@DVK It's an Verhoeven film !

From a summary of the book:

Well, Bismarck changed everything, if positive or negative

Yes ?

This riveting, New York Times bestselling biography illuminates the life of Otto von Bismarck, the statesman who unified Germany but who also embodied everything brutal and ruthless about Prussian culture.Jonathan Steinberg draws heavily on contemporary writings, allowing Bismarck's friends and foes to tell the story.

What emerges is a complex picture of a giant of a man: a hypochondriac with the constitution of an ox, a brutal tyrant who could easily shed tears, a convert to an extreme form of evangelical Protestantism who secularized schools and introduced civil divorce.

Oh man, typical US style.

The advertising.

He was a kind of malign genius who, behind the various postures, concealed an ice-cold contempt for his fellow human beings and a drive to control and rule them.

Wow

@ThorstenS. They're trying to sell copies, not be fair. The book is much more reasonable.

"As one contemporary noted: "the Bismarck regime was a constant orgy of scorn and abuse of mankind, collectively and individually.""

The general idea is that he was a master politician, but not a very nice guy.

You will still find in Germany two very opposite viewpoints from the left and the right in Germany concerning Bismarck.

I can imagine.

The right revere him, the left demonize him.

@ArtOfCode Nah, if they're a problem, you can just delete them.

Sure.

@ArtOfCode Not necessary

@ThorstenS. That's the way all important historical figures are treated: One group demonizes, the other glorifies.

The truth is usually somewhere in between.

Because they changed history, yes.

@ThorstenS. Exactly.

Like Michael Collins in Ireland.

So what all parties agree: Bismarck was extremely competent in diplomacy.

Very shrewd, yes.

Machiavellian.

He always formed alliances, so Germany was never isolated in a conflict.

This was absolutely necessary because Germany was in a central position.

Yeah, definitely surrounded by potential enemies.

France, Poland, Russia, Austria-Hungary, etc.

Well, Austria-Hungary was more an ally.

By then.

And Poland was partitioned.

It all began when Bismarck wanted to unite Germany.

Before then, yes, Prussia was a major player

but still limited.

If you plan to unite Germany, you must always prepare because other players get itchy if a new giant occurs on the playfield.

balance of power for the Brits

France was disliked heavily by the times

Sheer terror for France

:)

Gaul versus Teuton, round 1,329

So Bismarck prepared to hold Russia and Britain off the conflict.

Treaties, niceties etc.

Much, much diplomacy.

Which came back to haunt Europe in WWI

Treaties cause problems.

Then he aggravated France by the "Emser depeche", France was too hot-blooded, declared war, Bismarck used the aversion against France to unite Germany.

France was defeated and lost Alsaine Lorrace.

Masterfully played.

Germany was united, a big enemy out of the picture.

And France was the aggressor.

What is really necessary: Germans do not think like Brits or Americans or Russians.

I don't want to interrupt, but does Alsace-Lorraine have any value beyond being strategically useful as a buffer between Germany and France?

I do not know, it was at least an important sign of victory.

Alsace has some industry as I recall. Dunno about Lorraine.

Does it have resources that make it valuable?

It does today anyway.

Never mind, you already answered.

Not that I am aware of it.

Okay, go on.

The "brutal tyrant" picture is also quite questionable.

Bismarck knew that socialism was a real threat.

Instead of only setting on suppression and power, he decided to kill the arguments.

He introduced health insurance.

He also tried to add other insurances, but was not able to introduce them.

So, grudgingly even accepted by the left, he started the social state.

which is responsible to protect workers rights.

What was the left at the time? Was there an official communist party? A royalist left?

The royalist were never left. Ever, ever.

They always pandered to the king.

OK, so what was the left in Bismark's time?

The socialist movement was the direct result of mass poverty introduced by the Industrial Revolution.

The prices of goods were going down.

The mass production means less workers.

Urbanization was also an important factor.

No more serfs.

Just workers.

Serfs were not anymore in Germany since the Middle Ages.

The workers were in a very bad position.

Peasants, serfs, same difference.

So in whole Europe a mass movement began: Both socialism and anarchism.

Workers who can't read or write aren't very good workers, so they started getting a modicum of education, and realized how screwed they were.

Exactly.

It was not only workers who were not pleased.

People in the middle, called insultingly "Bourgeoise", were also affected.

1848 they tried a revolution in Germany.

To revolt against the overwhelming presence of aristocracy in Germany.

