It was probably his speeches on German policy which induced the king to appoint him Prussian representative at the restored diet of Frankfort in 1851. The appointment was a bold one, as he was entirely without diplomatic experience, Diplomatic career. but he justified the confidence placed in him. During the eight years he spent at Frankfort he acquired an unrivalled knowledge of German politics. He was often used for important missions, as in 1852, when he was sent to Vienna. He was entrusted with the negotiations by which the duke of Augustenburg was persuaded to assent to the arrangements by which he resigned his claims to Schleswig and Holstein. The period he spent at Frankfort, however, was of most importance because of the change it brought about in his own political opinions. When he went to Frankfort he was still under the influence of the extreme Prussian Conservatives, men like the Gerlachs, who regarded the maintenance of the principle of the Christian monarchy against the revolution as the chief duty of the Prussian government. He was prepared on this ground for a close alliance with Austria. He found, however, a deliberate intention on the part of Austria to humble Prussia, and to degrade her from the position of an equal power, and also great jealousy of Prussia among the smaller German princes, many of whom owed their thrones to the Prussian soldiers, who, as in Saxony and Baden, had crushed the insurgents. He therefore came to the conclusion that if Prussia was to regain the position she had lost she must be prepared for the opposition of Austria, and must strengthen herself by alliances with other powers. The solidarity of Conservative interests appeared to him now a dangerous fiction. At the time of the Crimean War he advocated alliance with Russia, and it was to a great extent owing to his advice that Prussia did not join the western powers. Afterwards he urged a good understanding with Napoleon, but his advice was met by the insuperable objection of King Frederick William IV. to any alliance with a ruler of revolutionary origin.
The change of ministry which followed the establishment of a regency in 1857 made it desirable to appoint a new envoy at Frankfort, and in 1858 Bismarck was appointed ambassador at St Petersburg, where he remained for four years. During this period he acquired some knowledge of Russian, and gained the warm regard of the tsar, as well as of the dowager-empress, herself a Prussian princess. During the first two years he had little influence on the Prussian government; the Liberal ministers distrusted his known opinions on parliamentary government, and the monarchical feeling of the prince regent was offended by Bismarck’s avowed readiness for alliance with the Italians and his disregard of the rights of other princes. The failure of the ministry, and the estrangement between King William and the Liberal party, opened to him the way to power. Roon, who was appointed minister of war in 1861, was an old friend of his, and through him Bismarck was thenceforward kept closely informed of the condition of affairs in Berlin. On several occasions the prospect of entering the ministry was open to him, but nothing came of it, apparently because he required a free hand in foreign affairs, and this the king was not prepared to give him. When an acute crisis arose out of the refusal of parliament, in 1862, to vote the money required for the reorganization of the army, which the king and Roon had carried through, he was summoned to Berlin; but the king was still unable to make up his mind to appoint him, although he felt that Bismarck was the only man who had the courage and capacity for conducting the struggle with parliament. He was, therefore, in June, made ambassador at Paris as a temporary expedient. There he had the opportunity for renewing the good understanding with Napoleon which had been begun in 1857. He also paid a short visit to England, but it does not appear that this had any political results. In September the parliament, by a large majority, threw out the budget, and the king, having nowhere else to turn for help, at Roon’s advice summoned Bismarck to Berlin and appointed him minister president and foreign minister.
Bismarck’s duty as minister was to carry on the government against the wishes of the lower house, so as to enable the king to complete and maintain the reorganized army. The opposition of the House was supported by the country Ministry. and by a large party at court, including the queen and crown prince. The indignation which his appointment caused was intense; he was known only by the reputation which in his early years he had won as a violent ultra-Conservative, and the apprehensions were increased by his first speech, in which he said that the German question could not be settled by speeches and parliamentary decrees, but only by blood and iron. His early fall was predicted, and it was feared that he might bring down the monarchy with him. Standing almost alone he succeeded in the task he had undertaken. For four years he ruled without a budget, taking advantage of an omission in the constitution which did not specify what was to happen in case the crown and the two Houses could not agree on a budget. The conflict of the ministers and the House assumed at times the form of bitter personality hostility; in 1863 the ministers refused any longer to attend the sittings, and Bismarck challenged Virchow, one of his strongest opponents, to a duel, which, however, did not take place. In 1852 he had fought a duel with pistols against Georg von Vindre, a political opponent. In June 1863, as soon as parliament had risen, Bismarck published ordinances controlling the liberty of the press, which, though in accordance with the letter, seemed opposed to the intentions of the constitution, and it was on this occasion that the crown prince, hitherto a silent opponent, publicly dissociated himself from the policy of his father’s ministers. Bismarck depended for his position solely on the confidence of the king, and the necessity for defending himself against the attempts to destroy this confidence added greatly to the suspiciousness of his nature. He was, however, really indispensable, for his resignation must be followed by a Liberal ministry, parliamentary control over the army, and probably the abdication of the king. Not only, therefore, was he secure in the continuance of the king’s support, but he had also the complete control of foreign affairs. Thus he could afford to ignore the criticism of the House, and the king was obliged to acquiesce in the policy of a minister to whom he owed so much.
