Table of Contents
Introduction
Prussia kingdom involves an outstanding history of consistent reformations and coalitions identified to be the perfect instances applicable to explain the surrender paradox. In definitions, surrender paradox is the present power sacrifices made by nations with the intent of gaining future advantages. At different instances in history, Prussia kingdom, currently referred as the most prominent ancient German states, is exhibited surrender power and regain its rule following advantageous army coalitions, resources acquisition and among other beneficial rules at different ancient times. All the attributed later sacrifices of the kingdom were at times associated with earlier collaborations that were made by the rulers of the kingdom in search of benefiting their people at a future period of need.
History of Prussia and the beginning of Its Reign
Earlier during the 15 century and till the present, Prussia kingdom was identified as the duchy belonging to Hohenzollern family which died out in 1618 and the line was passed to his cousin, the elector of Brandenburg (Valdez and Damian 591). The passage of the inheritance led to the integration of royal Prussia to the kingdom making a large policy kingdom. Increased settlement of the Germans to the land of Prussia led to the formation of the ducal Prussia which resulted to a large ethnic division marking the greatest disastrous incidents in the history of Prussia (Hunting, Thilo and Nikolaus 54). At these time, the history of Prussia changes to independent self-contained states, that is the Ducal Prussia and the Polish Kingdom. Later on, political pressure follows the two states on building the territorial gap between the Ducal Prussia and the Polish Kingdom area of Brandenburg.
Years after, the Ducal Prussia gains more status which leads to its long stretch into the Polish kingdom. At this time, the elector of the polish kingdom in Brandenburg Fredrick Williams establishes diplomacy and creates a feudal link between the duchy and the polish Kingdom and coincidentally, Poland lost control of the duchy thus leading the duchy to be recognized under the leadership of Fredrick who identified himself as the king of Poland (Valdez and Damian 591). The coinciding of the recognition of the two kingdoms was identified as the initial state of the Prussia kingdom in formations and realizations of its independency title that led to the beneficial result of its growth in recognition and even the identity of King Fredrick, the dynasty of Prussia at the event of needs. Intently, the amalgamation King Fredrick and his son Fredrick III were to build a fast nation of big out light that will benefit the whole kingdom of Prussia. Their intention changes at the subsequent times of which marks different instances of surrender
Instances depicting the Sovereign Paradox
The 16th-century amalgamations instances can be termed to be contributed with the political pressure hence the result of Duchy and Polish kingdom unification under the rule of His Majesty King Fredrick and his son, thus leading to the achievement of the new dignity in 1700 (Hunting, Thilo and Nikolaus 98). This dignity achieved by the Hohenzollern is attributed to have led to the continual growth of the Kingdom in the 18 century. Although Fredrick intent made loud his policy which entailed building a permanent system of taxation that will help him stand the revenue need of his Army which finally led to the building of the largest well-trained army in Europe. The 18th-century history marked with King Fredrick III marked the growing time of Prussia as one of the most powerful states in the European Kind.
What follows after the period were the impacts of war and the tactics the “Philosopher King” in safeguarding his people interest. Usually, at the times of war, the king has suffered food shortage and resource depletion which would have impacted the continual growth and expansion of the kingdom. At this time of need, the king power of influence deceased and he maintained a neutral ground to help his people recover people another engagement. The intent of his neutral positions was to cool out the quench for his enemies gain time to build on his kingdoms needs considering the future tactics to win or engage into other war for the search for power. This little tactic neutrality tactic partially identified the surrender paradox tactics that were employed by the greater king focused to meet the needs of his people and also preparing for the future wars to serve the interests of the Prussia kingdom. At the time of neutrality, enemies would consider not any intentions to engage in war with the kingdom and as a result, the greater king will surrender to build a new relationship with his surrounding powerful nations
Another incident that marked a surrender paradox involved the great revolution of the kingdom in 1848. Instead of Russian engaging into war at the times of great revolutions, the king of Prussia, at the time Fredrick IV calls for a delegation conference in consideration of the German constitutions (Hunting, Thilo and Nikolaus 112). T this time, the King had regained a strong recognition after the defeat of France following the Napoleon attack impact that cowed the Prussia kingdom. The defeat ranked Prussia as the most powerful nation and as a result, the Fredrick IV knew he had a favoring side if he had to build a diplomacy platform to consider the new elections and also the chairman constitution as a whole. As to his plan, Fredrick IV is elected as the general emperor of the German a far more title that had given the emperor as greater power of recognition and at the same time the control of a larger territory.