With French backing?

Nope. They had their own revolution.

It was a mass revolution in Europe.

Their defeat was the power gain of the royalist and militaristic influence in Europe.

There was also a minor revolution in Ireland in 1848.

It should also be said that there was a much lower stratification in Germany.

Crushed, of course. The potato famine was raging, so peasants couldn't afford to rebel.

Brits had their lower and upper class. In Germany, if you were good enough or lucky, you could get a better position.

It is still the same here, with some problems (education is dependent on the status of the parents)

The recent chancellor Schröder was starting in an extremely poor family.

So Bismarck, to get back on stage, he needed to remove possible conflicts.

And it seemed to have worked, the situation in Germany was quite amenable during his time.

People are only inclined to extremist positions if they are under duress.

WWII was one result of that.

Well, and then after Bismarck, with Hollenstedt and the new King, everything went down pretty fast.

But the militarism didn't just go away.

No, it got worse.

After Bismarck the King decided a big, big fleet. For unknownable reasons, England was not excited.

Then followed a streak of diplomatic debacles, the reputation of Germany was sinking continually.

They don't like it other people have big navies.

That's supposed to be their thing.

Yes, the rulers of the sea.

It's the only way a tiny island nation could colonize half the planet.

Yup. Incidentally Serbia has very good connections with Russia.

They are friendly together.

Of course.

And France was friendly towards Russia for the purpose of self preservation.

Britain was obligated by treaties to protect Belgian neutrality.

Guess what happens next?

:)

Never ever give someone a carte blanche. Germany gave that Austria. Austria tried to get a ridiculous ultimatum on Serbia. Boom.

Ok, killing Franz was a serious offense.

A second rate royal in Austria-Hungary is assassinated, and suddenly Europe starts to go insane.

First rate royal.

He was supposed to be the emperors successor.

Supposed to be.

But no one outside the region knew who he was.

Austria-Hungary wasn't in the best condition at that time.

Well, the rest was history.

Over 100 years earlier.

I think also from the descriptions before in the Age of Imperialism: Everyone thought that his country had the right to rule.

Great Britain: Of course

France: Revenge, we want to be the great continental nation again.

What else did they claim about Bismarck in the book ?

It's been quite a while since I read it.

%%modcount record

The basic idea was that he was incredibly shrewd, cunning, and savvy, but not a nice guy.

Ah, that does not work here

Ok, which politician is a nice guy ?

No Abraham Lincoln allowed.

There are a few.

Jimmy Carter.

Bernie Sanders, apparently.

My former congressman, Rush Holt.

Not many. But yes, Lincoln stands out in this regard.

He was also a brilliant politician.

nytimes.com/2011/04/03/books/review/…

Review of the biography.

The survival rate of US presidents are too low....poor Abe.

Reading the link.....

Seems that Steinberg really hated Bismarck.

It's shocking how different this review is from the publisher's description.

Looking at the amazon reviews.

@ThorstenS. Still, "the best study of this subject in the English language" is remarkable praise.

You did read the book completely ?

Yes, but four years ago.

I've read dozens of books since then.

Scores of books, probably.

Do you remember parts of it ?

Did he really tried to bring Bismarck in line as predecessor of Hitler ?

Yes, to some extent.

Not the predecessor in a strict sense, but he set the stage for Hitler.

His manipulations allowed someone like Hitler to happen.

A Hilter in a pre-Bismarck Germany wouldn't have been particularly dangerous.

Only after unification could a Hitler exist and be a significant threat.

Keep in mind that to this day, Americans associate Germany with Hitler and vice versa, more than anything else.

Even though he was Austrian.

And even though Germans despise Hitler more than anyone else does.

Sounds like the WWII was the predecessor of McCarthy.

Same strange logic.

Except McCarthy would probably have supported Hitler because of their shared contempt for communism.

Because we had now this strong Russia because we supported Hitler, now we need a Cold War.

Wasn't Patton inclined to let Germany go if they fight Russia ?

@ThorstenS. Patton wanted to get rid of Hitler, reorganize and resupply the German army, and push toward Moscow.

With US and German troops working together.

No chance with Churchill.

Canaris asked the MI5: "What if we get rid of Hitler ?"

His idea was to decapitate the Nazi party, hang its leadership, and make use of Germany's military prowess.

@ThorstenS. And Churchill said "Nothing will change".

Oh, that would not work.

