Talk:Otto von Bismarck/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

issue: did Bismarck work hard for peace in Europe 1871-1890

The issue is whether Bismarck after 1871 worked successfuly for peace in Europe. Here's what has been quoted from leading historians (above): Is there any scholar who says otherwise?

1. Eric Hobsbawm (A Marxist) The Age of Empire: 1875-1914 (1987) p 312: "Indeed the German Chancellor Bismarck, who remained undisputed world champion at the game of multilateral diplomatic chess for almost 20 years after 1871, devoted himself exclusively, and successfully, to maintaining peace between the powers."
2. Crankshaw says regarding the 1880s, "Thus an apparently watertight system of treaties designed to secure peace in general and the immediate piece of the Balkans and particular was woven by [Bismarck]." (Crankshaw, The fall of the House of Habsburg p 269.)
3. Steinberg said explicitly in 2012: "Can Bismarck be blamed for the First World War? Of course not. He died in 1898 and his last two decades in office had been designed to prevent war." Steinberg quote in 2012
4. Pflanze, author of the major three volume English biography, says: Bismarck "initiated three wars (1864, 1866, 1870-1871) yet afterward successfully strove for two decades to preserve the peace of Europe against great odds." [Otto Pflanze, The Unification of Germany, 1848-1871 (1968) p 5]
5. William Langer, a leading American scholar, argues that, "Whatever else may be said of the intricate alliance system evolved by the German Chancellor, it must be admitted that it worked and that it tided Europe over a period of several critical years without a rupture....there was, as Bismarck himself said, a premium upon the maintenance of peace." Langer added that Bismarck "was fighting for a system which a few really understood, though it aimed directly at the preservation of peace." ref William L. Langer, European Alliances and Alignments: 1871-1890 (2nd ed. 1950 p 459) and "Bismarck at least deserves full credit for having steered European politics through this dangerous transitional period without serious conflict between the great powers." (Langer p 504)
6. A. J. P. Taylor, a leading British diplomatic historian, concludes that, "Bismarck was an honest broker of peace; and his system of alliances compelled every Power, whatever its will, to follow a peaceful course. [Taylor Europe: Grandeur and Decline (1967) p 89] Rjensen (talk) 20:19, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

These say otherwise:

1. Edward Crankshaw (Bismarck 1981) observed “enter the elder statesman, paragon of peace and wisdom. Thus is the legend. It is true that he made no more wars: he didn’t need them. But peace? Does it make sense to call the later Bismarck a man of peace simply because he was satisfied with the Germany he had created...?” (p303), and goes on “Had Bismarck been a great statesman he would have concentrated on securing perpetual amity with France, with Austria , with Russia and with England. He did not even consider this obvious and humane course”. He also says “Bismarck was not interested in Europe, only in Prussia, his Prussia; later in Germany, his Germany” (p324).

wrong. Cranshaw asks a question that he leaves open. the other historians answer "yes" -- as does Crankshaw himself in another book of his: "Thus an apparently watertight system of treaties designed to secure peace in general and the immediate piece of the Balkans and particular was woven by [Bismarck]." (Crankshaw, The fall of the House of Habsburg p 269.)

No, he is asking a rhetorical question which he answers throughout the ensuing chapter. “Russell…had no means of conveying.. the strangeness of this man of iron who preferred to foster instability when he might have stood on a rock” (p304): “the tragic error over Alsace Lorraine… proved to be an earnest of the way Bismarck intended to go on, both at home and abroad" (p305): And “he now embarked on a course of fairly wild plunging that lasted five years and poisoned the atmosphere of the new Germany and Europe as a whole” (p305). The idea that he was a peacemaker may be the shorthand view, and if Crankshaw used it in a general way it doesn’t alter what he said in an in-depth study, which that it is a legend.Xyl 54 (talk) 10:30, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

1. Jonathan Steinberg (Bismarck: A Life 2011) says “For the next nineteen years Bismarck operated with the same ruthlessness and lack of principle that had marked his heroic days, but in different areas”, and points out “he explicitly rejected a soft peace with France”. He also calls the Kissingen diktat (a list of outcomes favourable to Germany, and states as it’s aim “an overall situation where all the powers except France need us and are held apart from coalitions against us by their relations to each other” ) “the most succinct representation of the Bismarckian foreign policy”.

Wrong. the issue is peace. The debate here is not over his "ruthlessness". [and the France/soft peace issue was 1870 and not germane]. Steinberg said explicitly in 2012: "his last two decades in office had been designed to prevent war." Steinberg quote commenting on his book. The Kissingen diktat was a formula for avoiding wars. Bismarck avoided all wars for Germany AND for everyone else. That's why it was a peace program. Rjensen (talk) 14:30, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Well you can read a document that makes no mention of peace and talks only of outcomes favourable to Germany as a manifesto for peace in Europe if you wish, but that isn’t what it actually says. And I notice your Steinberg quote(no need to shout, BTW) goes on "On the other hand Bismarck must bear a share of the guilt for what he actually did. He was the most supple political practitioner of the nineteenth century but his skill had no purpose other than to prop up an antiquated royal semi-absolutism – and to satisfy himself. The means were Olympian, the ends tawdry and pathetic. All that fuss to give Kaiser William II the ability to dislocate rational government and cause international unrest. Sir Edward Grey compared Germany to a huge battleship without a rudder. Bismarck arranged it that way; the result of his politics was that only he could steer it". And how is the peace with France not germane? He could have left the door open for a rapprochement with France, as he did with Austria, and explicitly rejected it (permanently blocking 16 squares on the chessboard)? Xyl 54 (talk) 10:30, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

