[siwayun]

how far would you agree with the statement 'bismarck was responsible for the downfall of the 2nd reich' ?

of course we can all put the blame on William II at ease. but how about Bismarck? was he responsible? if so, in what way(s)? some say his alliance system was far too complicated for his followers to succeed, do you agree?

many thanks in advance

[MrJohnDClare]

I would go about this a slightly different way.

Instead of looking at what Bismarck did and then trying to extrapolate it into the future, start by assembling a list of the factors WHY THE SECOND REICH COLLAPSED.
Once you have made your list, then write your essay as a simple explanation-of-a-list-of-causes essay, only, in every paragraph, assess how much that specific cause can in any way be linked back to something Bismarck said, or did, or started.
That way, by the end of the essay, it will be clear how much Bismarck had caused the failure of the 2nd Reich.

Use William Simpson's book, The Second Reich, for ideas.
I would suggest that this is also essential reading: http://www.colby.edu.../GermanyB1.html

One other person who felt that the causes of the fall of the Second Reich extended back beyond the First World War was, of course, Adolf Hitler. It might be interesting to read what he thought here.

[Brooklyn|Art^]

This is question that can be answered with a yes or a no...If this is a question that you are answering for an essay or for school, I would advise you choose a side. Not at all, but most History teachers want the student to choose one side and argue for it, not convey two sides...It weakens the thesis and the strength of your paper. Also, teachers want to hear one strong opinion, one thought out answer, not two sides of this and that...It doesn't answer the question most of the time, just really tells the tale of two sides.
[Note from moderator - see reply below]

In my opinion, yes Bismarck did cause WW1..Not directly but in so many indirect ways...Here are some...

Bismarck could of easily had control of the country if it wasn't for his support of a monarchy...Thus that support caused his downfall when William the 2nd dismissed him. Also, Bismarck was the one behind those secret alliances with Austria...If no Bismarck, then no strong/maybe no alliance "entangling alliance" at all with Austria then No war because remember, it was Germany that was pressuring Austria to do something about the assassination because the Germans didn't want to seem week.
Also, Bismarck wanted to isolate the French, give them few or no allies...If Bismarck didn't do this, and instead created a peace of some sort, then the Germans would have not attacked the French, aka the Schieffelin Plan, aka the French and English not getting involved with the War with Russia and Serbia.

[MrJohnDClare]

Brooklyn|Art^, on Jun 19 2009, 05:05 AM, said:

This is question that can be answered with a yes or a no...If this is a question that you are answering for an essay or for school, I would advise you choose a side. Not at all, but most History teachers want the student to choose one side and argue for it, not convey two sides...It weakens the thesis and the strength of your paper. Also, teachers want to hear one strong opinion, one thought out answer, not two sides of this and that...It doesn't answer the question most of the time, just really tells the tale of two sides.

Thanks for your input, but I am afraid that I have to disagree.
If this is what your teacher is telling you, then this is what you must do - the History Help forum strongly supports the advice of the teacher in the classroom.

However, in Britain, this forum would always encourage students to approach this kind of question as a 'debate question'.
It is a question which, as you say, has two sides.
It is therefore essential that you show that you can see both sides to the question.
That does not stop you coming to a firm conclusion - it is strongly recommended that you do. But, if you look back at other posts on essay structure, you will see that we always recommend that you follow a debate structure:
Section ONE: Thesis - give the arguments FOR the case
Section TWO: Anthithesis - give the arguments AGAINST the case
Section THREE: Synthesis - give a conclusion/solution which comes to a firm judgement or 'third way'.


In the case of this essay, the best way to approach it, I am sure, is to look at the causes of the fall of the Second Reich, and for each to see if you can (or cannot) see an involvement by Bismarck in it.
Then:
- in section one, put those causes in which Bismarck seems to have had a substantial legacy
- in section two, put those causes in which Bismarck seems to have little or no impact
- in section three, come to your conclusion.

Quote

In my opinion, yes Bismarck did cause WW1... [etc.]

These ideas are fine, but remember that the question is 'How far was Bismarck responsible for the downfall of the 2nd Reich?', NOT 'How far was Bismarck responsible for the First World War?'
(One big problem for sixth formers is that they answer some other question, not the one on the paper, and this is an example!)