Patton may not be stupid, but that would have not worked.

Patton was a military genius, but not a politician.

He was also a bit looney.

He thought he was the reincarnation of Caesar.

<snigger>

I spoke with old Germans.

The defeat really broke them.

Life in Germany was hellish by 1945.

They were really believing that Germany could win and losing that they were scared as hell.

Worse than during the blockade in WWI.

For the notice: It wasn't the US who defeated us, it was the Russian Army.

@ThorstenS. They were right to be scared, considering how Russia behaved during the invasion of Germany.

I know, but we were not nice to them, too.

Leningrad.

@ThorstenS. Yes, I am one of the few Americans who know that America didn't do much to beat Germany. Germany was defeated by a deluge of Russian corpses.

The siege.

And a bit "Lend and Lease"

@ThorstenS. Of course, Germany behaved monstrously during the war. But Russia returned the favor in spades.

@ThorstenS. Yeah, that was our biggest contribution to the war in Europe.

15 million casualties. Both civil and military.

We manufactured an unbelievable amount of matériel.

30 million.

Yeah, our subs weren't able to cope with that.

The average confrontation between a Tiger Tank and Sherman tanks resulted in the Tiger destroying 4 shermans before it was taken out.

Not surprising. The Russian tanks were a bitch.

Our tanks were crap, but we made thousands of them every month.

@ThorstenS. The T-34 was amazing.

Probably the best tank of the war.

It was a footrace between German and Russian tanks.

Yeah, so the Tiger and later the Panther.

German tanks were incredible, but hard to manufacture and repair.

And then the IS-2....

Really bad news

Shermans had interchangeable parts, so repair was easy, but we didn't even need to repair them because we had so many that we didn't know what to do with them all.

It seems that most progress was made for the directly involved material.

The Brits: ASDIC, hedgehog, hunter & destroyer

Another reason Hitler wasn't assassinated by Allied forces was that he was so incompetent that we knew it was better to keep him in power, because he was killing his own military faster than we could have done.

We didn't want someone with half a brain to replace him.

The Brits would have won anyway as long as they have been supported.

Harder, perhaps, but after 1941 they were on the winning side.

The Brits wouldn't have lost, but they couldn't win without the US and Russia.

Yup

Retain the sea and contain Germany on the continent.

Hitler had his chance to invade Britain, and he blew it.

I do not know if we were really able to invade Britain.

The RAF was almost destroyed, but Hitler suddenly decided to attack British cities instead of military targets.

@ThorstenS. If you had captured the French fleet, maybe.

Was the RAF destroyed ?

In our books it is said

@ThorstenS. Almost.

that we simply did lose too much experienced pilots. They needed to go down and while the Brits were able to save their personal, we lost many of them.

They couldn't replace the planes and pilots fast enough to survive, but Hitler changed the Luftwaffe's priorities from targeting RAF airfields and radar stations to bombing cities. That allowed the RAF to regroup and go on the offensive.

Incompetent Göring.

Hitler and Goering never understood how important the radar system was in Britain's defense.

They deliberately ignored it, and it killed them.

Interestingly both Germany and England knew of chaff, but were both afraid to use it because the enemy would know of its existence.

The Luftwaffe didn't realize that radar was so useful. They thought of it as a toy.

Göring. Do I need to say more ?

@ThorstenS. A bloated buffoon.

And a drug addict.

Yup.

If Germany had another Hindenburg or Ludendorff in WWII, and if they managed to hold on to military command rather than conceding to Hitler, the war would have gone very differently.

Even if Rommel had been allowed to control the military, it would have been different.

I did not like the prospect to watch prisoners in Siberia.

Well, it would not have been nice.

Good thing we lost.

Indeed.

Oceania vs Eurasia vs Eastasia

Wait, I need to find the picture.

The only reason the western allies made such progress in pushing for Berlin is because the German army, though not the SS, knew that the war was lost, and they knew it was better to be captured by Brits and Americans than Russians.

The German army didn't fight as hard against US and British troops.

The SS were just sociopaths.

@ThorstenS. Japan was screwed as soon as they failed to destroy the US navy aircraft carriers at Pearl Harbor.

They knew they couldn't win a war against us.

Their goal was like Germany's goal in 1917-1918 - defeat the other enemies before America can bring a significant number of troops into combat.

They failed like Germany did in the last months of WWI.

