Suchergebnisse

Born on 1 April 1815 at Schonhausen Estate in Magdeburg Otto von Bismarck is charged undoubtedly one of the central figures in German history, not only of the 19th century. His power was to have recognized the political and social currents of his time and used talented and passionate about it as 'CEO of a purpose' (Hegel). Here lay the initially as a 'hothead' notorious not only amazing sense of direction, tactical finesse and flexibility of the day, but also Kuhle calculation, prudence and determination; Characteristics that distinguished him from most political actors of his origin layer and its time. By advocating revolutionary means and rose above the narrow-mindedness of the landowner milieu, he could make decisive contributions to the establishment of the small German nation-state afford its constitution and practice the standards of the liberal age corresponded, without denying the noble civil representatives the possibility of integration. Adapted from the source document.

In July 1914, the European diplomacy gave way serious illusions about the features and scope of the international order. This had serious consequences. It had competing perception and action levels emerged that prevented the resolution of political crises and controversial issues in international relations. The result was that the politicians were talking past each other and also negotiating. While still existed the system of privileged five, later six great European powers, which had since the Congress of Vienna (1814-15) often proved to be the framework for conflict resolution, but had his ability to make decisions taken follow sanctions, gradually after consumed. Whether this system was loaded, was questionable. Time has shown that it was in the era of globalization and democratization in any case no longer. Meanwhile, the international system was created as a competing action level. The conflict line now lay between the traditional, nationally-based diplomacy of the great powers and a new international interwoven and socially anchored wider diplomacy. Adapted from the source document.

Historiography and journalism have always treated the outbreak of war in 1914 from different angles and with varying intentions. It became clear that the overcoming of the national perspective on 1914 also our view of the responsibility of the individual European governments has expanded. This is the question of war guilt that had been at the beginning of the debate around 1914 and had been exploited especially after the Paris suburb treaties, actually become obsolete, replaced by a perspective that, free of daily political pressures, national enemy and prejudices, guilt and responsibility in their entanglements with the political decision-action shows, while the systemic conditions and consequences is charged. Adapted from the source document.

The key requirement for the actions of the responsible statesmen from July 1914 was their perception of the state system and its functions and scopes. The European state system of five and later six major Powers existed since the Congress of Vienna (1814-15), it had many changes withstood, often preserved as a basis for action - most recently during the Balkan Wars of 1912-13 - but it was getting on in years. Given the competing national imperialisms of widening alliance and block structures and the evolving international action level with a host of new actors, there was no uniform view more about how durable it was. Adapted from the source document.

Within the European diplomacy took place in the first decade of the 20th century a new generation. This was derived from the participation in common destinies, experiences and intellectual currents of the imperialist era, and also included a mental break. After the German Empire of 1871 it had become clear that the state system was now 'power over law' and no country was safe, 'to be able to assert his rights' if he was not able, his policies 'through proper combinations 'militarily enforce. With the turn of the century, the sentimentality of the 19th of the nervousness of the 20th century court made the rising generation was apostrophized by contemporaries as harder and emotionally poorer than its predecessors. Adapted from the source document.

It is no accident the decisive impetus for the outbreak of war in the Balkans were triggered. Here in the 19th and early 20th centuries the center of particularly serious and protracted crises the European system had been lying. As a historical region of the Balkans was marked by various influences that distinguished him from Central and Western Europe: The Byzantine Orthodox heritage had led to an intimate relationship between spiritual and temporal power and a strong foundation of legitimacy by orthodox Christianity. The Ottoman legacy was created patriarchal cultural patterns, including the related martial and heroic life. And in the agrarian societies small commercially-focused, there was neither a sizeable middle class nor civil society structures. The late national state formations had been completed under the supervision of the European Great Powers, who took little regard for the ethnic and religious fragmentation and economic exchanges. A tradition of state control, which would have led to in local structures did not exist, nor a state monopoly. Instead, gave the local area families and family clans set the tone. Adapted from the source document.