His elections as the emperor of the chairman also did not work, Fredrick has a better vision and he made a decision that marker the perfect type of surrender paradox. Fredrick IV declined the seat with the excuse of the belief that his only people will crown him as the emperor of the Germans. He knew he had no intention of uniting with the nations in questions. The conflict within Austrian Prussia to rule chairman would not have made it easier for the King to rule the Germans as a whole. His rule for the Germans would have considered favorable circumstances that would have compelled the Australian recognition of the dynasty. This decision was paramount and it had a moment of its time which happened at the during the questioning of Schleswig Holstein. This took the best of the time in history following the Vienna treaty of October 1864 to unite the two rivals for Hegemony in German. With the expertise identified with the Prussia prime minister Otto Vin Bismarck, it was easy for the determination of Prussia in replacing Austrian to rule the Germans (Valdez and Damian 589). But even the pressure to do take the lead did not work for the Prussia resulting another incident of sovereign paradox.
The Austria nation and the Prussian had to take a lead in the governance of the two states at questions. Prussia was to administer the Schleswig and Austria take the lead for Holstein. Prussia takes a lead and he Austria is found to have an effect in the bargain which almost rules out its involvement in the confederation. Realizing of its mistakes, the Austria nations employ the use of German confederations and Prussia realizing the possibility of defeat, they decline intently through decelerations of the confederations of defunct. This tactical decision at hand gave the Prussia Kingdom another chance to fight for the control power for all the Germans (Valdez and Damian 594). Their continual intentions marked d by the consistent instances of declining the power were followed with the fight for the Australia recognition by the free will of Australia. Later on, Austria is defeated and the Prussia are given the power of ruling.
The Austria defeat never ceased the situation but resulted to fear for another Prussia foe. Prussia had a determined person of maintaining high power within German. Their kings had maintained consistent decline of the recognition as the emperors of the German following King Fredrick I (Hunting, Thilo and Nikolaus 58). At the time of 1871, Prussia was the only combat force that was able to defeat the high rise of the France nation. At this time, the realizations of the future benefits had ripened and now the nations had to take a higher recognition as the only as the only strongest power kingdom in the German territory. In this time of history, the German nations had no alternative but they had to receive with the Prussian in order to defeat France. As a result, the three nations of German had to surrender under the power of Prussian, that is The Baden, Wurttemberg, and Bavaria and led to easing up of the process and the greatest time in history where the story of Prussia turned to be the story of Germans (Valdez and Damian 595). At the time, the Prussian nation had authority of control and the emperor had to have the respect of adherence from the German nations
Reason for the Identified Sovereign Paradox Instances
At the initial instance of severing paradox as identified with King Fredrick, the major reason was due to the political pressures and search for establishing more benefits for a growing Kingdom. The King of Prussia, Fredrick came into recognitions following the need for amalgamation for the Duchy and polish Kingdom. Intently, the collation was to help the king at the time to have a wider taxation ground to build a vast army that will help in increasing the vast of the kingdom. The King declines the sovereign power to engage in war and he engaged diplomatic ground to help build trust with the two kingdoms at hand.
Thereafter, the Prussian kingdom had grown vastly and as a result of their expansion, the had created different enemies. The Prussia kingdom consistent engagement in war had sometimes led to depletion of its resources and as result, Prussian Kings were to meet the needs of the people by gaining the appearance of a weak nation and building a diplomatic relationship with the intent of meeting the needs of its people and also considering the longtime needs of the growth of the kingdom. Fredrick III made magnificent solutions which led to being a nickname as the greatest philosophical King in the History of Prussia (Kundnani 4). The subsequent Kings also build the Prussia kingdom maintaining its recognition as the most powerful states of Europe for centuries. Even at his time of decline, the Prussian maintained a diplomatic face with the intentions of their future successful defeats in war. These instances are of Austria, consistent decline of the kings as emperor of the Germans even when elected by the nations.
Conclusion
The sovereign paradox is actually what consisted the story of the Prussian kingdom to be the story of the Germans. Likewise, the consistent sacrifices as identified by the leaders of the Kingdom were the reason why the kingdom had made its strong status as a powerful nation for centuries. It is also through the sacrificial way of leadership that the Prussian Kingdom constantly regained from any situation of defeat that had impacted their well-being. Likewise, surrender paradox is a strategy that currently employed by different nations to gain future economically of politically related advantages. In some instances, it might involve the secrecy of nation involving the cold war focused in the future scramble for resources. Already they are recognized nations that have succeeded in employing the tactic. Equally, the current political environment has involved leaders who have used the paradox and as a result, they have increased their image of recognition gaining more political fame.
- Heinzen, Jasper. Making Prussians, Raising Germans: A Cultural History of Prussian State- Building after Civil War, 1866–1935. Cambridge University Press, 2017.
- Huning, Thilo R., and Nikolaus Wolf. How Britain Unified Germany: Geography and the Rise of Prussia After 1815. Mimeo, 2016.
- Kundnani, Hans. The paradox of German power. Oxford University Press, USA, 2015.
- Valdez, Damian. “prussian faust or universalist puritan?.” Modern Intellectual History 14.2 (2017): 585-596.