-
Self-Righteous Republic
May 8, 2013 | 258 comments
-
Understanding the Forest, One Tree at a Time
March 22, 2013 | 2 comments
-
A Stone’s Throw From the White House
March 14, 2013 | 11 comments
-
Echoing the Last Lion’s Roar
February 1, 2013 | 5 comments
-
Grits and Glitz
January 18, 2013 | 0 comments
Buy the Book
The Ironic Chancellor
The tragedy of Otto von Bismarck.
Bismarck: A Life
By Jonathan Steinberg
(Oxford University Press, 577 pages, $34.95)
IT IS OFTEN said of larger-than-life celebrities and politicians that they “suck the oxygen out of the room.” Otto von Bismarck went one step further: he sucked the air out of an entire nation. Granted, he had given it the breath of life in the first place, painstakingly forging a unified Germany out of a patchwork of 39 sovereign states with long and often hostile individual histories. Cunning, invincibly determined, undistracted by a larger ideology or moral imperative, and unburdened by political scruples of any kind, Bismarck succeeded in his monumental undertaking…. but in the worst possible way. As the English historian Edward Crankshaw succinctly put it:
The tragedy of Bismarck, apart from the profound personal tragedy of a man of wonderful gifts corrupted, was not that he subordinated morality to the supposed needs of the state: most other statesmen of his time did that, including Gladstone. The tragedy was that he exalted the amoral concept of politics into a principle; and that, as a corollary, because he succeeded with such dazzling skill through the nine miraculous years which culminated in the foundation of the Reich, his countrymen surrendered to that principle.
Thus, Crankshaw concluded, “Bismarck and the [German] people corrupted each other.” Always projecting himself as a tower of strength, the so-called “Iron Chancellor” was actually more ironic than iron, a man of seemingly endless contradictions. Merciless to others, he drew on a bottomless well of self-pity when it came to his own real or imagined sufferings. Contemptuous of parliamentary government, he introduced universal manhood suffrage—“one man, one vote”—before most of the more progressive, democratic nations of Western Europe. The irony here lay in his reason for doing so: his deep-seated loathing of the rising middle class, the new bourgeoisie of urban capitalists and professionals that formed a rival power base outside the old Prussian model of an autocratic central monarchy, supported by a loyal Junker class of officers and bureaucrats like Bismarck himself. Combining elements of the 18th-century past and the 20th-century future, Bismarck leapfrogged 19th-century liberalism to forge a coalition between the old, semi-feudal Prussian—and later German—ruling class and the rural peasants and urban masses. As he explained it himself, at decisive moments, “the masses will stand on the side of the kingship regardless of whether the latter happens to follow a liberal or a conservative tendency.”
And so they did, throughout his lifetime and up until the last days of World War I, when Bismarck’s creation, the mighty German Reich, collapsed and died along with imperial Austria and Russia. What had kept it going as long as it did was Bismarck’s brilliant realization that “the artificial system of indirect and class elections” popular in most of Western Europe was “much more dangerous than that of direct and general suffrage, because it prevents contact between the highest authority and the healthy elements that constitute the core and the mass of the people. In a country with monarchical traditions and loyal sentiments the general suffrage, by eliminating the influences of the liberal bourgeois classes, will also lead to… [pro-monarchy] elections.”
These are among the many historical and personal ironies explored and analyzed with insight and eloquence by Professor Jonathan Steinberg in his impressive Bismarck: A Life. As Professor Steinberg sees it, Bismarck’s legacy was not so much one of proverbial “Blood and Iron” as one of “Blood and Irony,” with the “deepest and most impenetrable irony” lying in Bismarck’s own personality: “He moved no crowds at mass meetings and in parliament he roused his listeners more by insults and scorn than by overwhelming oratory, but he had that ‘demonic’ power that made him an irresistible political figure and a disastrous one.” Another great Bismarckian irony: having given the “silent majority” of Germans the vote, he made sure that parliamentary ranks would include few if any ordinary citizens by making membership in the Reichstag unaffordable to those without an independent income—members of parliament received no salary. And the powers of the Reichstag itself were carefully rationed by the Ironic Chancellor. As Gordon Craig pointed out in his magisterial history, Germany, 1866–1945, “the Reichstag’s assent was required for all legislation, but it had few powers of initiative and for the most part merely acted upon matters brought before it by the Chancellor and the Federal Council.”