[Brooklyn|Art^]

I see what you mean and I think you maybe misunderstood my post/I wasn't clear for one definetly should have a paragraph that counters what you are arguing, in this case if you thought Bismarck was at fault, then your counter paragraph should be about why he is not at fault. The counter paragraph shows you are considering the other view point. Then your next paragraph should be why the counter paragraph is wrong aka your opinion and your own analyzes. Yes, you want to choose one side/form your own opinon. You don't just want to say okay Bismarck is at fault and is not at fault and then leave it at that without saying what you think...You must give your own input/your analysis aka the third paragraph. Remember, you want to analyze as much as you can. While it is good to have facts, it should not be fact after fact after fact.


Intro
Topic Sentence/Clincher
Thesis


First Paragraph
Topic Sentence
Explantation with facts on why Bismarck is at fault...Try not to give your opinion.
Closing Statement


Second Paragraph(Counter Paragraph)
Topic Sentence
Explanation with facts on why Bismarck is not at faut. Once again you want to avoid giving your opinion.
Closing Statement


Third Paragraph (Your Opinion/what you think and deep analyzes)
Topic Sentence
A deep analyzes/explanation of what you think....Use the facts already stated to support your opionon...Try not to just state facts as you may have in the above two paragraphs.
Ending Statement.


No need for a conclustion I think for your third paragraph is your conclustion..Anything more really would just be repetitive.

This post has been edited by Brooklyn|Art^: 19 June 2009 - 02:38 PM

[Brooklyn|Art^]

Quote

In my opinion, yes Bismarck did cause WW1...These ideas are fine, but remember that the question is 'How far was Bismarck responsible for the downfall of the 2nd Reich?', NOT 'How far was Bismarck responsible for the First World War?'
(One big problem for sixth formers is that they answer some other question, not the one on the paper, and this is an example!)

I disagree with you, and heres why:
Bismarck is responsible for the downfall of the 2nd Reich because he caused WW1, in which WW1 caused the downfall of the 2nd Reich...No Bismarck then no WW1 then no downfall of the 2nd Reich. I know specificaly that Bismarck retired from government after Kaiser Willhelm the 2nd fired him, thus Bismarck had no others affairs with the 2nd Reich during the war, so the only way he can be responsible for the fall of the 2nd Reich is through him being responsible for WW1.
Thus is why you are Not answering some other question. Of course, you would have to make sure you put that and didn't say in your intro and/or conclustion that "Bismarck is responsible for WW1 because....." But instead something like..."Bismarck is responsible for the downfall of the Second Reich because he caused WW1 in which WW1 is what brought down the Second Reich."..

[MrJohnDClare]

Quote

I see what you mean and I think you maybe misunderstood my post/I wasn't clear for one definetly should have a paragraph that counters what you are arguing, in this case if you thought Bismarck was at fault, then your counter paragraph should be about why he is not at fault. The counter paragraph shows you are considering the other view point. Then your next paragraph should be why the counter paragraph is wrong aka your opinion and your own analyzes. Yes, you want to choose one side/form your own opinon. You don't just want to say okay Bismarck is at fault and is not at fault and then leave it at that without saying what you think...You must give your own input/your analysis aka the third paragraph. Remember, you want to analyze as much as you can. While it is good to have facts, it should not be fact after fact after fact.


Intro
Topic Sentence/Clincher
Thesis


First Paragraph
Topic Sentence
Explantation with facts on why Bismarck is at fault...Try not to give your opinion.
Closing Statement


Second Paragraph(Counter Paragraph)
Topic Sentence
Explanation with facts on why Bismarck is not at faut. Once again you want to avoid giving your opinion.
Closing Statement


Third Paragraph (Your Opinion/what you think and deep analyzes)
Topic Sentence
A deep analyzes/explanation of what you think....Use the facts already stated to support your opionon...Try not to just state facts as you may have in the above two paragraphs.
Ending Statement.


No need for a conclustion I think for your third paragraph is your conclustion..Anything more really would just be repetitive.

I have to say that I agree with you.
The only point where I would change your plan is, as I have said above, I would structure what you have called your first two 'paragraphs' differently.

Where you suggest a 'forewards' look from Bismarck to how he might be (or not be) responsible for the collapse of the 2nd Reich, I would turn it round and adopt a 'backwards' from the causes of the collapse to Bismarck's involvement (or lack of it) in each cause.

One of the issues that your conclusion has to address in this question is 'how far'.
So really this is a 'weighing' essay - what weight Bismarck against the other causes of the collapse.