1. AGP Taylor: I'm adding Taylor’s “Bismarck: the man and statesman” as he has been held up as an endorsement of the opposite view, yet his biography says nothing about Bismarck’s role as a European peacemaker, only his actions as a wheeler-dealer on the international stage. For example, “Laissez-faire ruled in foreign affairs as at home; Bismarck made alliances solely as a prelude to wars; and he made wars to settle practical dangers. He assumed until 1878 that the balance would work itself once it had been set right by his wars against Austria and France” (p159) Also, “(after 1879) the alliance with Austria-Hungary overshadowed German foreign policy” and “He, the greatest and most successful enemy of the Habsburg monarchy...became henceforth its guarantor and protector...and every subsequent step in his foreign policy aimed at escaping the inevitable consequences” (p193).Xyl 54 (talk) 13:45, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Xyl nothing that you've quoted implies that Bismarck was a warmonger in 1871–90. Just that he was a cynical pragmatist, a schemer, an absolutist and a reactionary. And so what if his peace effort with France was not conciliatory enough and in fact rather vindictive towards her? Again, it's not warmongering.—indopug (talk) 13:27, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Indopug: Actually I never said he was a war-monger after 1871 (and it is debateable he was before then; Taylor argued that his wars were the result of opportunism rather than some mapped-out strategy; and Gall reckoned that he had no master-plan to unite all the German-speaking people under one roof) just that he wasn’t working for peace in Europe, and that he wasn’t averse to war if it suited his ends (before 1871, and again in 1875 and 1876). Xyl 54 (talk) 14:02, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I think this long discussion has run its course with the excellent commentary by Indoplug. It began on April 10 when Xyl 54 challenge the statement: With that accomplished by 1871 he then skillfully used balance of power diplomacy to preserve Germany's new role and keep Europe at peace. Since then we have seen a series of European and American scholars support that statement, with one possible exception. The possible exception is Crankshaw who asked the rhetorical question whether Bismarck can be considered a true peacemaker. Crankshaw admits this is indeed the conventional wisdom and does not actually answer the question, but the way he proposed it suggests the readers should take a negative view (Bismarck p 331). Crankshaw a few pages later says that Bismarck was "a man seeking to avoid war" (p 339). Another problem in deciphering Crankshaw is that in another book two years later, Crankshaw does explicitly endorse the position that Bismarck was a peacemaker. Xyl 54 has added a lot of quotations about other topics, but he avoids the peace topic. Europe had many war scares and danger situations and yet remained at peace - that is the bottom line - and the consensus of scholars is that Bismarck worked very hard to achieve that result. Bismarck believed war would be bad for Germany, and bad for everyone else. I think any diplomat who tries to achieve peace because war is bad for his country and bad for every other country can be honestly called a peacemaker. Xyl 54 has not found a scholar who supports his position, given my caveat about Crankshaw. Nor has any Wiki editor supported him. It appears that to deny Bismarck's role as a peacemaker after 1871 is a fringe viewpoint not supported by any reliable source. 72.175.152.162 (talk) 02:36, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

72.175.152.162:: I don’t disagree that this discussion has run its course; I doubt any of us are likely to change our opinions on the matter, or our interpretations of what the sources say. But at the risk of being bitey, you’ve misread the issue here, which is whether Bismarck after 1871 worked successfully for peace in Europe(Rjensen’s words), or whether the statement that he preserved peace in Europe from 1871 onwards is justified (mine). There is a difference between working for peace in Europe, and working to keep the nations at peace with (or not at war with) Germany, or working to keep France isolated and powerless: your statement that Bismarck "worked to achieve peace because war was bad for his country and bad for every other country" confuses the three.

You’ve also shown the same cavalier attitude to quotations, and mathematics, that has been seen before. You're obviously familiar with Crankshaw’s book, yet your quote that he was “a man seeking to avoid war” ignores the following “while keeping all the powers at odds with one another”. That was typical of his foreign policy, and was not aimed at the good of every other country, only his. And there were two (now three)sources, not one, to support this view of his foreign policy (count them again, so I’m pretty sure I have found scholars that support this position. And you repeat the misrepresentations of Crankshaw, which have already been addressed. “One possible exception”? He says flat out the”paragon of peace” notion is a legend. “Does not answer the question, but suggests the reader take a negative view”? read what he actually said, above (or in the book). “Explicitly endorses the position that Bismarck was peacemaker”? Is that the quote from the Habsburg book? Even if it has been quotes correctly and in context, “designed to secure peace in general and the immediate peace in the Balkans in particular” can just as easily refer to a short-term solution involving Germany and Austria, as to a long-term pan-European goal. “Not (a) reliable source”? read the man's biography. Xyl 54 (talk) 13:57, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

And here’s a question: if some crisis had arisen between France and one of her neighbours (Britain, say, or Spain or Italy) would Bismarck have worked to resolve the crisis (working for peace in Europe); done nothing (no threat of war with Germany) or worked behind the scenes to bring it to fruition (working to keep France isolated and powerless)? And I know WP isn't a crystal ball, but does anyone her honestly think he would have pursued the first option? Is that what he did in 1878? Xyl 54 (talk) 14:04, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

This is not a hypothetical question. There was a crisis between France and Italy over Tunisia in 1881, and between France and Britain over Egypt in 1882. I don't recall that Germany involved itself in either instance, but, on the other hand, neither of those crises came particularly close to France going to war with Italy or Britain. Bismarck did use Italy's irritation over Tunisia to entice Italy into the Triple Alliance, though. john k (talk) 14:26, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Break

Xyl 54, could you tell me what you want to the change in the present lead? Reading your latest comments, I don't think there's that much of a difference in our positions. I think that Bismarck was a pragmatist first who used peace and diplomacy because it served Germany's purposes, and so do you. (And so does the lead, IMO)—indopug (talk) 14:25, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

To reply, My objection is to the adjectives “short, decisive” describing the wars he started, and the phrase “and keep Europe at peace”. I would, ideally, delete the adjectives (or maybe change to “short, bloody wars”) and the phrase (or change to “preserve Germany’s place in Europe”)

As “short” and “decisive” are well-sourced I can’t really gainsay them, (though I still say they are peacock terms) but suggest such descriptions belong in the body of the text rather than the introduction (though the text doesn’t really describe them as such, so MOS:INTRO probably applies: And (a late thought) if they were short or decisive it wasn’t any of Bismarck’s doing; he simply rolled the dice, and came up with the jackpot, on three occasions. The credit (if that’s the right word) belongs to Moltke and the Prussian Army.

As for “keeping Europe at peace” I still say it is debateable and would, ideally, add a paragraph on the subject, per our guidelines on minority views (something like this). The Introduction already says “Historians generally praise him as a statesman of moderation and balance who kept the peace in Europe” which is a fair summary (historians, it seems, generally do) , and can naturally lead into a discussion of that issue further down. Xyl 54 (talk) 11:58, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

re “keeping Europe at peace” Xyl 54 calls for a paragraph on minority views. There are no such "minority views" as we all can see. There were no wars until decades after his policies were reversed by the new Kaiser William II. Rjensen (talk) 08:03, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Well you’re entitled to your opinion; I was only answering the question I was asked. But it only takes one reliable source to make minority view; three even more so (especially three as impeccable as these). The other point has already been answered, but: There were no wars in the Middle East either during this period; do you want to credit him with that, as well? Also, William II started one war after 26 years of peace; how is his record worse than Bismarck’s? Xyl 54 (talk) 14:51, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

As for the peaceful Middle East, I suppose the Ottoman Empire is meant. There was serious fighting in the Balkans in the 1876., A war with Serbia 1877 & war with Russia in 1878 (Bismarck played a major role in the peace settlement); France was at war & seized control of Tunisia 1881. Britain went to wear & seized Egypt in 1882; Bulgaria at war seizes Ottoman territories in 1885. was a major uprising in Crete in 1889, and as Bismarck left the stage there were large-scale massacres of Armenians. Afghanistan is part of the Middle East, and there was a major war with Britain in 1878-79. After 1882, there was a series of wars in Sudan. In Algeria there was a major rebellion in 1871. France invaded Tunisia in 1881 – 82. The issue here is actually Europe, which Bismarck kept at peace. As for Wilhelm II better read his article first. Rjensen (talk) 09:48, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

This kind of demonstrates why sarcasm is a bad idea...

