From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Is any one not talk about WELTPOILTIK 18:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

What is there to say

This article doesn't even tell me what this weltpolitik stuff is, it's really badly written. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the article is mediocre, and parts of it questionably follow the NPOV guideline - including a few sentences at the bottom that I just deleted. I'm busying studying for finals right now, but I'm going to watch the page and hopefully work on it sometime in the next month when I have more time. JW (talk) 09:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

This article is factually incorrect--- Otto Von Bismarck resigned as chancellor in 1890! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


The last paragraph is especially bad in this regard, and hardly anything is properly referenced. Really, this bit in particular needs re-writing all together; it's basically someone's opinion, not an encyclopaedia entry:

Bismarck understood Germany should remain a land-based, peace-loving European power as she had always been. Kaiser Wilhelm I died and Wilhelm the II became the new Kaiser in 1888, and had entirely different intention for German diplomacy. Wilhelm II had a plan called "Weltpolitik", which meant he wanted Germany to be a large, strong, and unbeatable empire in every possible way. Bismarck saw Wilhelm’s aspirations, especially his idea of building a navy, as a threat to Germany’s peace he spent the last twenty years building. The clash of ideas and values between Bismarck and young "Willy" made Bismarck’s only hope of protecting the peace and securing the intricate network of alliance he had created by threat to resign, for without Bismarck the alliances were doomed to fail. Wilhelm II, arrogant and confident in his ability to maintain Germany’s power, accepted Bismarck’s informal proposal and Bismarck, with no friends to turn to, was forced to resign in 1890. It was here after that the German alliances started to crumble.

This sort of opinionated simpering doesn't belong on wikipedia. I imagine the domain name is still free. (talk) 16:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


The article refers to Germany's nationalism as if it was well established. David Stevenson (WWI historian) in his book 1914-1918: The History of the First World War states that Germany's nationalism prior to WWI was underdeveloped; there was no national anthem and the flag was rarely used (p17). This is not a topic I am confident to edit, so I'll leave this here and perhaps someone else will run with it? --bodnotbod (talk) 13:45, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

"...natural development springing from the nationalism that had influenced German history in recent years." In addition to a vague statement as such, "recent" (?) makes it look like it is referring to 21st century history (in the middle of this discourse about 19th century history)? -- (talk) 17:49, 20 December 2011 (UTC)