Doing it 'backwards' (as I have termed it) means that, by the time you reach the conclusion, you really have sought out Bismarck's legacy versus all the other causes PLUS his involvement in all of them, and simplifies, I suspect, the conclusion.

Having said that, there is no reason why your section FOR, section AGAINST plus CONCLUSION approach might not work perfectly adequately.

[MrJohnDClare]

Brooklyn|Art^, on Jun 19 2009, 03:36 PM, said:

Quote

In my opinion, yes Bismarck did cause WW1...These ideas are fine, but remember that the question is 'How far was Bismarck responsible for the downfall of the 2nd Reich?', NOT 'How far was Bismarck responsible for the First World War?'
(One big problem for sixth formers is that they answer some other question, not the one on the paper, and this is an example!)

I disagree with you, and heres why:
Bismarck is responsible for the downfall of the 2nd Reich because he caused WW1, in which WW1 caused the downfall of the 2nd Reich...No Bismarck then no WW1 then no downfall of the 2nd Reich. I know specificaly that Bismarck retired from government after Kaiser Willhelm the 2nd fired him, thus Bismarck had no others affairs with the 2nd Reich during the war, so the only way he can be responsible for the fall of the 2nd Reich is through him being responsible for WW1.
Thus is why you are Not answering some other question. Of course, you would have to make sure you put that and didn't say in your intro and/or conclustion that "Bismarck is responsible for WW1 because....." But instead something like..."Bismarck is responsible for the downfall of the Second Reich because he caused WW1 in which WW1 is what brought down the Second Reich."..

Yes - but that's why I drew the distinction, and that's why I was at pains to suggest an essay structure which started by outlining ALL the reasons why the 2nd Reich collapsed.

Now OF COURSE the essay is going to focus to a substantial degree on WWI; it would be silly to do otherwise. And also you are totally correct in stating that you can make out a good case that WWI was (to a degree you would decide yourself) Bismarck's legacy.

But - as Hitler realised - there are OTHER factors involved in the collapse of the 2nd Reich - I am painfully aware that this is not an area of my expertise, but from what I do know I would suggest areas of weakness were the constitutional role of the monarch, the role of the military - and the Prussian Junkers - within the state, the power-balance of Prussia against the other lander, the place of the growing working class, an abiding anti-Semitism, the weakness and decline of the agriculture-base et al.
Now what was Bismarck's legacy in these areas of weakness? The essay HAS to take them into account, even if you cannot find ANY role for Bismarck in them, because in a 'how far' essay you have to weigh his involvement against his non-involvement.

A single track argument along the lines of

Quote

Bismarck is responsible for the downfall of the Second Reich because he caused WW1 in which WW1 is what brought down the Second Reich...

is surely too narrow?

[glitterglitter]

This is really interesting. I like the 'thesis, antithesis, synthesis' - it sounds so much better than 'for, against, conclusion'!!!!!!!


I don't think it was so much WW1 breaking out that caused the downfall of the 2nd Reich, but the fact that Germany lost? Would the Kaiser have been forced to flee if victorious???? And whilst some may argue that Bismarck had a historical role in the path to WW1, surely it wasn't his fault they lost? Maybe if he's still been alive they would have won (cos he'd have had the insight to get USA on his side?????)

I think the balance thing is right, though.

I'm away to read up on this guy!!!!!! If anyone can recommend a good book on his life(sad I know) it's much appreciated. Something readable.

[MrJohnDClare]

Ugh!
Bismarck always bored me silly.

The book I use on this period for A-level stuff is
Stephen J Lee, Imperial Germany (Routledge 1999)
though I can't guarantee that you'll find it 'interesting' I can guarantee that you'll find it useful.

As for Bismarck, however, I don't know.
I'll ask on the Teacher's Forum - look back in a couple of days to see if anyone has responded.

[MrJohnDClare]

MrJohnDClare, on Jun 20 2009, 07:44 PM, said:

I'll ask on the Teacher's Forum - look back in a couple of days to see if anyone has responded.

Sorry - no response from the teachers.
Bismarck is becoming a bit of a specialist topic.

The AJP Taylor biography is bound to be controversial and interesting - even a bit out of date now.

At your stage, I suspect the best starter would be a fairly modern A-level-style biography such as this one by Feuchtwanger.

I have, however, not read either.

[glitterglitter]

Thanx!