I’d forgotten about Egypt: But Bulgaria, Serbia and Crete are in Europe, last time I looked, the Europe you’d have us believe our Otto was working tirelessly to keep at peace. If that is so, he wasn’t doing a very good job of it, was he? In point of fact he did nothing to prevent war in 1877, and only acted in the peace initiative to preserve Germany’s interests (ie to prevent Russia from benefiting too much); and he famously remarked peace in the Balkans was “not worth the bones of a Pomeranian grenadier” He also didn’t lift a finger to resolve the civil war in Spain. It’s a funny way of “keeping Europe at peace”, n’est ce pas?

Also, I’ve read the article on Wilhelm II; your point?

Still, I notice the intro has been edited yet again, and the offending expressions aren't there any more, so thank you for that, anyway...Xyl 54 (talk) 14:34, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Why would we expect Bismarck to intervene in the Carlist Civil Wars? How would we even expect him to do that? As for the Balkans, that is a ridiculous gloss of Bismarck's famous Pomeranian grenadier quote. Why would peace in the Balkans kill a Pomeranian grenadier? He was saying that there was no good reason for Germany to fight a war over the Balkans. john k (talk) 14:24, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Rjensen's point is surely that Bismarck was able to keep the peace between the European powers themselves, while the retreat of Ottoman power in the Balkans (and elsewhere) was a separate question. Moonraker (talk) 16:09, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

quite so. as soon as the major powers got involved in the many Balkan wars--100 years ago this month!--all hell broke loose. Rjensen (talk) 18:46, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Picture by Nikolay Repik

This picture's copyright status was dubious, but it has now been re-released under a different licence that appears to be acceptable. However, it remains an additional image in an already picture-heavy article, and it is a modern, somewhat caricatured view when there is an entire category of portraits of Bismarck and the page already includes contemporary caricatures. As such I see no compelling reason to add it and have re-reverted its addition. (It is in use in two other articles, added by someone who sees it as useful there.) Yngvadottir (talk) 16:32, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Austria's ingratitude painfully embedded

However, in the 1850s Bismarck correctly foresaw that by failing to support Russia (after Russian help in crushing the Hungarian Revolt in 1849, and at Olmütz in 1850, the Austrian leader Schwarzenberg had said, "Austria would astonish the world by the depth of her ingratitude"), Austria could no longer count on her support in Italy and Germany, and had thus exposed herself to attack by France and Prussia.

Trying to figure out in the middle of this why (and when) Austrian leader Schwarzenberg is slagging Austria for her ingratitude causes the entire construct to collapse under its own weight, which is considerable.

Gunning Fog Index: 36

Another tool (more comprehensive and with fewer obvious problems) puts the average grade level at 25. — MaxEnt 11:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I dropped the garbled passage which is not really about pressure Germany at all. Rjensen (talk) 11:29, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Bad translation

I am sorry, but I saw some wrong or bad translations and other things not matching with German historical literature. --House1630 (talk) 20:46, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Recording

There is so much background noise in this very early recording that it is unintelligible (I do understand German). Thus it adds virtually nothing to the article. Suggest deletion. Sca (talk) 21:48, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

References

Crankshaw

Crankshaw's biography of Bismarck is highly polemical, subjective and judgmental. He arrogates to himself an omniscience contravening the standards of historiography. Sca (talk) 01:37, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

that is an offbeat personal POV that is not based on the RS. In fact the RS praise it and recommend it: 1) Edgar Feuchtwanger (2014). Bismarck: A Political History. Routledge. p. 272. says "there are many good biographies of Bismarck in English" The second one he mentions is Crankshaw: "written by someone with a very distinguished background in European history. It is on the whole condemnatory of Bismarck's methods and their long-term results." 2) KIRKUS REVIEW (2001) says "Among non-academic historians, there is no one of greater accomplishment than Crankshaw (The Fall of the House of Hapsburg, The Shadow of the Winter Palace); and his talents are fully on display here. Heretofore the best Bismarck biography has been A. J. P. Taylor's, but Crankshaw's is likely to take over the field." 3) review in the British Spectator: "Bismarck is a biographical masterpiece, an opus that is truly magnificent." 4) a standard textbook Western Civilization: A Brief History by Jackson Spielvogel (2010) recommends: two good biographies of Bismarck, E. Crankshaw, Bismarck (New York, 1981), and E. Feuchtwanger, Bismarck (London, 2002). 4) Burt The Biography Book (2001) p 32 recommends Crankshaw and a multivolume biography by Gall. "Provocative in its interpretations and illuminating of the complex events leading up to the birth of the German nation, the [Crankshaw] book is a valuable, one-volume study." etc etc Rjensen (talk) 02:18, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I happen to be re-reading Crankshaw (after more than 30 years). He ascribes to Bismarck almost total amorality, and suggests his policies were motivated primarily by self-interest. Based on widespread reading, I find this repeated theme simplistic. Bismarck was a good deal more complex than that. (Note his genuine preoccupation with personal religious issues.)

I'm not suggesting that Bismarck should be lionized as he was in late 19th century Germany. He was a brash practitioner of Realpolitik, at times a duplicitous manipulator of events and people. But it seems to me that he was motivated primarily by something outside himself – German nationalism – and that in an era of European nationalisms. There were reasons he became a hero to the Germans and respected elsewhere. The issue he solved, if you will (or at least resolved for a time) – German disunity – had been the elephant in Europe's room for centuries. German unity was, arguably, a laudable goal.

