Bismarck was extremely careful of his external policies as they played an important role for Germany since they were surrounded by their enemies and could face a war on two fronts since France was also extremely bitter with them after the Franco-Prussian war. Therefore Bismarck’s policies were all based on the concept of french isolationism. For this aim to be fulfilled he would have to maintain good relations with Russia and Austria which was an extremely hard task as they were rivals in the Balkans. Bismarck devised a treaty called the three emperors league or the Dreikaiserbund with Austria and Russia, helping to isolate France in central Europe and take away one of their potential allies. However, as the Dreikaiserbund was a purely political alliance, meaning that there was no formal military agreement, it amounted to little substance. Nevertheless, it did manage to increase the cooperation between the powers of Eastern Europe. While this alliance was successful in isolating the French within the realms of continental Europe, it also experienced many struggles, especially involving russo-Austrian territorial disputes. One such dispute was the Russo-turkish war of 1875 and 1876. Prior to the war, Russia had come to an agreement with Emperor Franz Joseph the security of Bulgarian borders. However in the creation of the Treaty of San Stefano, Tsar Alexander III went back on his word, explicitly discussing the expansion of Bulgarian borders into newly occupied territory. This issue created a distinct rift between the Russian and Austrian governments, deeming the alliance virtually extinct. The inclusion of a Bulgarian expansion clause also enraged the British government, as Bulgarian expansionism threatened British interests in the region, as well as control of the Suez canal itself. As war now seemed imminent, Bismarck's hand was forced. However, Bismark saw these tensions as an opportunity to both further isolate France and strengthen the Dreikaiserbund. Through the congress of Berlin, Bismarck managed to appease British and Austrian interests, successfully neutralizing the aggression from both sides, yet his assurance to staunch Bulgarian expansionism isolated Russia from the other participants. Due to the Congress of Berlin’s division of Bulgaria into South Bessarabia, the principality of Bulgaria, and Eastern Rumelia, Russia felt attacked and began to distance itself from the powers of the Dreikaiserbund, eventually leaving the alliance in 1887. In response, Bismarck issued an aggressive policy of tariffs against Russian grain imports, attempting to pressure Alexander III into returning to the alliance. Bismarck pursued this policy of pressuring the Russian government to a further extent through the signing of the Dual Alliance of 1879. This committed the German and Austrian governments to a complete and unconditional political and military alliance. Through this, Bismarck sought to secure the boundaries of southern Germany, as well as to further pressure Russia into alliance.This would eventually develop into the Triple Alliance of Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Italy in 1882. Through alliance with the Italian government, Bismarck sought further influence and access to the Mediterranean. This alliance also propagated German policy of French isolation. Yet it was through his final piece of diplomacy that Bismarck truly demonstrated his genius. The Russo-German Reinsurance treaty of 1887 was a defensive military alliance which ensured Russian neutrality in a franco-German war, as well as German neutrality in the case of an Austro-Russian war.
However, it can be said that, while the policies of Otto von bismarck played a large role in the long term development of pre-war tensions, there were certainly other short term factors at play which expedited this process. As Bismarck had little to no influence on German governance past the year 1890, it is only the management of his policy that can be evaluated. This management occurred through the governance of Kaiser Wilhelm II. As, through the Treaty of Versailles, Germany was forced to accept all blame for the outbreak of the First World War, some historians have adopted the stance that Bismarck himself could be to blame. This argument follows the logic that, Bismarck, through the unification of the German states in 1873, began the trend of German military aggression and expansionism. Thus, as this trend continued into the pre-war period, the blame is to fall on him. As, historically, European powers have sought to crush significant political developments in central Europe, Bismarck pursued this policy in order to assure German sovereignty, as well as to avoid a potential two-front war. It was also through the devastation of the Franco-Prussian war that historians tend to lay blame upon Bismarck. German military humiliation of France instilled a harsh, unforgiving political tone between the two countries. This hostility aggravated existing tensions, and eventually led to the development of the First World War. German occupation of the territories of Alsace and Lorraine further exacerbated these tensions. In fact, French maps produced between the years 1873 and 1917 had the territories displayed as French under enemy occupation The tensions between the two countries can be seen in the district similarities between the content of the Treaty of Frankfurt and the Treaty of Versailles in the designation of blame and harsh stipulations assigned to the defeated country. Popular French attitudes towards Germany following the Franco-Prussian War attributed to political developments in the years preceding the First World War as well. This policy of French revenge is exemplified through policy such as the Franco-Russian alliance of 1894, as well as the formal establishment of the Triple Entente in 1907. Bismarckian Diplomacy aimed to isolate the French on continental Europe, thus preventing the outbreak of a major war. However, it was the establishment of these defensive military alliances that escalated tensions in the first place. While Bismarck is responsible for the creation of an alliance system that exponentially escalated European diplomatic tensions, this policy is not solely to blame for the outbreak of the First World War, and can be only seen as a long term cause of the war. Rateher, it is the administration of European countries after the reign of Chancellor Bismarck that bear the immediate blame for the Eruption of war in 1914.
While the effects of Bismarckian diplomacy continued to impact European diplomacy throughout the First World War, some historians argue that it was the mismanagement of this policy that led to the outbreak of the war rather than the policy itself. For proper contextual evaluation of Bismarck’s Foreign policies, they must be analyzed with the knowledge that he was attempting to avoid a two front war. Bismarck was attempting to ensure the stability of his newly established country, and did everything that he saw fit to assert Germany’s position within continental Europe. Not only did Bismarck seek to ensure the safety of his own country, but also the aegis of the rest of the continent. It was his conviction that, once the boundaries of European countries were secure, and Germany returned to her proper borders, that the continent would be at peace. In this endeavor, Bismarck sought to be an “Honest Broker” between other European powers. While Germany did pursue a policy of imperial expansionism under the leadership of Chancellor Bismarck, this was only to ensure the security of Germany and match the powers that opposed her. While Bismarck, in the closing years of his reign, established the Reinsurance treaty, Wilhelm II failed to renew the treaty in 1897, thus ending diplomatic relations between the Russian Empire and Germany. This served to further isolate the Russians, forcing them into alliance with France and Britain in the following years. It was this failure of Wilhelm II that served to create the alliance system sen in the First World War rather than that of Bismarck. Though these alliances certainly had a foundation in the concept of Bismarckian diplomacy, it was vastly misconstrued by later leaders. Additionally, Wilhelm II established a much more aggressive foreign policy than that adopted by the Iron Chancellor. Bismarck’s foreign policy was founded upon defensive alliances and establishing a system which would prevent blatant military aggression on the continent. On the contrary, Wilhelm II’s policy was inherently expansionist, vehemently nationalist, and increasingly militaristic. In fact, the Naval Arms Race that precipitated the naked military aggression in the pre-war years, though begun under the leadership of the chancellor, was expanded immensely under the leadership of the kaiser. In fact, the arms race was of such import to the kaiser that it became the crux of the German economy throughout the first fifteen years of the twentieth century. This forced other European powers to reciprocate the intensity. This level of production could not be sustainable and only exacerbated the animosity that laid latent in the cultures of their respective countries. Not only was this level of military production unsustainable, but it also doomed the participating countries for war before they even knew it. European powers were not going to produce mass amounts of weaponry and not use it. The creation of a military economy forced European powers into wartime as it was both the only way to sustain the economy itself and the only way to rightly justify its creation.