He soon gave to the policy of the monarchy a resolution which had long been wanting. When the emperor of Austria summoned a meeting of the German princes at Frankfort to discuss a reform of the confederation, Bismarck Foreign policy. insisted that the king of Prussia must not attend. He remained away, and his absence in itself made the congress unavailing. There can be no doubt that from the time he entered on office Bismarck was determined to bring to an issue the long struggle for supremacy in Germany between the house of Habsburg and the house of Hohenzollern. Before he was able to complete his preparations for this, two unforeseen occurrences completely altered the European situation, and caused the conflict to be postponed for three years. The first was the outbreak of rebellion in Poland. Bismarck, an inheritor of the older Prussian traditions, and recollecting how much of the greatness of Prussia had been gained at the expense of the Poles, offered his help to the tsar. By this he placed himself in opposition to the universal feeling of western Europe; no act of his life added so much to the repulsion with which at this time he was regarded as an enemy of liberty and right. He won, however, the gratitude of the tsar and the support of Russia, which in the next years was to be of vital service to him. Even more serious were the difficulties arising in Denmark. On the death of King Frederick VII. in 1863, Prince Frederick of Augustenburg came forward as claimant to the duchies of Schleswig and Holstein, which had hitherto been joined to the crown of Denmark. He was strongly supported by the whole German nation and by many of its princes. Bismarck, however, once more was obliged to oppose the current of national feeling, which imperiously demanded that the German duchies should be rescued from a foreign yoke. Prussia was bound by the treaty of London of 1852, which guaranteed the integrity of the Danish monarchy; to have disregarded this would have been to bring about a coalition against Germany similar to that of 1851. Moreover, he held that it would be of no advantage to Prussia to create a new German state; if Denmark were to lose the duchies, he desired that Prussia should acquire them, and to recognize the Augustenburg claims would make this impossible. His resistance to the national desire made him appear a traitor to his country. To check the agitation he turned for help to Austria; and an alliance of the two powers, so lately at variance, was formed. He then falsified all the predictions of the opposition by going to war with Denmark, not, as they had required, in support of Augustenburg, but on the ground that the king of Denmark had violated his promise not to oppress his German subjects. Austria continued to act with Prussia, and, after the defeat of the Danes, at the peace of Vienna the sovereignty of the duchies was surrendered to the two allies—the first step towards annexation by Prussia. There is no part of Bismarck’s diplomatic work which deserves such careful study as these events. Watched as he was by countless enemies at home and abroad, a single false step would have brought ruin and disgrace on himself; the growing national excitement would have burst through all restraint, and again, as fifteen years before, Germany divided and unorganized would have had to capitulate to the orders of foreign powers (see [Schleswig-Holstein Question]).
The peace of Vienna left him once more free to return to his older policy. For the next eighteen months he was occupied in preparing for war with Austria. For this war the was alone responsible; he undertook it deliberately War with Austria. as the only means of securing Prussian ascendancy in Germany. The actual cause of dispute was the disposition of the conquered duchies, for Austria now wished to put Augustenburg in as duke, a plan to which Bismarck would not assent. In 1865 a provisional arrangement was made by the treaty of Gastein, for Bismarck was not yet ready. He would not risk a war unless he was certain of success, and for this he required the alliance of Italy and French support; both he secured during the next year. In October 1865 he visited Napoleon at Biarritz and Paris. No formal treaty was made, but Napoleon promised to regard favourably an extension of Prussian power in Germany; while Bismarck led the emperor to believe that Prussia would help him in extending the frontier of France. A treaty of alliance with Italy was arranged in the spring of 1866; and Bismarck then with much difficulty overcame the reluctance of the king to embark in a war with his old ally. The results of the war entirely justified his calculations. Prussia, though opposed by all the German states except a few principalities in the north, completely defeated all her enemies, and at the end of a few weeks the whole of Germany lay at her feet.
The war of 1866 is more than that of 1870 the crisis of modern German history. It finally settled the controversy which had begun more than a hundred years before, and left Prussia the dominant power in Germany. It determined Settlement of 1866. that the unity of Germany should be brought about not by revolutionary means as in 1848, not as in 1849 had been attempted by voluntary agreement of the princes, not by Austria, but by the sword of Prussia. This was the great work of Bismarck’s life; he had completed the programme foreshadowed in his early speeches, and finished the work of Frederick the Great. It is also the turning-point in Bismarck’s own life. Having secured the dominance of the crown in Prussia and of Prussia in Germany, he could afford to make a reconciliation with the parties which had been his chief opponents, and turn to them for help in building up a new Germany. The settlement of 1866 was peculiarly his work. We must notice, first, how in arranging the terms of peace he opposed the king and the military party who wished to advance on Vienna and annex part of Austrian Silesia; with greater foresight he looked to renewing the old friendship with Austria, and insisted (even with the threat of resignation) that no territory should be demanded. The southern states he treated with equal moderation, and thereby was able to arrange an offensive and defensive alliance with them. On the other hand, in order to secure the complete control of North Germany, which was his immediate object, he required that the whole of Hanover, Hesse-Cassel, Hesse-Nassau and the city of Frankfort, as well as the Elbe duchies, should be absorbed in Prussia. He then formed a separate confederation of the North German states, but did not attempt to unite the whole of Germany, partly because of the internal difficulties which this would have produced, partly because it would have brought about a war with France. In the new confederation he became sole responsible minister, with the title Bundes-Kanzler; this position he held till 1890, in addition to his former post of premier minister. In 1871 the title was altered to Reichs-Kanzler.