That it was Germany's fate to finally be united under the hegemony of the reactionary Prussian monarchy was unfortunate, but a result of a millenium of historical developments – not the least of which was inveterate French interference in German affairs and encroachment on western-German regions (as Crankshaw himself acknowledges on p. 253 of the 1981 Viking edition). Bismarck was more a result of this long history than the cause of the Wilhelmine Reich. Sca (talk)

PS: Being "off-beat," i.e. holding an opinion different from the majority, is not ipso facto being wrong. Sca (talk) 15:57, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Bismarck as peacemaker

The article says in the introduction "after a series of short victorious wars, he unified most of the German states (excluding Austria) into a powerful German Empire under Prussian leadership. He then created a balance of power that preserved peace in Europe from 1871 until 1914", and repeats this claim several times thereafter.
I’ve taken issue with the suggestion here that Bismarck was some great European peacemaker. He certainly didn’t “create” a balance of power: that had been the cornerstone of European foreign policy since the 17th century, though he was a master at using it for his own ends. Nor was his aim particularly to achieve peace in Europe: he wanted to preserve his new Germany against her rivals, as the Foreign policy section makes clear. And as he fomented three war in ten years (more than any European leader since Napoleon and which the introduction rather glosses over), the depiction of him as a peacemaker is somewhat jarring.
I’ve edited the article accordingly. Xyl 54 (talk) 23:05, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

PS: I've also taken exception to the suggestion the wars he started were “short”, and by implication, minor. With over 100,000 casualties the Austro-Prussian War wasn’t minor, and the Franco-Prussian War was neither minor nor short by the standards of the time. I’ve edited that, too. Xyl 54 (talk) 23:09, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

He changed. Historians agree that he was a warmonger in the 1860s and a peacemaker after that. " Bismarck set out to establish a system of complex European alliances in order to maintain the new balance of power in Europe." says William Young, German Diplomatic Relations 1871-1945 (2006). Kissinger in Diplomacy says, "He wanted peace for the newly created German Empire and sought no confrontation with any other nation. ... years that Bismarck led Germany, he practiced the Realpolitik he had preached with such moderation and subtlety that the balance of power never broke down." Knutsen History of International Relations Theory (1997) says, "Once he had attained this goal, the old 'white revolutionary' suddenly distinguished himself by his moderation.... He became an honest broker for peace". Wiki policy is to follow the reliable secondary sources. Rjensen (talk) 23:19, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

The statement that the wars were "short" is correct. The large-scale Franco Prussian war lasted 9 months. (compare the US Civil War a few years before). Nobody says or implies the wars were "minor" Rjensen (talk) 23:22, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree, he nearly invaded France again in 1875 and 1887.--Britannicus (talk) 23:35, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Not to mention this entry fails to note this man was so rude and unruly during his “studies” in Göttingen that they had to ban him from the city. He was truly a fitting example to his Nazi ruffian admirers and successors. (Esterazy (talk) 13:42, 5 January 2016 (UTC))

I notice the introduction has been edited, which has reinstated the previous bones of contention, and added a couple more for good measure.

We now have, after the bit about unification, “with that accomplished in 1871 he then..”. That raises the whole “was he following a masterplan or was it just opportunism” debate; “He then..” is both more neutral and more succinct.

We also have the series of wars described as “short”, again and also “decisive”.

Decisive is a much misused term, open to all kinds of interpretations, more likely to confuse than enlighten. Why “decisive”? Apart from removing obstacles to unification, which the introduction already says, what was decided? That France should be transformed from a neighbour and sometime rival into an implacable enemy? That Germany should gain the idea that armed aggression would always get her her own way? Both of those would come home with a vengeance 40 and then 70 years later; not the kind of positives that “decisive” is taken to mean. The term is confusing, and the sentence better without it.

Which brings us back to “short”. Instead of just the US Civil War, how about a comparison with the 40-odd conflicts that affected Europe between 1815 and 1914? More than half of them lasted a matter of months (or even weeks) rather than years. The Franco-Prussian War was not (as previously stated) particularly short by the standards of the time. Maybe the adjective needs a reliable secondary source to back it up. And the only purpose in describing the wars as “short” is to minimize them (“Bismarck started a series of wars, but they were only short”): it is disingenuous to suggest otherwise. Or maybe we should counterpoint “short” with “bloody”; a series of short, bloody wars.

As for "keeping Europe at peace", that claim is back in, too. I’m not convinced your sources support the image of Bismarck as a paragon of peace in Europe. He wanted peace for Germany, certainly, but that isn’t the same thing. His honest brokerage (as at the Berlin congress) was as much for Germany’s benefit as for peace in the Balkans; and his idea of a balance of power was one skewed against France, not a genuine equality of influence.

He obviously believed that war was an extension of politics, and if he changed from starting wars after 1871 it was only because he had got what he wanted. It is simply wrong to attribute peace in Europe to Bismarck, and not, say, to Disraeli, or Gambetta, or any of the other European leaders who accomodated the new Germany and never started a war against anyone. Xyl 54 (talk) 23:02, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

decisive--there is no dispute re decisive Prussian victory over Denmark, Austria & France. Short. -- very short for wars of that magnitude (7 weeks for Austria) especially for a modern audience that knows about WW1, WW2, Vietnam Iraq, Afghanistan etc. that go on for years and years. Peace...that's what the quoted RS say and indeed there was peace in the 1870-1890 era and the balance of power theme gets a lot of credit. Rjensen (talk) 14:22, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

the great diplomatic historian of the era is William Langer. Summing up Bismark's two decades as Chancellor, William Langer argues that, "Whatever else may be said of the intricate alliance system evolved by the German Chancellor, it must be admitted that it worked and that it tided Europe over a period of several critical years without a rupture....there was, as Bismarck himself said, a premium upon the maintenance of peace." Langer added that Bismarck "was fighting for a system which a few really understood, though it aimed directly at the preservation of peace." ref William L. Langer, European Alliances and Alignments: 1871-1890 (2nd ed. 1950 p 459 /ref "His had been a great career, beginning with three wars in eight years and ending with a period of 20 years during which he worked for the peace of Europe, despite countless opportunities to embark on further enterprises with more than even chance of success." Langer Page 503. "No other statesman of his standing had ever before shown the same great moderation and sound political sense of the possible and desirable." Langer Page 504 "Bismarck at least deserves full credit for having steered European politics through this dangerous transitional period without serious conflict between the great powers." Langer Page 504 Rjensen (talk) 23:09, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

So: “decisive”: there obviously is some dispute, as we as are currently disputing it here, and MILHIST have disputed it several times there. And the conclusion, there, is that the term means different thing to different people, and so is both subjective and misleading.