THUS BISMARCK tailored a garment of government that, for his purposes, was a perfect fit. And by passing a series of social benefits generous and advanced by the standards of the time, he created a German social contract that largely bypassed the bourgeois political class and united the monarchy and the masses. This was largely possible because of his brilliant manipulation of a three-phase foreign policy: (a) by eliminating traditional Austrian influence in pre-unity Germany, Bismarck established his native Prussia as the new paramount power while, (b) eliminating or emasculating other leading German states such as Bavaria, Saxony, Württemberg, and Hanover, and then (c) leading a triumphant pan-Germanic war effort that crushed Second Empire France and provided the perfect stage moment for declaring a united German Reich with the king of Prussia as German emperor.
Here, too, Bismarckian irony piled on irony. His sovereign, King William of Prussia, a chivalrous old gentleman with a strong sense of tradition, was reluctant to the last about assuming a—to him—dynastically dubious imperial title. And the proclamation itself occurred not in Germany but on alien soil: in occupied France, in the halls of Versailles, the palace that had once symbolized French hegemony in Europe under the Sun King Louis XIV. For poor old-but-new Emperor Wilhelm I, as he confided in a letter home to his wife, it was nothing but an “emperor-charade. I cannot tell you how utterly depressed I have been feeling in these last days, partly because of the high responsibility, partly because of the pain at seeing the Prussian title superseded.”
With this truly crowning irony, Bismarck, by sheer determination and brilliant statecraft, created a new empire and a new emperor of his own devising against the will of many ordinary Germans and the new crowned head himself. In the fullness of time, Bismarck’s flawed empire died. It was succeeded by the Weimar Republic that embodied everything the great man most loathed as impractical, idealistic, and untrue to ancestral values. It in turn was felled by Adolf Hitler, a monster whose ruthless, unprincipled pursuit of power resulted in an evil caricature of empire that Bismarck would have detested.
Yet one reason Hitler was able to gain and then hold power was the ingrained passive obedience that Bismarck recognized and harnessed to his German Realpolitik with such devastating effect in the previous century. Bismarck—the ultimate pragmatist ruthlessly pursuing limited goals—was in no way a precursor to Hitler, a messianic sociopath bent on world domination, as Professor Steinberg seems to suggest. But Bismarck’s Prussian-authoritarian bias in shaping the first modern German nation-state did create an enabling ambience for future horrors he could never have imagined.
It fell to a morally incorruptible German politician from the more mellow western Rhineland, Konrad Adenauer, to preside over the creation of a de-Prussianized, re-humanized German republic that has evolved into a stable, peaceful democracy and the economic powerhouse of Europe. Adenauer, who was no stranger to irony himself, once characterized his German fellow countrymen as a race of “carnivorous sheep.” Unlike Bismarck, however, he helped them to rise above the traditionally toxic mix of passive obedience and arrogant swagger that characterized Bismarckian Germany and the worse things that followed it.
In doing so, Konrad Adenauer proved himself a better man and a greater statesman than his far more brilliant predecessor.