I think that lesson was learned by everyone after WWII - don't get involved in a protracted war involving America. Which is why no similar wars have happened since.

of course, Hiroshima and Nagasaki changed everything.

It would be easy to say that the SS were just sociopaths.

And the most tragic part of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is that we didn't bomb them to beat Japan - Japan was basically beaten already. We dropped two atomic bombs because we wanted to scare Stalin, but Stalin didn't get scared.

Unfortunately they were not.

@ThorstenS. They were ideologues.

Brainwashed.

We knew from the records that indeed many were not able to continue in the KZs.

Zealots.

So while the nasty pieces were staying, at least we knew that many of them were not able to cope with that.

Otherwise, yes.

@ThorstenS. The number of einsatzgruppen who were psychologically broken by their genocidal actions was relatively small.

They were zealots.

Especially after the first few mass killings.

Group 101.

And we're talking about lining up thousands of civilians and shooting them in the head. This is very personal genocide.

The first few times, men break down and can't go on. After that, it becomes routine, and no one cares about it anymore.

Yup. And after that they were more and more vicious.

As I said, the really nasty pieces stayed.

They were apparently given the opportunity to ask for guard duty - keeping civilians away from the murder sites. Almost no one asked to go on guard duty.

Yeah, unfortunately there was this German "code of honor".

This was not shirking "dirty" tasks.

@ThorstenS. Apparently high command worried about that - they knew they were turning men into monsters, and once a man becomes a monster, you can't make him a man again.

That was a dark side of German culture.

And it was also on other sides.

There are letters from generals saying that when the war was over, the einsatzgruppen would return home, and they had come to see murder as an insignificant and unremarkable activity. This would be a serious problem after the war.

That is a serious problem for every war.

It would have been easy to blame sociopaths for all actions.

The problem is: In Germany there are not enough sociopaths to blame.

There were too many people involved

So the unfortunate conclusion: Normal people are able to do atrocities.

@ThorstenS. Absolutely. I saw a documentary about the atom bomb, and one of the scientists involved in the program was asked by a Japanese interviewer whether he had any regrets about the bomb. He got angry and yelled "REMEMBER PEARL HARBOR!" as though the deaths of a couple of thousand military personnel was comparable to killing hundreds of thousands of civilians.

I think extremely many vietnam vets were not able to have a normal life again.

alcoholism. ptsd

flashbacks

@ThorstenS. Yes, another documentary I saw was about the holocaust. A former Sonderkommando, a Jew in a death camp who was used as an officer in the camp said : "I learned that every human being, no matter who he is, is capable of the most monstrous acts of brutality and cruelty. EVERYONE."

@ThorstenS. Yes, tens of thousands at least.

@ThorstenS. An enormous number of Vietnam veterans are now mentally ill and homeless.

I've heard that something like 1/4 of all homeless men in the US are veterans.

And Americans tend to forget that we did something very similar to the holocaust. We behaved the same way towards the Native Americans.

I heard records of US tourists that the poor and homeless people are now much more conspicous.

Too many poor people.

I think the genocide of Native Americans is the closest thing to the holocaust.

Many millions died, yes.

@ThorstenS. There are more homeless people in America than ever before, and Reagan had the horrible idea of shutting down many mental institutions, with the result of hundreds of thousands of mentally ill people being turned out on the streets with nowhere to go and no help.

May I ask what your cultural background is ? You sound very unusual for a US citizen ?

@ThorstenS. I'm a caucasian from mostly Irish roots, but my father's mom was descended from Polish and Dutch Jews. I'm unusual for an American because my parents are incredibly decent human beings.

Ashkenazi ?

They raised me to respect other cultures, etc.

@ThorstenS. I don't know. My father's mother was raised in an orphanage, so we don't know much about her parents, except that they were Jews from Russian-occupied Poland and the Netherlands.

Erm....wasn't it very hard in school for you ?

Her ancestors and extended family were killed in the Tsar's pogroms or the holocaust.

@ThorstenS. Well, I am from New York, so it isn't as unusual to be socially progressive here.

The northeast and the west coast are relatively enlightened.

Yes, I think there no Jew who did not lose someone dear.

I also benefited from traveling a lot from a very early age.

Now I'm a socialist, which is EXTREMELY unusual in the US.

There is no left in the USA.

Except Wad Cheber.

:)

I lived in Ireland for about a year, and I tried to emigrate, but the EU doesn't let American chefs get work visas in EU countries.

Sorry for you, but it does not wonder me.

