- This topic has 7 voices and 15 replies.
-
Posts
-
I have read several accounts that blame the two world wars on Bismarck, claiming that if he had not unified Germany then the wars would not have been fought. I disagree especially for WWII because German unification had nothing to do with Japanese desires for hegemony in the Pacific. I also think that if Bismarck had not done it then someone else would have, both Germany and Italy were ripe for unification in the mid-nineteenth century and it was really only a question of when, not if. Bismarck just happened to be the right guy at the right time and ruthless enough to thrive in German and European politics. Does anybody think that a logical outcome of German unification was WWI, since WWII naturally flowed from the first?
No, if fact had Wee Willy not fired Bismarck I think things would have worked out differently… a more positive (if unknown) outcome.
My considered opinion is that Bismarck is much maligned if anyone blames him for the conflicts of the 20th Century. He was a Conservative junker who had limited aims and realized that although short localized wars might be to Prussia's advantage, a long drawn out war would not be in the best interestsof the new German Empire. As Wally had suggested Bismarck would have slapped silly Willy down ifthat unfortunate fellow even considered giving Austria a blank check. As many of you know Bismarck was prescient when he said a general conflict would probably start "over some foolish thing in the Balkans."That may not be an absolute quote, but it is close. My brain aches when I push the memory button.WillyD
....... Bismarck was prescient when he said a general conflict would probably start "over some foolish thing in the Balkans."That may not be an absolute quote, but it is close. My brain aches when I push the memory button.
Close enough; my memory however, is fine, like Twain... what I have trouble remembering I make up. 😮
I always thought it wasn't German unification but rather German expansion that led to the wars. Bismarck was very much against German expansion (from what little I've read of him) because he knew this would lead to war. Now if only Little Caesar Willy listened to him. :-
My take too. When he called Austria a “mongrel nation” and demurred on unification with them that tells it all.
The Kaiser was not responsible for the war–he was a weak man with lots of problems, not the least of which was his love/hate relationship with England. Near the end he was elated that war was going to be avoided–he was wrong of course.
Bismarck, like Hitler thought Austria was filled with untermenschen–Slavs, Jews and people like that–not good God fearing Christian Germans as they had in Prussia.
There was an anti-Semitic streak going through Europe at that time, but I don't think there's any comparison between Bismarck and Hitler when it comes to that. Howowver, Otto may have had a bit of anti-France-ism going on. ;D
I'm with ski on this… Otto was more interested in loyal Germans than religion or ethnicity… witness the whole Franco-Prussian War.
Bismarck, like Hitler thought Austria was filled with untermenschen--Slavs, Jews and people like that--not good God fearing Christian Germans as they had in Prussia.
Ironic, given that Hitler himself was Austrian. Little known fact, the officer that recommended Hitler for his Iron Cross 1st Class in WWI was Jewish, obviously Hitler did not publicize this fact though he was quite proud of his award.
German unification was de facto expansion, of Prussia at least. The argument I have always heard is that Prussia's unification of Germany automatically advanced Prussia from large power to Great Power status. Germany's position in the center of Europe meant that they were both threatened by and represented a threat to many different nations of Europe. Let us not forget French revanchism about the “lost provinces” of Alsace & Lorraine, which Bismarck counseled against their annexation in 1871 and lost by the way. I can somewhat buy the argument that German Unification turned Europe into a powder keg waiting for a match. The instability of Kaiser Wilhelm just added to the mix after he forced Bismarck's retirement. I think the question is not was war inevitable, I think it was, but rather what would the scope of any future war be. Deal making between France and Russia assured it would be continent-wide when it came. One of the biggest mistakes Germany made was in letting the non-aggression treaty with the Tsar lapse without renewal. That assured that any conflict between France and Germany would involve Russia too. Britain just got involved out of idealism, not because the German fleet represented any kind of real threat to the British fleet, at least in 1914.The Balkans had been a thorn in Europe?s side for a couple of centuries at least. The main reason we do not hear too much about them prior to the 1900?s is the Turks had to deal them and not the main European powers. The Ottoman Empire is basically peripheral to most Western CIV history classes because they are not western enough. A mistake in my opinion, they had a huge impact on Europe, and one that has not been well appreciated as of yet. That might even make for an area of fruitful research in English language scholarship.
Hear hear! One of the real gaps in our historical knowledge, and it is a huge gap, is the place of theOttoman Empire in European history from the 14th to the 20 centuries. The Turks had an astonishingEmpire. They were a rich, talented and warlike people with customs that both repelled and attractedWestern observers. They occupied a strategic position athwart one of the biggest trade routes in the worldplanted themselves as rulers of much of the middle east as we know itand at the same time were, for a short while, the greatest military and naval power in Europe.All this and our history books consider them to be peripheral and treat them as such. Theirs is an astounding story which ought to be read, taught and appreciated.
Hear hear! One of the real gaps in our historical knowledge, and it is a huge gap, is the place of theOttoman Empire in European history from the 14th to the 20 centuries. The Turks had an astonishingEmpire. They were a rich, talented and warlike people with customs that both repelled and attractedWestern observers. They occupied a strategic position athwart one of the biggest trade routes in the worldplanted themselves as rulers of much of the middle east as we know itand at the same time were, for a short while, the greatest military and naval power in Europe.All this and our history books consider them to be peripheral and treat them as such. Theirs is an astounding story which ought to be read, taught and appreciated.
Well, it is a great story. Perhaps it's more known in Europe that in USA.Turkish empire was neighbour with kingdom of Poland or its area of interest for about 400 years. One of our kings died in battle with Turks in 1444 AD. Another one - reigning in Hungary - was killed in battle in 1526 AD. For a short while in XVII century we were even vassal to Turks.Turkish power is claimed to be broken in 1683 AD, in the battle of Vienna. Combined forces of Holy Roman Emperor and Poland - led by Polish king - defeated Turks on 12 th September 1683 at the gates of Vienna. Never again Turkish empire was a lethal threat to other European countries.