About the Author
Aram Bakshian, Jr. served as an aide to Presidents Nixon, Ford, and Reagan and writes frequently on politics, history, gastronomy, and the arts.
maximumrandb| 8.12.11 @ 9:16AM
Might one consider the constitutional amendment of 1913 for the direct election of U.S. senators as Bismarkian in its effect of connecting the masses directly to the national government and thereby bypassing the local middle and professional classes in the states? Wilson was contemptuous of the constitution and state's rights when they conflicted with his plans.
ncatty| 8.12.11 @ 9:49AM
I agree that the 17th amendment fundamentally changed the constitution by eliminating the place at the federal "table" for the interest of the States as States. But I think it passed during an era of progressivism (referendums, recalls, etc) rather than as part of a plan by one person.
massmile | 8.12.11 @ 1:16PM
though we live under Herman Goering's gun control law along with deterministic outcome based social engineering, our memories are by no means short.I am a 26 years old nurse, young and beautiful. Now I am seeking an older gentle man who can give me real love , so i got a username Annababe2011 on---a'ge'l'ov'e'r. C óM---it is the first and best club for y'ounger women and older men, or older women and younger men,to int'eract with each other. Maybe you wanna ch'eck it out or tell your friends.
Alan Brooks| 8.12.11 @ 3:40PM
I'm just happy Prussia was eventually destroyed, it was an armed force, not a nation.
I wish Prussia had been nuked along with Japan.
JP| 8.12.11 @ 4:51PM
I for one am glad that Prussia wasn't nuked. I have distant relatives from there (they were probably Poles who were Germanicized after one of the partitions). In any event, the solution to Germany after the 1918 lay not transforming the German Empire (aka the 2nd Reich) into some democracy. No, the victors should have reverted to the pre-1870 borders minus the Rhineland and Ruhr Genbiet. The Treaty of Versailles was our first forray into nation building, and it was an unmitigated disaster.
The German Empire should have been carved up into the nations of Prussia (minus the Ruhr), Saxony, Westphalia, Rhineland Hesse, Baden, Swabia, Bavaria, Holstein Hamberg-Gotha-Brunswick, and Thuringen. Problem solved. If Poland decided to invade Prussia or Silesaia, so be it. If the French wanted the Rhineland (Germans there have more in common with the French than thier fellow Germans), all the more power to them. Problem solved. If Hitler gained power in Bavaria, Czecheslovakia could invade the beer-swilling dumpling eaters. Problem solved.
Alan Brooks| 8.12.11 @ 4:59PM
But Japanese deserved to be nuked because they were slanty-eyed bucktoothed rice-eaters?
Alan Brooks| 8.12.11 @ 5:04PM
...this is what I mean: if the atomic bomb had been available a few months before it was, would you have approved of it being used to shorten the war in Europe, as it was used in August to shorten the war in Asia?
Or do you think orientals deserve to be nuked but not caucasians?
JP| 8.13.11 @ 2:18PM
Ah, but it wasn't just about shortening the war, but also saving American lives. Dropping the Atomic bomb on Germany in March of 1943 would have been pointless, anyway; the Allies on both sides already occupied large chunks of Germany. Field Marshall Model's Army was surrounded in Wesphalia, and the Russians were only 45 miles from Berlin.
Japan, on the other hand, proved to be a much more difficult enemy. At close quarters, the Imperial Japanese soldiers fought to the last man. Each major city in Japan represented a mini Iwo Jima.
Truman did take a big risk. We only had 2 atomic bombs. It would take another year to make more. If the Japanese called his bluff, Truman would have been forced to send in the 10th, 9th, 3rd, 12th, and 7th Armies - nearly 750,000 men.
By the time we invaded France the Wehrmacht was nearly a spent force. Operation Bagration, launched by Zhukov on 22 June 1944 was the death knell for Germany. During the next 2 months, nearly 1 million fresh Soviet soldiers destroyed the German Army Group Center, and drove the Nazis completly out of White Russia. Only politics slowed the Allied advances.
The decision to nuke Japan saved probably 250,000-400,000 American lives. Find new strawmen.
Alan Brooks| 8.13.11 @ 4:56PM
"Dropping the Atomic bomb on Germany in March of 1943 would have been pointless, anyway; the Allies on both sides already occupied large chunks of Germany. "
No, you mean 1945--
not '43. We weren't in Europe in '43, and the Russians were hundreds of miles from Germany in March of '43; Stalingrad had only been a month or so before that time.