Too many cooks here.

@ThorstenS. This is very true, but NO ONE here knows it.

The US has two right wings, no left wing.

Well, I have a certain problem.

What's that?

You may have realized that I am exceedingly direct ?

Even for a German ?

I noticed that you're as direct as me. :)

It gets me in trouble.

Yes, I noticed that for me, too.

So, how comforting that it cannot be avoided.

That's the trouble in a dominating US culture like stackexchange.

They really, really get annoyed.

No, it can't be avoided. But it's not a bad thing to be up front and honest.

The problem is that I clash with most Americans.

So that I already going to avoid discussions.

I clash with most Americans too.

I even translated an essay about the differences between US and German culture.

By the way, there is no US culture. We don't have a culture. We have commercialism.

That's why we're so awful.

Instead of culture, we buy things.

How can I insert a link ?

Just copy and paste it in the chat box.

I am not hostile. But trying to talk directly seems to be aggravating.

Were you already experiencing problems and how do you handle it ?

I'm still reading your translation, but I already have some problems with what the author is saying.

I already noticed that the US does not seem homogenous; it is not the clear-cut "American".

It is nearly a continent.

Okay, here's what I think about the article you translated. He is a bit biased against the US codes of conduct, so to speak, and he makes comparisons with the UK that are misguided.

Yes, Americans are VERY reluctant to say that they don't like a gift they received. This is considered a HUGE no-no here.

Brits complain about, or at least comment on, how outgoing and outspoken Americans are. They think we act differently from themselves, and they're right.

it is considered rude in America to criticize your host.

You're a guest, and they are kind enough to have you, so you don't tell them they're jerks or say they do everything wrong.

Uh, you are not supposed to act like that in Germany, too.

The article seems to be saying that in Germany, you should tell people if you don't like a gift, and you should criticize your host.

No, a German understands at once what he is meaning.

I'm not saying that that's the way Germany is, I'm saying that the author makes it sound that way.

A German expects something like that from an American:

Americans who are in Germany are going to say they love it, because they wouldn't go there if they weren't excited about seeing Germany. It isn't like a trip from Cologne to Lyon, because most Americans never go to Europe, or any other country, except perhaps a resort in Mexico or Jamaica or something.

"Really nice country and I am surprised that you have so much free time and use it for games and social activities. What I wonder: We have in the USA people who are packaging the shopping ? Why don't you do it here ?"

Or something like:"Why do you need licenses for everything like sailing etc."

Okay, yes, many Americans, perhaps most of them, tend to think that the American way is the right way.

Something which is really strange and needs te be explained and can be considered as a disadvantage.

This is a result of a lack of knowledge about other countries.

We are aware that other cultures may have advantages and disadvantages.

Most Americans don't understand the cultural differences and don't really know that they exist.

So we expect a well-balanced picture.

Do you understand that it isn't called a host a jerk ?

It is simply mentioning something which you find solved better in your country

Not disparaging.

@ThorstenS. Yes, you are explaining it better than the author did.

He wrote in it German.

America has a concept we call "American Exceptionalism".

It is a lamentable fact.

We do not need to hold to international law ?

or even acknowledge that other countries have other laws ?

We were raised to believe that America is just better than everywhere else. This is a result of the Cold War mentality.

And that was the reason of the Sputnik shock >:-)

We were told that our way is the right way.

We were told that we alone were protecting freedom around the world.

We were told that we DESERVE to be in charge.

Not that different from what Hitler told Germany.

What Americans miss is the cynism we Europeans have. They really believe it.

Now our position as the world's last superpower is eroding, and many people here are terrified.

And I really fear the animosities between the Democrats and the Republicans.

It is now so emotional that a split is in the country.

@ThorstenS. Consider American history, and contrast it with European history. We were on the winning side in both world wars. More importantly, we didn't lose much in either war.

Our independence and sovereignty were never in danger.

The lost asymmetric wars did not put a dent into the picture ?

We made a minimal investment and reaped enormous gains.

Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan ?

@ThorstenS. Vietnam was a shock. It temporarily frightened and disoriented us.

But then we won the Cold War, which was much more important than Vietnam.

Then we didn't have an enemy to demonize and contrast ourselves with.

Yeah, your military was flabbergasted.

Where is the enemy for our budgets ?

Most Americans probably blame our failures in Iraq and Afghanistan on what we are supposed to believe is "barbaric Islamic extremism", etc.