Likewise, short”: the Vietnam War may have been long (so was the Hundred Years War): what of it? Grenada, Panama, and the Gulf War were over in months or weeks; are you suggesting a modern audience will remember Vietnam but won’t remember them? Short is also subjective. Do you have a reliable secondary source that calls all three of Bismarck’s wars (the adjectives, as written, refer to all three) short and decisive? OTOH if you are OK with subjective judgements we can just add “bloody”; or do you contend they were bloodless?

As for “peace”, William Langer (do you mean this guy) is entitled to his opinion, but there are plenty of others with different viewpoints. Jonathan Steinberg (Bismarck: A Life 2011) says “For the next nineteen years Bismarck operated with the same ruthlessness and lack of principle that had marked his heroic days, but in different areas”, and points out “he explicitly rejected a soft peace with France”. And Edward Crankshaw (Bismarck 1981) observed “enter the elder statesman, paragon of peace and wisdom. Thus is the legend. It is true that he made no more wars: he didn’t need them. But peace? Does it make sense to call the later Bismarck a man of peace simply because he was satisfied with the Germany he had created...?”, and goes on “Had Bismarck been a great statesman he would have concentrated on securing perpetual amity with France, with Austria , with Russia and with England. He did not even consider this obvious and humane course”. How about Frederick, the Crown Prince in 1870: “Bismarck has made us powerful but he has robbed us of friends, the sympathy of the world, and our conscience” Or Disraeli, in 1871 “But what has come to pass in Europe? The balance of power has been entirely destroyed”.

So, do we need a Controversy section, to compare and contrast these opposing viewpoints, or can we just drop the unalloyed (and possibly mythical) claim? Xyl 54 (talk) 10:19, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

PS: I've added discussion tags to the passage in question, until this is resolved. Otherwise it looks like it is acceptable, when it certainly isn't. Xyl 54 (talk) 10:26, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

short -- in fact people at the tie called Bismarck's 3 wars "Blitzkrieg" -- coining the term that became famous in WW2. They were the shortest wars inside Europe in the 19th c. You misinterpret Steinberg. Steinberg says explicitly on p 314, "The second stage of Bismarck's career [after 1871] differs from the first eight and a half years. Peace replaces war in international affairs." As for "soft" peace Steinberg refers only to the 1871 peace with France. The Wiki text explicitly says he changed & began a peace policy in 1871 lasting the rest of his days in office. Likewise your 1870 and 1871 quotes are irrelevant. Crankshaw says he failed to create a "permanent" peace....well yes. What happened is that he was removed in 1890 and the new Kaiser reversed all Bismarck's policies & entered a stage of aggression. Bismarck in retirement bitterly opposed the kaiser publicly. To add some more quotes, try the Marxist historian Eric Hobsbawm The Age of Empire: 1875-1914 (1987) p 312: "Indeed the German Chancellor Bismarck, who remained undisputed world champion at the game of multilateral diplomatic chess for almost 20 years after 1871, devoted himself exclusively, and successfully, to maintaining peace between the powers." Better read up on Langer (American) and Taylor (brit) they are the foremost diplomatic historians of the late 19c. "Plenty of others" is simply not true. You misinterpret Crankshaw, for he has a good deal of praise for Bismarck as a peacemaker in action. Regarding the 1880s Crankshaw says, "Thus an apparently watertight system of treaties designed to secure peace in general and the immediate piece of the Balkans and particular was woven by [Bismarck]." (Crankshaw, The fall of the House of Habsburg p 269.) That leaves us with ZERO critics saying Bismarck was not a peacemaker after 1871. Rjensen (talk) 11:17, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion in this argument, but there are now two quotes in the lead—from Hobsbawm and from Taylor—that say exactly the same thing. I suggest the Taylor one be removed as redundant.—indopug (talk) 15:51, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

They take different angles--Hobsbawm says Bismarck took the lead & Taylor stresses that other countries had to follow Bismarck's lead. Rjensen (talk) 16:46, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Still, this is the lead, a broad summary of the entire article (and man), and you're devoting two lengthy quotes to one issue. I think the article would be better served by moving the Taylor quote to the Foreign policy section.—indopug (talk) 11:38, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

OK I moved the Taylor quote to the Foreign Policy section. Rjensen (talk) 12:39, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks.—indopug (talk) 05:46, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Rjensen:

First of all, kindly do not delete discussion tags when the discussion is still taking place

Second, don’t change the text to bolster your oewn position when the text hasn’t been decided on yet.

I've reverted to the status quo ante, where it should be 'til the matter is settled.

On your comments, above:

As for Blitzkrieg, people can call it what they like; And “3 of the 4 shortest wars in the 19th century/1815-1900”: a quick check of the list I linked shows about3 or 4 conflicts shorter even than the Austro-Prussian War. But they were certainly only 3 of maybe 4 wars that took place during Bismarck’s time in office.

As for your Steinberg quote, you should read it in context; it is a reference to to not planning to start any more wars, not to creating a Europe at peace. He goes on the describe how, within months Bismarck waging a “War over Culture” with the Catholic church, (p317) and threatening war with France in 1875 (p351) and with Turkey in 1876 (p352). Of the Kissingen diktat, Steinberg calls it “the most succinct representation of the Bismarckian foreign policy”, yet it contains not a word about building peace in Europe; it is a list of outcomes favourable to Germany, and aims for “an overall situation where all the powers except France need us and are held apart from coalitions against us by their relations to each other” (p356). He describes his foreign policy as a failure, and blames it on Bismarck’s “misunderstanding of Germany’s new position in Europe”; that as “an economic and military superpower it had no need of these subtle and secret agreements which rested on his elaborate combinations and duplicity”, and on “Bismarck’s own personality and record as a ruthless, unprincipled warmonger.”. Of the Congress of Berlin, Bismarck’s great triumph (and his main claim to being a peacemaker), Steinberg actually gives equal credit to Disraeli (p 372). So if Steinberg is being misrepresented, it isn’t by me.

And quotes from Disraeli and Frederick are irrelevant? How come? They actually knew the guy, unlike your sources (or mine) so I think their opinions are highly relevant. Disraeli is also quoted (by Steinberg) as saying “he is a complete despot, and [all] from the highest to the lowest … tremble at his frown” (p372), and “when he heard about Cyprus he said ‘you have done a wise thing; this is progress’. His idea of progress was evidently seizing something” (p373)

As for blaming the Kaiser for the failure to create peace, Steinberg says “as long as Bismarck ran foreign affairs he prevented [a French and Russian] alliance but by the time he fell he could only do so by subterfuge and deceit so alarming that his successors could no longer continue it” (p329)

As for Crankshaw, he is if anything, more harsh in his criticism: “with all his measureless self-regard he was as full of superstitious fears and in a mood to suspect conspiracies on every side”(p312) In 1874 he “no longer had a goal except the dreary and unsatisfying business of consolidating his personal power” (p322). In answer to why he was so harsh on France when he was so moderate with Austria: “Bismarck never practised moderation in the interests of international concord but only in the immediate interests of the Prussian state”(p324) and “Bismarck was not interested in Europe, only in Prussia, his Prussia; later in Germany, his Germany” (p324). So it isn’t me that’s misrepresenting Crankshaw, either.