JP| 8.12.11 @ 5:07PM
Nope. In July of 1945 the USMC was a spent force; the US Army didn't have enough resources to invade Japan without bringing most of our servicemen from Europe (where would we put them all?). Based on the Battle of Okinawa (the bloodiest campaign after Stalingrad), war planner calculated that it would take the US another year and 1 million casualties to defeat Japan. Okinawa and Iwo Jima were two campaigns that Nimitz's staff totally miscalculated. The casualties of those 2 battles rattled both Nimitz and Marshall. They calculated Japan would not collapse like Germany did in 1945 (even the SS surrendered instead of fighting to the last man and bullet. Japan literally fought to the last man on Okinawa and Iwo Jima).
Hence the A-bomb.
Alan Brooks| 8.12.11 @ 5:22PM
BUT, if the A-bomb had, hypothetically of course, been available long before it actually was-- say in 1942-- would you have approved of it having been used on Germany?
It appearts the West isn't too sorry the A-Bomb was used on Japan, but the West wouldn't at all like the idea of nukes being used on Europeans.
Alan Brooks| 8.12.11 @ 5:30PM
"Nope. In July of 1945 the USMC was a spent force; the US Army didn't have enough resources to invade Japan without bringing most of our servicemen from Europe (where would we put them all?)."
Shortening the war would have been shortening the war under any conditions. Our boys could have gone home earlier, the postwar era could have commenced earlier.
W| 8.13.11 @ 8:15PM
I am with you Alan, nuke any enemy to save American lives.
John K| 8.14.11 @ 1:53PM
Given that RAF Bomber Command destroyed Dresden in February 1945 using conventional weapons, I think your question is answered.
Petronius| 8.12.11 @ 10:37AM
When Corporal Hitler was told to assume the Chancellorship he was supposed to have remarked, "it is a good thing the people don't think."
We Krauts can be the most stubborn humans on the planet. To hell with wealth and popularity. We want our way. The toxic mix of absolute authority, perfect demogoguery, and raw emotion in one person produces the worst of the sum total of all three. We have experienced samples of such despotism during this current administration. This President openly admitted and complained that he "could not Do things To people."
The Deutsche volk never had the liberty we lost to Federal decree. And though we live under Herman Goering's gun control law along with deterministic outcome based social engineering, our memories are by no means short.
Riff Raff| 8.12.11 @ 11:16AM
Das ist richtig.
Alan Brooks| 8.12.11 @ 4:32PM
1945, das ende.
JP| 8.12.11 @ 5:02PM
As another person pointed out, Germany is a misnomer. Several distinct groups of people made up what is today called Germany. The Swabs, Franconians, Bavarians, Saxons, Thringeners, Hessians, Prussians (which were made up of a mish-mash of Slavs, Swedes, and Lusatians) all formed thier own culture and traditions. At one point there were over 100 dialects of German (most were languages in thier own right). The beginning of the end was Luther (who gave the Protestant Aristocrats a thirst for power; a unified language, and the world's worst case of envy), and progressed with Enlightenment. Fredrick the Great was a child of Enlightenment; Hegel and Kant planted to seeds of German Idealism, which evolved into Nationalism. Napoleon is also to blame. He tore asunder 1500 years of traditions and religious yearning, and replaced it with his own form of depotism. Marx and his revoltionaries, as well as Bismarck finished the project. By the time Europe woke up, there was a German Empire headed by an incompetent Kaiser and his Great Prussian General Staff.
Alan Brooks| 8.12.11 @ 5:26PM
"When Corporal Hitler"
Quibble: he was an EX-gefreiter, nicht ein gefreiter. Hitler resigned from the army in 1919 or 1920 so he could go into politics.
Ed| 8.12.11 @ 11:57AM
Italy and Germany have very different political histories than more unified nations like Sweeden and France. Imagine the original 13 American colonies going their own way until 1920, and then forming a Union of some sort. The German Reich was a mishmash of small nations and principalities that were jammed together by Bismark. The German speaking peoples had a sense of being "Dem Deutschen Volke", which is analogous to our Anglosphere, but they were not unified until Bismark brought them together.