The reconciliation with the Prussian parliament he effected by bringing in a bill of indemnity for the money which had been spent without leave of parliament. The Radicals still continued their opposition, but he thereby made possible the formation of a large party of moderate Liberals, who thenceforward supported him in his new Nationalist policy. He aslo, in the constitution for the new confederation, introduced a parliament (Bundestag) elected by universal suffrage. This was the chief demand of the revolutionists in 1848; it was one to which in his early life he had been strongly opposed. His experience at Frankfort had diminished his dislike of popular representation, and it was probably to the advice of Lassalle that his adoption of universal suffrage was due. He first publicly proposed it just before the war; by carrying it out, notwithstanding the apprehensions of many Liberal politicians, he placed the new constitution on a firmer base than would otherwise have been possible.
Up to 1866 he had always appeared to be an opponent of the National party in Germany, now he became their leader. His next task was to complete the work which was half-finished, and it was this which brought about the second of the great wars which he undertook.
The relations with Napoleon III. form one of the most interesting but obscurest episodes in Bismarck’s career. We have seen that he did not share the common prejudice against co-operation with France. He found Napoleon Bismarck and France. willing to aid Prussia as he had aided Piedmont, and was ready to accept his assistance. There was this difference, that he asked only for neutrality, not armed assistance, and it is improbable that he ever intended to alienate any German territory; he showed himself, however, on more than one occasion, ready to discuss plans for extending French territory, on the side of Belgium and Switzerland. Napoleon, who had not anticipated the rapid success of Prussia, after the battle of Königgratz at the request of Austria came forward as mediator, and there were a few days during which it was probable that Prussia would have to meet a French attempt to dictate terms of peace. Bismarck in this crisis by deferring to the emperor in appearance avoided the danger, but he knew that he had been deceived, and the cordial understanding was never renewed. Immediately after an armistice had been arranged, Benedetti, at the orders of the French government, demanded as recompense a large tract of German territory on the left bank of the Rhine. This Bismarck peremptorily refused, declaring that he would rather have war. Benedetti then made another proposal, submitting a draft treaty by which France was to support Prussia in adding the South German states to the new confederation, and Germany was to support France in the annexation of Luxemburg and Belgium. Bismarck discussed, but did not conclude the treaty; he kept, however, a copy of the draft in Benedetti’s handwriting, and published it in The Times in the summer of 1870 so as to injure the credit of Napoleon in England. The failure of the scheme made a contest with France inevitable, at least unless the Germans were willing to forgo the purpose of completing the work of German unity, and during the next four years the two nations were each preparing for the struggle, and each watching to take the other at a disadvantage.
It is necessary, then, to keep in mind the general situation in considering Bismarck’s conduct in the months immediately preceding the war of 1870. In 1867 there was a dispute regarding the right to garrison Luxemburg. Bismarck then produced the secret treaties with the southern states, an act which was, as it were, a challenge to France by the whole of Germany. During the next three years the Ultramontane party hoped to bring about an anti-Prussian revolution, and Napoleon was working for an alliance with Austria, where Beust, an old opponent of Bismarck’s, was chancellor. Bismarck was doubtless well informed as to the progress of the negotiations, for he had established intimate relations with the Hungarians. The pressure at home for completing the work of German unity was so strong that he could with difficulty resist it, and in 1870 he was much embarrassed by a request from Baden to be admitted to the confederation, which he had to refuse. It is therefore not surprising that he eagerly welcomed the opportunity of gaining the goodwill of Spain, and supported by all the means in his power the offer made by Marshal Prim that Prince Leopold of Hohenzollern should be chosen king of that country. It was only by his urgent and repeated representations that the prince was persuaded against his will to accept. The negotiations were carried out with the greatest secrecy, but as soon as the acceptance was made known the French government intervened and declared that the project was inadmissable. Bismarck was away at Varzin, but on his instructions the Prussian foreign office in answer to inquiries denied all knowledge or responsibility. This was necessary, because it would have caused a bad impression in Germany had he gone to war with France in support of the prince’s candidature. The king, by receiving Benedetti at Ems, departed from the policy of reserve Bismarck himself adopted, and Bismarck (who had now gone to Berlin) found himself in a position of such difficulty that he contemplated resignation. The French however, by changing and extending their demands enabled him to find a cause of war of such nature that the The Ems telegram. whole of Germany would be united against French agression. France asked for a letter of apology, and Benedetti personally requested from the king a promise that he would never allow the candidature to be resumed. Bismarck published the telegram in which this information and the refusal of the king were conveyed, but by omitting part of the telegram made it appear that the request and refusal had both been conveyed in a more abrupt form than had really been the case.[1] But even apart from this, the publication of the French demand, which could not be complied with, must have brought about a war.