And if this adds up to “zero critics saying Bismarck was not a peacemaker” I’d say your grasp of maths is as shaky as your view of history Xyl 54 (talk) 12:08, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Break

This is nowhere near an agreement, so I have requested comments on the matter, in the hope of breaking the deadlock. Xyl 54 (talk) 12:27, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

On the issue of shortness - these wars are fairly routinely characterized as short - Xyl - do you have any sources that refer to them as lengthy? Or is your objection based on your subjective appraisal of what "short" connotes? But the "about 3 or 4 conflicts shorter even than the Austro-Prussian War" line is a red herring and you know it; the wars of German unification were major wars - the Panama and Grenada conflicts you referenced earlier are small-scale wars - please don't waste our time with apple and orange comparisons.

Bismarck's basic strategy after 1871 was to isolate France to prevent a war of revenge - in one sense, this makes him a peacemaker (in that he tried to prevent a war after 1871 that Germany might lose), but what I think Xyl (and the historians he cites) objects to is the implication that Bismarck was somewhere on the level of Nelson Mandela - he wasn't. Bismarck's peacemaking strategy was directly solely at maintaining German (and really, Prussian) dominance in Europe (which in large part for Bismarck meant the borders of 1871, with a Hohenzollern on the throne).

On decisiveness: these wars are also routinely described as decisive. The Second Schleswig War decided that Schleswig and Holstein would remain in the German, rather than Danish, sphere of influence. The Austro-Prussian War decided that German would unite based on a Prussia-dominated Kleindeutschland rather than the großdeutsch solution. And the Franco-Prussian War decided that the south-German states would be incorporated into the Reich (that it also rekindled Franco-German enmity that helped to produce WWI and by extension WWII is irrelevant to question of whether it decided the issues of 1870—though it is a correctly Clausewitzian assessment). For instance, The German Wars describes them as "decisive, quick, relatively cheap, and exceptional..." and The Ideology of the Offensive calls them "short, decisive wars". I would again ask Xyl if he has sources that describe these wars as indecisive. Parsecboy (talk) 13:09, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Short--

1) RJ Short: people at the time called it Lightning war. Xyl 54 has NOT found any wars IN EUROPE that were shorter. 2) Steinberg on War on Catholics (that was the Kulturkampf and not a fighting war); war threats: there were many war threats and historians agree that Bismarck at NO TIME after 1871 wanted any war. Europe remained at peace, which is what Bismarck wanted. Was Bismarck's overall foreign policy a success or failure? That is a different question--the issue here is did he want and get peace in his 1871-90 era. Steinberg gives equal credit to Disraeli re Berlin Conf. Disraeli wanted peace too but Steinberg says they BOTH achieved it. The quotes from Disraeli and Frederick are irrelevant because they dealt with events before 1871; they were made before 1871. The point is that Bismarck wanted war before 1871 and peace after 1871. Crankshaw states clearly that Bismarck worked successfully for peace in 1880s. As for his nasty personality, well he was no Gandhi to be sure but he did achieve peace. After his policies were reversed in 1890 Germany was headed to war. Does Xyl 54 have some commentary on Langer, Taylor or Hobsbawm who emphasize Bismarck's devotion to peace?? As for Steinberg, he said explicitly: "Can Bismarck be blamed for the First World War? Of course not. He died in 1898 and his last two decades in office had been designed to prevent war." Steinberg quote in 2012 Rjensen (talk) 17:12, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

The point is not whether Xyl can find shorter European wars, it's whether he can find sources that describe the unification wars as lengthy. The simple fact is he won't be able to provide any, because the wars are roundly characterized as short. Not because there were no wars that were shorter, but because they were bookended by the Napoleonic Wars and WWI, and because they gave mostly everyone between 1871 and 1914 the mistaken impression that the nationalism genie had been put back into its bottle, and wars would return to the Kabinettskriege of the 17th and 18th centuries (though that was by no means the only false lesson of Bismarck's wars). Parsecboy (talk) 17:22, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

let us add some more scholarship Pflanze, author of the major three volume English biography, says: Bismarck "initiated three wars (1864, 1866, 1870-1871) yet afterward successfully strove for two decades to preserve the peace of Europe against great odds. Rjensen (talk) 17:59, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I have to agree with Rjensen and Parsecboy. Everything I've read unequivocally states that Bismarck played an elaborate chess game to create peace in Europe in the 1870s. It's clear what the broad consensus of scholarship is on the matter. Even if a source is obtained that suggests otherwise, we must discard it as a WP:FRINGE viewpoint.—indopug (talk) 18:08, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I think the problem is that Xyl is inferring that because the article characterizes Bismarck as having sought peace after 1871, it implies that we (as in, Wikipedia) believe that Bismarck did so because he was just a nice guy (or that he sought anything else earlier in his career). Much the same as he is inferring that the shortness of the wars of unification also means that they were minor (which is of course a mistaken assumption - a hypothetical nuclear exchange between the USSR and USA in the 1980s would have been very short, but would have been in no way minor, for instance).

There is plenty of room to confirm that Bismarck did pursue peace after 1871, and that he did so for cynical reasons. Parsecboy (talk) 20:29, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for replying

My objection to “short” (and “decisive”) is that they are subjective, and have been added simply as peacock terms (“he started three wars but they were only short”): If the latter two were short they were also major, and if the one is mentioned, so should the other. Also, my comment about “3 or 4 conflicts” was simply a reply to this edit history ("3 of the 4 shortest European wars 1815-1900") which I feel doesn’t bear scrutiny.

Also, the idea that Bismarck was responsible (or not) for the First World War wasn’t my suggestion, it was a straw man from before ("What happened is that he was removed in 1890 and the new Kaiser reversed all Bismarck's policies & entered a stage of aggression. "). And Steinberg (p329, quoted above) is clear that Bismarck’s foreign policy was workable only by himself, and by the end even he was finding it unsustainable, while Crankshaw states that he could have worked to make a lasting peace with France, but explicitly chose not to.