Dean| 8.12.11 @ 1:57PM
I would recommend watching the 1974 BBC mini-series "Fall of Eagles" for an interesting portrayal of European history. It traces the final decades of the Habsburg, Hohenzollern, and Romanov dynasties in splendid fashion, as the British seem to do. Curt Jurgens role as Bismarck is magnificent!
RUFUS LEVIN| 8.12.11 @ 7:26PM
destined by Valhalla
POST American| 8.12.11 @ 9:40PM
----AHHHH, for the 'Good Old' days of 'no nonsense' Thule Society n' monopoly USURY finance consolidation scheming!
Cpm| 8.14.11 @ 1:25AM
You must suffer an absolutely miserable existence.
Bob K.| 8.13.11 @ 1:39AM
Prior to becoming the "stable, peaceful democracy and economic power house of Europe" under Adenauer, Germany was the stable, warlike democracy and economic powerhouse of Europe under Hitler.
Hitler may have been a sociopath but he was not bent on world domination, just on the domination of Europe by the German nation. Hence his emphasis on the word National in National Socialism. He stated that "The volk (people) come before the state." He was first and foremost a German Nationalist who wanted to unite the German speaking peoples. He knew his ambition for Germany was doomed when the USA entered the war on Britain's side.
JP| 8.13.11 @ 2:21PM
Hitler declared war on the US, not the other way around.
Bob K.| 8.13.11 @ 4:44PM
Yes. He did it right after Pearl Harbor before Roosevelt and Congress could act.
Roosevelt was supporting Britain from early in 1940 with the Lend-Lease program and he sent American troops to Iceland and Greenland during this period and met with Churchill in August 1941 in Newfoundland where the Atlantic Charter was drafted. Hitler had invaded Russia by then and when Pearl Harbor happened he knew he was in big trouble with a 2 front war looming in the future. He was a sociopath but not stupid.
Juan Jose Morales-Castillo| 8.13.11 @ 9:06AM
Where in the King James' Bible does it say that the English and the Americans are God's chosen to lead the world? Germany, the descendant of the Holy Roman Empire, is as good as any other.
JP| 8.13.11 @ 2:22PM
Luther ended all of that.
Karl Miller| 8.13.11 @ 12:41PM
Germany under Hitler was not a democracy, and Germany declared war ont the United States.
Bob K.| 8.13.11 @ 11:53PM
Yes it was a Democracy. The German people supported Hitler and his war. He didn't have to force his soldiers to fight for Germany. They did it willingly.
POST American| 8.13.11 @ 11:26PM
-----------BLAST FROM THE PAST ---1935---------
Putting aside the China Opium fortune
Delanos for a moment----
"The Federal Reserve Board has pumped so many BILLIONS into Germany that they dare NOT
name the total."
-Rep. Louis McFadden 1935
(this during the height of the Great Depression!)
And this after almost 2 decades of equally
MASSIVE underwriting of the Bolshevik Coup d'etat and Soviet 'experiment'. Multiple halocausts already under those belts by 35.
Of course there's NO such TREASON at work
now viz a viz the MOST awesomely genocidal
regime history has ever seen ---across the
Pacific.
AND of course USURY itself, esp. when ramped
to such a psychopathic, worldwide degree, isn't
any kind of issue in and of itself as the Torah and
Scripture decreed ABOMINATION w/o parallel
that it is.
------------EVERYTHING'S JUST FINE!-----------
RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRight
Cpm| 8.14.11 @ 1:29AM
You promised quite some time ago that you would go away.
rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrright
POST American| 8.14.11 @ 6:45AM
"--Forget the messenger
---GRAB ther message!"
-D H Lawrence
Essays
-------------------------DO GRAB IT
------DO REAL -EYES what's going on.
------------------------------THIS IS TREASON.
Michael| 8.14.11 @ 3:02PM
Alan, during the Battle of the Bulge, FDR asked how soon an A-Bomb could be ready and used against the Germans. This was according to a PBS "American Experience" episode.