1. The enigma of Bismarck as Imperial Chancellor by Bruce Waller
In this article in the Modern History Review Waller looks at a number of historical
interpretations on Bismarck and assesses their validity

Lothar Gall sees Bismarck as the sorcerers’ apprentice. In this he is claiming
that Bismarck was not up to his task. This is contrary to the belief of many
Historians that 1870 – 1890 was a time when Bismarck shined. Gall believes
that at this time Germany was out of control and he does not like what
Bismarck did. Gall challenges the older interpretations and paints a picture of
Bismarck as incompetent. We know that other Historians talk of the pure
genius of Bismarck and so this is a startlingly attack by Gall.
Michael Sturmer ( a west German Biographer) does not agree with Gall’s
assessment. He sees Bismarck as an imperious and overbearing man, well in to
the game of democratic charades. He compares Bismarck to the two
Napoleons. Sturmer sees Bismarck not as an apprentice but as the sorcerer a
manipulator.

With such two opposing views is it any wonder that there is a varied response from
Historians when studying Bismarck and the Unification of Germany. In the 1980s
other views were seen. We still had a separated Germany and communist writers in
the east were careful to use their Marxist view of the world (where events occurred
due to an uprising of the lower classes against the upper classes and History was
viewed by Marxist Historians as one large on going struggle.) but not all Historians
used Marxist notions in their views

Engelberg held the view that Bismarck was a unique Historical individual, a
conservative statesman. He was careful to avoid Marxist terminology. This
was a big departure from the writing of previous Historians. In a Marxist
climate to call Bismarck a conservative was as startling as Gall’s
reinterpretation. This is not new Bruce Waller himself has argued that
Bismarck lead his country from barren conservatism to moderate liberalism.
There are vast differences in Historians approachs to studying Bismarck there is very
little room for consensus this is due to the following points:
1. History does not clearly reflect reality. It shows things changing
according to one’s position. So it is not as clear cut and open to
interpretation.
2. Bismarck was a great revolutionary who altered things for the better
or worse. Other things were then affected in a chain of events.
3. The man was not straight forward. His mind and personality
encompassed many contradictions so did the things he did.
4. There is a last approach to studying Bismarck that looks at a
psychoanalytical reinterpretation of his relationship with his mother
and its effects later in his life.!!
1. Bismarck as a Bungler Gall’s interpretation
Was he a fumbler or a dictatorial moderniser? What evidence is there?
A fumbler
It is gall’s view that Bismarck realised that Prussia needed to modernise and expand
if she was to be a great leader of a unified Germany with this in mind he set about
modernising Prussia and setting her ready for her future role. Bismarck wanted to
ensure that he remained in control. However he goes on to say that Bismarck changed
his view once the Empire has been created he began to think that the cost had been
great. Gall believes that signs of regret and frustration set in. He sees Bismarck’s
behaviour as so clumsy that one could loose sight of the long term good that came
from his time in office ( the creation of Gemany)
A Conservative
Engelberg’s holds that German Liberals were not well advanced in the field of politics
and wanted a voice in affairs nothing more. He also believes that so strong was their
drive for national unity that they were prepared to sacrifice political liberalism. They
looked to a strong man to help them, Bismarck. However he had other ideas to use
them and their support for his own ends ( the extension of Prussian power and the
preservation of traditional Prussian customs).
When it comes to Bismarck and foreign policy Gall believes that Bismarck was
prepared to hover between foreign powers since he contracted an increasing number
of commitments to them to keep them on side and there was no future in this as he
would have to side with one in the end. Gall believes he was someone who could start
the job but not finish it off.
A Hero
Sturmer takes a different line for him Bismarck is either centre stage running things or
backstage manipulating his puppets.. He had a strong position. He was the key man in
both Prussia and the Empire. He had the support of King and state princes.
Parliament could not force him from office and the army were on his side. He was
successful in foreign wars and so the country were united behind him.
In contradiction to the view of Bismarck as a manipulator historian seek to show him
as a deeply religious man a sentimental Bismarck!!
The Liberal Moderniser
In the 1980s two English Historians David Blackbourn ang Geoff Eeley presented the
view that Imperial Germany was quite liberal and modern