What? How? Many say had Bismarck lived long enough, he could have prevented the First World War. He orchestrated the Scramble for Africa to prevent another war of European empires with each other. But that being said, he could have prevented a war at the expense of non-European nations. Bismarck is a boon for Europe but not for the rest of the world.
Leaving aside for the moment his role in colonialism, because only white people matter to WW1 and 2 apparently and fighting over African and Asian colonies had nothing to do with it, he hated democracy and directly enabled the German obsession with totalitarianism. Obviously the Emperors had their own hands in that, but let’s be real, they were idiots.
And, honestly, it’s not real complicated to note that without Germany and the network of alliances he helped create you don’t get two world wars started by Germany.
Now, sure, as a smart person he knew he had to maintain the alliance with Russia to have a balance of power, unlike Wilhelm Jr, but his obsession with top down control, based on his own competence, is what put the reins of ultimate power into the hands of two blithering, monstrous and monstrously arrogant morons.
Hmm… I see where you’re coming from. But it is reductionist to say Bismarck’s idea of creating a complex web of alliances to prevent another war ironically led to the two world wars. Remember that this complex system of alliance is meant to deter one empire declaring war to another. It was 19th century’s deterrence model as is nuclear deterrence in 20th century to today. These two deterrence models are meant to… well… deter. Many systems designed are meant to work-- until it doesn’t. The British intelligence at the time (incorrectly) predicted that the assassination of Franz Ferdinand would not lead to a major war.
Ruined Germany? More like created it. He also invented the social security we use in Europe until today, since he recognised social unequality as an issue. To quote him:
The social insecurity of the worker is the real cause of their being a peril to the state.
The whole matter centres in the question, Is it the duty of the State, or is it not, to provide for its helpless citizens? I maintain that it is its duty, that it is the duty not only of the “Christian State,” as I ventured once to call it when speaking of “practical Christianity,” but of every State.
Bismarck also wanted to avoid something like WW1. He was a strong believer in maintaining good relationship with the Tzarist Russia, because he was very concerned of Germany being encircled in a conflict.
It’s not a scam - it’s a system older than 100 years that was built around different societal parameters that exist today. It worked well in its time, but society changed without anyone adapting the system to it. There would be also ways to make it (more) sustainable, but as usual implementing the solution was delayed so long it’s very hard to do so now…
As for your 2nd point, really? It’s so reaching I won’t even bother with it.
“Von” isn’t a first name, it’s German for of/from. Same with the Dutch “Van”, the Italian “da”, the French “de” (though that one might mean "the ", I’m not sure) and several other examples from different languages
Add comment