The thoughts of deciding to begin a war is one of the most significant political leaders always make. It depends on the time one makes the decision on how the measures for resolving a non-force dispute are discussed.
Napoleon and Bismarck affected generally the outlook of the whole of Europe. These men were responsible for their countries during their period. They compare through ruthlessness, military success and dominance in Europe but differ by religion, governing ideologies and military expansion. Their reasons for military participation was to unite their countries. Bismarck was maki ng efforts to unite German and Pr ussian states together (Marshal, 1953) . Napoleon discovered that by succeeding in military victories against Russia, Spain and others which reinforced France as a nation.
Napoleon was among the greatest military commanders unlike Bismarck who was just skillful in times of military conquest. Bismarck strengthened his country through military successes in Austria, Schleswig and France. These two men were ruthless in the expanding the interests of their countries. Napoleon joined a secret deal to oppress the government he had preserved earlier. Bismarck used unlawful and violent means in uniting German (Nipperdey, 2014 ). Napoleon imposed intense painful emotions of war with his troops over Europe.
Winston Churchill understood this pressure in leading Britain in its delicate times. In his second war's history, he warned those who were prone fighting whenever dispute came from foreign Power were not been always right. He added that those were the problems suffered by mankind in the whole of its history. This suffering is portrayed by different approaches of war which are adopted by Bismarck and Napoleon. Napoleon, by 1811 had made the decision to start a war with Russia after he was persuaded by the reports that Tsar Alexander I was making the preparations of attacking France. General Armand, his Russian earlier ambassador was disabled.
The emperor performed all the wonderful stories that would please him, the accuracy which was disproved again and again. At first, Napoleons confidence was proved by the war as he destroyed the Russian army in Borodino's battle with his army occupying Moscow (Joffe, 1995) . The people of Russia never responded to the promise of Napoleon of liberating but alternatively they made oppositions to foreign occupation; with the people of Moscow even burning their home city. Threats of disasters hanging over him forced him to order a retreat. His army broke down, and his allies left him an act that forced him to surrender and give way to exile.
Bismarck, unlike Napoleon never lost any war and he much stronger left Germany than how he found the country. At first, his victory caused a reassessment of policy by the neighbors of Germany, mainly Britain. Lastly, the wins over Austria and France and German's improved power led the successors of Bismarck to feeling overconfident. After Bismarck died, Kaiser Winhelm retracted in the power.
Bismarck's grouping of forces that he had set in operation without any intention, finally led Germany, generally the World to disaster. Vienna's ultimatum, designed to eliminate terrorists like territory assassin, was supported by German to Serbia after the Austrian Archduke was murdered by a terrorist in 1914. Both Vienna and Berlin could not imagine that disaster that would result they supposed the providence cards.

In conclusion, Bismarck was removed due to the reason that he aimed at crashing the socialists in German. He united German in an impossible way and left the Austrians. On the other hand, Napoleon prevented the colonization of Algeria and renovated Paris from a slum city and united Italy.

Joffe, J. (1995). "Bismarck " or" Britain"? Toward an American Grand Strategy after Bipolarity.   International Security ,   19 (4), 94-117.
Marshall, W. (1953). Frege's Theory of Functions and Objects.   The Philosophical Review ,   62 (3), 374-390.
Nipperdey, T. (2014).   Germany from Napoleon to Bismarck: 1800-1866 . Princeton University Press.