PDA

View Full Version : Bismarck: Genius or Short-sighted?


Inderjit S
03-04-2003, 06:29 PM
Well ,what do you think? Was he a political genius or a short-sighted politician. At first glance, I can see that he was a man of immense political tactical genius, possibly one of the greatest politicians in Germany’s history. He kept peace in Europe all the way through his 20 year reign, a tremendous achievement in a continent that was more war-hungry then well…anything and he managed to keep the political rivalry between Russia and Austria-Hungary down, and he managed to disable a war in those dreaded Balkans, whilst the Ottoman empire was collapsing and he also dictated much of Germany’s internal and foreign affairs, with skill and charisma.

But as with all things History, his success was by no means complete. His impetuous nature and short-sightedness were his biggest downfalls. As his reign was drawing to it’s end, he showed a considerate ’anti-Russian’ attitude and Russo-Germanic relations were put under further strain when he signed the ’Dual Alliance’ with Austria-Hungary, but then he goes against Austria-Hungary’s back by signing a deal with Russia, but then he proceeds to block and loans to Russia from German banks, thus making Russia sign a treaty with Germany’s arch-rivals France! It seems that Bismarck was feeling the strain of the short-sightedness of his foreign policies and so instead of preventing war, wasn’t his foreign policy just a catalyst in the launch of WW1?

His national policies were also sometimes flawed, especially the ‘anti-Socialist laws’, which merely increased support for Socialist parties such as the Social Democrats and his anti-Catholic stance, personified by the ‘May laws’ were also a failure, and they further stirred up anti-Germanic hatred in the ‘annexed’ states, Alsace and Lorraine, where Catholicism was big. But in his time, Germany was made into one of the greatest industrial nations in the world, and their educational system was second to none, especially in the Sciences. (Though Germany had always been a forward thinking nation, especially in Theological and Scientific matters)

So, to conclude, what do you think? Was Bismarck a brilliantly successful politician or a short-sighted fool?

Samweis
03-04-2003, 06:41 PM
You forgot to mentioned that Bismarck "invented" the social-system in the German Empire, which is still the base of the social-system of Germany today.

He was a great politician, but he was definetly no democrat - he was a follower of the absolute monarchy with a democratic "facade".

Inderjit S
03-04-2003, 07:18 PM
But Bismarck was pretty 'democratic' for his day and age.

But I agree, a lot of his 'democracy' was a facade, and he was rigidly pro-upper-class (Junkers) and pro-monarchy, because of his upbringing/social class.

Samweis
03-04-2003, 07:20 PM
Originally posted by Inderjit S
But Bismarck was pretty 'democratic' for his day and age.


That is true

Húrin Thalion
03-04-2003, 09:58 PM
This is my first post in like three weeks but I am glad to be here again! On Bismarck I must say that he was a very great politician and organizer, but that his great mistake was one. He maintained peace by a great act of balance between different states and their interests but did little to organize a future system. It was only he that could maintain this balance and he didn't prepare for a successor which proved disastrous when the Hawks took over.

Húrin Thalion

Gloer
03-09-2003, 12:47 PM
Bismarck build a system of diplomacy and balance, but it was flawed in that exact aspect:

1. It was dependant on him, there was no guarrantee that conferencess would be called to solve problems. It was always Bismarck's activity that propped a new balance at Balkans for example in 1877.

2. After Bismarck was gone what remained was his elaborate system of bilateral pacts with different nationa. Bismarck managed these pacts so that there would be no confrontations and polarisation. He always tried to back both sides towards a balance. He did thi domestically also switching his support from party to another keeping them all dependant on his person.

Bismarck was a genious but he failed to create a multipary pacts ie. organisations like NATO.

I think the reason was that he himself did not need multiparty pacts as long as he managed the bilateral pacts.

Samweis
03-09-2003, 07:13 PM
Originally posted by Gloer
After Bismarck was gone what remained was his elaborate system of bilateral pacts with different nationa.

Don´t forget the year 1888, which is very important in German history.

After the death of William the I. his son Frederick the III. entered the throne, but died shortly afterwards. Frederick the III. was the hope of many democrats, because he was very liberal.

His son William the II. entered the throne, he was very self-centered and didn´t like to have a well known chancellor beside him - so Bismarck had to leave.

Gloer
03-10-2003, 01:49 PM
That was important year. It is clear that Bismarck saw the liberal Frederick III as a threat to his system. But he also realized that he couldn't control Wilhelm II.

And Wilhelm II never grasped the grand idea of Bismarcks policies and pacts. Neither did the grey eminence of German foreign ministry, von Holstein. Supporting Austria against Russia was a failure. The idea was to support their balance without choosing sides, ruling as the referee on the Balkan area.