Talk:Weltpolitik

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Germany Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. History This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Politics This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Is any one not talk about WELTPOILTIK 90.240.35.170 18:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 222.124.86.229 (talk) 10:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

This article is factually incorrect--- Otto Von Bismarck resigned as chancellor in 1890! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.42.63.237 (talk) 05:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 bismarckfanclub.com is still free. 82.27.27.87 (talk) 16:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article refers to Germany's nationalism as if it was well established.

"...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)? --88.77.149.76 (talk) 17:49, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the template demanding souces. When the template was added the article looked as this, no sources. But now sources have been added, so the template should be removed, after 11 years. Ulflarsen (talk) 21:13, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]