And yes, I am objecting to the implication that Bismarck was some great peacemaker (even on the level of Disraeli, who deserves some/equal credit for the peace in 1878 and never started a war against anyone). If a number of general histories repeat the notion that Bismarck worked for peace in Europe, his biographers tell a different story: Crankshaw says flat out that the idea is a legend (I’ve added them below). And if we have more than one viewpoint on an issue, the correct treatment is to add it (maybe as a Controversy” section) rather than airbrush it away with a plethora of quotes to the contrary. Xyl 54 (talk) 14:06, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Short and major are not mutually exclusive terms - as I pointed out above, a hypothetical nuclear exchange between the USA and USSR in the age of the MIRV-tipped ICBM would have been very short and very major. The point is not that Bismarck "started 3 wars, but they were short so they don't really count" (which is the implication you seem to be adding to it), but that he started 3 wars with clearly defined and limited goals (meaning, get the Danes out of S-H, force Austria out of the affairs of the rest of the German lands, and then unite them using the threat of France). Again, there is no value judgement in describing the wars as short or decisive (especially so since just about every historian of the wars describe them as such). Parsecboy (talk) 15:37, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

So if there is no contradiction between “short” and “major”, is there any objection to using both descriptors? Or, as any expansion on whether they were short, or bloody, or major, or decisive should be in the body of the article, rather than the introduction, why it needs to be there at all? You may not feel there is any value judgement in the terms, but considering the rows that go on over, say, adding or removing the term “decisive” in infoboxes, not everyone is so broad-minded. Even “clearly defined and limited goals” can look like minimizing the charge of war-monger to someone as cynical as myself! Xyl 54 (talk) 11:10, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Xyl, again, whether you and I are cynical or broadminded is irrelevant. As are Disraeli's and the Kaiser's (both involved players, rather than impartial scholars). On Wikipedia, the only thing that matters is what reliable scholarly sources say. Now, I agree with you "that Bismarck’s [unsustainable] foreign policy was workable only by himself" but that doesn't mean that in 1871–90 there wasn't peace in Europe, or that that peace was orchestrated by Bismarck for the cynical purpose of maintaining German hegemony.—indopug (talk) 13:19, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Does anyone disagree that that peace was orchestrated by Bismarck for the cynical purpose of maintaining German hegemony? Surely that's almost uncontroversial?

no--Germany was never a hegemon [= hegemon (leader state) rules geopolitically subordinate states by the implied means of power] in that era. for example it never controlled nor was stronger than Britain. Germany was satisfied with the status quo and wanted the status quo to continue for all the powers. Samuel Newland writes, "Bismarck defined the road ahead as...no expansion, no push for hegemony in Europe. Germany was to be the strongest power in Europe but without being a hegemon....His basic axioms were first, no conflict among major powers in Central Europe; and second German security without German hegemony." quotes from Samuel J Newland. Victories Are Not Enough: Limitations of the German Way of War. DIANE Publishing. p. 30. Rjensen (talk) 07:22, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

On the question of whether the wars were short, I think it's certainly completely reasonable to say the Seven Weeks War was short. As to the Franco-Prussian War, calling it "short" might be misleading because what we have is a very quickly achieved German victory (19 July - 2 September 1870), followed by a much more drawn out campaign that the Germans were kind of surprised to have to fight (2 September 1870 - 6 February 1871). Seven months (ignoring the couple of months between the armistice and the Treaty of Frankfurt) isn't a long war, but it doesn't seem particularly short for the time period. The main phase of the Crimean War, when actual fighting was going on in the Crimea, was about a year. The Russo-Turkish War of 1828 lasted about sixteenmonths, and the one of 1877 lasted ten months. The First Balkan War was seven months, the Second slightly over a month. The Russo-Japanese War was about 15 months in its main phase. The Italo-Turkish War was about one year long. The Italian War of 1859 was slightly over two months long. The Franco-Prussian War was short by an overall standard, but it wasn't particularly short for a nineteenth century war of major European powers. I'd generally want to reserve "short" for wars like the Austro-Prussian, the Second Balkans War, the War of 1859 that basically consisted of one campaign that immediately ended with a victory. This is what it looked like the Franco-Prussian War was going to be until the Second Empire collapsed and the Republic decided to continue resisting, which turned it into what was really a normal length nineteenth century war. john k (talk) 16:39, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

References

Possible misquotation through grammatical error

A quote from "a recent biographer of Bismarck" is placed at the end of the lead in this article, and I think it may have been misquoted due to what I believe is a grammatical error. Here is the quote for reference, with the error in bold:

a political genius of a very unusual kind [whose success] rested on several sets of conflicting characteristics among which brutal, disarming honesty mingled with the wiles and deceits of a confidence man.

As I haven't read the book that the quote cites, attributed to "Steinberg, 2011, pp. 184–85", I am unsure as to whether this is an error based on the Wikipedian's part or on the source author's part, as I think the correct word there should be "confident". I'm probably making too much of a deal out of this than is necessary, but I don't want to go around changing quotes that are actually supposed to have errors in them.-- Matthew - (talk · userpage · contributions) 02:19, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

It actually appears to be correctly quoted. Google Books shows the original passage in context here: "the wiles and deceits of a confidence man". Steinberg was basically calling Bismarck a con man, someone who tricks and cheats by means of a confidence game — which does make more sense after the words "wiles and deceits". AtticusX (talk) 02:57, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

it's correct and I added a better cite with a link: Jonathan Steinberg (2011). Bismarck: A Life. Oxford UP. pp. 184–85. Rjensen (talk) 06:06, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I have the book in front of me and "confidence" is correct. See con man. Rjensen, citations which are to books listed in the bibliography, as Steinberg is, do not require a full cite in the notes in the first appearance. BMK (talk) 14:42, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Matthew: Here's the link to Google Books showing the section in question: [1]. Rjensen: That a single reader had a question about a quote is not sufficient reason to disrupt the normal citation scheme, particularly since we have this page to bring the information directly to that reader. BMK (talk) 00:33, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

There's an extended blockquote in the introduction, the opinion of a single historian, that really belongs in a dedicated criticisms section. Several people have attempted to move or remove it, it I guess it's someone's favorite part of the article, so it's been reverted each time. I think it's worth discussing. - C. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.67.174.233 (talk) 04:28, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

The opinion of that historian is pretty much universally shared among the majority of historians of the period, and is confirmed and supported by the article itself - there's nothing in the article that contradicts it whatsoever. So unless I see a very strong consensus for its removal, it will stay. BMK (talk) 04:39, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring

Bismarck's tomb in the mausoleum

I object to arbitrary reverts by Beyond My Ken to photos in the 'Death' section, specifically, to the removal of a perfectly presentable pic of Bismarck's tomb. This is an extant artifact of Bismarck the man, and is worth including along with the exterior photo of the mausoleum that in my arrangement preceded it. This particularly so because Bismarck's sly posthumous dig at Wilhelm II – the "loyal servant" statement mentioned in the adjacent text – is clearly visible (and readable in German) on the sarcophagus.

