is ultimately the only way to unite the nations: liberal dissent to Bismarck’s conservative policies were overcome in Source F and the power of warfare was confirmed as the “Prussian liberal and nationalist” claims, albeit unwillingly and simultaneously condemning war, that “Prussia has no choice” and that “the war will have the result that we desire.” Coming from a personal letter, it is a reliable reflection of even liberals were able to come to acknowledge that perhaps force is the only means to achieve a difficult end.
However, diplomacy was also seen to be paramount as it is diplomacy that enabled these displays of violence. Source B sees that “Bismarck’s diplomacy” allowed for “providing wars and statesmanship allowed for complete victory, which shows that diplomacy is what enabled wars. Bismarck’s diplomacy in the Danish Crisis was shown as Source A sees that he could “pick a quarrel with Austria” at any time using Denmark, leading. Furthermore, Bismarck’s skill in the Hohenzollern candidature was shown as he “quietly fostered the crisis to provoke France” as stated by source A and B. Source G and H are reliable reflections, as they are internal documents, of Bismarck’s skill and motivation in keeping Prussian officially out of the Spanish throne business while still secretly manipulating, even using the King as a pawn to his game. As the Spanish Crisis eventually led to the Ems Telegram in 1870, resulting in war, this shows that Bismarck’s diplomatic ability is what truly enabled war to happen as a means of unification.
In conclusion, while German unification was mostly brought about by force (as confirmed by sources A, C, D, E and F,) diplomacy was important in bringing about the wars as confirmed by sources A,B,G, and H. A combination of these two allowed for effective unification.
IGCSE REVISION 