The term hammer, used in a speech by German Foreign Secretary Bernhard von Bülow in 1899, reveals Germany’s growing ambition and anxiety in the face of rival powers. Von Bülow warned that if Germany did not build up its military strength, it would become the anvil and be crushed by other nations. According to his words, Germany was most likely to use its might against the major imperial competitors of the time: England, France, and Russia. This choice reflects Germany’s strategic calculus at the turn of the century positioned in central Europe yet yearning for global influence, Berlin felt compelled to confront these nations to secure its place on the world stage.
Context of Von Bülow’s Speech
Imperial Rivalries
Von Bülow delivered his hammer or anvil speech to the Reichstag on December 11, 1899, at a moment when European imperial competition was boiling over. Great Britain had amassed the largest empire since Rome, France was consolidating territories in North and East Africa, and Russia continued expanding across Asia.
Militarism and National Survival
He argued forcefully that economic prosperity and national welfare were inseparable from military power. The German people had little chance to thrive without a strong army and navy, he declared, or else they risked becoming the anvil under foreign dominance.
The Meaning Behind Hammer or Anvil
Symbolic Contrast
The contrast between hammer and anvil underscored an active versus passive role. The hammer shapes and strikes; the anvil is shaped and struck. Von Bülow warned that if Germany failed to assert itself, it would suffer subjugation.
Doctrine of Strength
This speech reflects the Darwinian notion of survival of the fittest only the strongest would prevail in international competition. Von Bülow implied that Germany would rise or fall based on its willingness to engage militarily.
Whom Germany Would Hammer
Explicitly, von Bülow pointed to England, France, and Russia as the states Germany needed to match or surpass militarily.
- England: Dominant at sea, with the world’s largest colonial empire.
- France: Expanding in Africa and Asia, keen to counter German influence.
- Russia: Advancing in Asia and capable of threatening Germany’s eastern frontier.
Accordingly, Germany would need to hammer all three to avoid being hammered in return.
Implications for European Politics
Arms Race Intensifies
Von Bülow’s speech signaled a clear shift toward aggressive militarization. It provided ideological cover for Germany’s rapid buildup of the army and navy, a buildup that alarmed its neighbors and fueled a continental arms race.
Foundation for Alliances
This military determination helped push Britain, France, and Russia closer together, culminating in the Triple Entente by 1907. Germany’s threat perception led to stronger alliances across Europe.
Historiographical Debate
Militarism vs. Alliances
Some historians argue that Germany’s arms buildup driven by speeches like von Bülow’s was the central cause of rising tensions before World War I. Others emphasize the role of alliances in transforming a bilateral confrontation into a global conflict. Von Bülow’s call for military supremacy supports the former view, but alliances magnified the stakes and drew multiple nations into eventual war.
Colonial Competition
Another layer of this rivalry lay in colonial expansion. By targeting imperial competitors, Germany sought a chunk of global influence, echoing the era’s Scramble for Africa. Von Bülow’s focus on England, France, and Russia underscores how empire-building was central to the national security mindset.
Bernhard von Bülow’s hammer or anvil metaphor makes it clear: Germany was poised to strike at England, France, and Russia and maybe even more to secure its position in a world defined by imperial rivalry and military might. This speech reveals the essence of German strategy at the turn of the century: to dominate or be dominated. Whether viewed as a warning or a declaration of intent, these words capture the essence of the forces driving Europe toward war.