Beyond My Ken has presented no rationale for his repeated reverts, other than to blandly state that my edits were "not improvements."

Wieso keine Verbesserungen? Warum entfernen? Sca (talk) 14:48, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Your edits involved much more than adding a photograph, as can be seen here. You removed sourced matreial for no discernable reason, and added the hotograph in a way that was visually unbalanced

In case English is not your first language, "Not improvements" is a pefectly legitimate rationale, which means that your edits did not make the article better. You've done nothing to counter that except to disagree with it, so there is no consensus for your change. Until such tims as a consensus of editors agrees that your edits are an improvement to the article, they much stay out, per WP:CONSENSUS. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:09, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

^{Warum die Großbuchstaben? Sca (talk)}

This user is a native speaker of English, as it says near the top of my user page. I made a comment in German because I thought perhaps English was not your first language.

How about this: You go ahead and restore whatever you think I shouldn't have deleted in terms of information, but also restore the photos as I carefully arranged them here. Then I'll take a look at it.

In this process, you have one vote and I have one vote. You are not the proprietary editor of the Bismarck article, no matter how many times you have edited it; you are one among many dating back for years. (BTW, I've read a great deal on modern German history, in English and German, including three biographies of Bismarck. This doesn't make me an authority on Bismarck, but it does mean I’m a discriminating editor.)

Your opinion that my edits weren't improvements is your unsupported opinion. My opinion that the tomb photo did "make the article better" is, likewise, my opinion, but I have offered a rationale for including it. I can't accept it being arbitrarily deleted merely due to WP:IDL on your part. – Sca (talk) 20:14, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

No, your proposal is rejected. (And no one has any !votes" here). Here's whatI will do, though, I will attempt to integrate the image in a way that I think is visually best. That's the best I can do. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:41, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

 Done Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:06, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

OK, no point in prolonging the argument; at least the tomb pic with snarky inscription is there. One suggestion, though: I don't think the pic now above it, of the exterior of the mausoleum, adds much to the article, and since the pix associated with Bismarck's death now extend down into the Legacy section (which is what I was trying to avoid with my layout), I suggest the mausoleum photo be deleted. As (von?) Mackensen notes below, three pics looks crowded.

Please note that I'm accepting your layout even though I (ha!) don't think it best graphically. (For what it's worth, I spent years laying out newspaper and magazine pages.) And please be advised that I have just as much right to edit this article as anyone else on WP, and may do so in the future. Sca (talk) 14:59, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

No, no von, just an American with a level of interest. Of course Mackensen himself didn't acquire the von until relatively late in life. Mackensen (talk) 15:07, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Sad that the old boy had to live long enough to see Adolf & Co. ruin his ruhmreiche Reich. Sca (talk) 15:22, 13 July 2016 (UTC) ⇒

Folks, I don't much care for either version. At its current length the Death section supports one image, no more. It looks very crowded with three, particularly with the two at left overhanging the Legacy and memory section. Might I suggest just the tomb image? Bismarck dying is not dissimilar from Bismarck alive, and while Friedrichsruh is lovely that time of year I think the tomb (pace Sca (talk · contribs)) has more interest. All the best, Mackensen (talk) 10:52, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

(1) I disagree). (2) Considering our immediate history, your interjection into an article you last edited 10 years ago shows pretty poor judgment on your part, the kind of judgement one does not expect from an administrator. May I suggest you impose on yourself a period of several months of not "following me around" (however innocent it may be in fact)? Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:38, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

If I were you, BMK, I'd be sure of which way I was going to spell judgment before I started lecturing someone else about not having good "judgement." Sca (talk)

That would have been a real snappy comeback, Sca, if (1) "Judgment" weren't the American spelling, and "judgement" a British alternative, and I read enough British-published material to occasionally get confused; and (2) If I weren't sick as a dog and taking a slew of meds which at times make my brain a bit muzzie. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:58, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Not to be snappish about it, but at WP most of us know already know about U.S. and British spellings. Sca (talk) 21:00, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Then, not to put too fine a point on on it Sca, don't make inane sarcastic "jokes" based on it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:45, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

In fact, it is innocent. This article has been on my watchlist since 2004. While I wouldn't call myself a subject-matter expert, I have a strong background on the Kaiserreich. Seeing a sharp disagreement between two editors, I offered my opinion. You can take it or leave it. I have not edited the article, nor do I intend to. I fail to see how my status as an administrator is relevant to this discussion. I'm just another long-tenured editor here. To the best of my knowledge we are not in an editing dispute, here or anywhere else. My views on your propensity to edit war, and to comment on users instead of content, aren't relevant in this discussion. Anyway, as I said, I think the Death section has too many images. Mackensen (talk) 12:25, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I really didn't think that it wasn't an innocent happenstance, I just thought it was one that might have best been avoided under the circumstances, if you take my meaning. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:58, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

OK, I still don't think there was anything wrong with having all three pics there (that's idiomatic American English for "pictures"), but since the current consensus is that the mausoleum image should go, I've eliminated it. I've also lightened up the death bed pic so it's a bit easier to see Bismarck's face, and cropped in the tomb shot ("photograpic image" not "projectile expelled from a firearm") so that there's actually a possibility of reading the "snarky" description without forcing the reader, to have to click through (don't know what they call that in the newspaper business, but I generally call it "cropping in to subject"). Any other complaints? Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:28, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Just a personal note - that work, which took about a half-hour, would normally take me on the order of 5-7 minutes, so you can see I'm moving rather slowly at the moment. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:46, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Hey, Sca, you done missed [2] "...so that's there's actually...". I done did you a personnell-type flavor and fixed it all up purtty-like all by my lonesome. Mebbe you oughta be more careful-like in the future when you be tryin to show up another editor with your sperior brainpower, doncha think? You have yourself a good day now. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:02, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Schönen Tag noch. Sca (talk) 00:26, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Wie wir in meinem Geschäft sagen: "Ein Bein brechen!" KMB (the kinder, more beneficent Beyond My Ken) (talk) 01:19, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Oder, "Hals- und Beinbruch!" Alles gute.... Sca (talk) 14:46, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Lede

For historian Eric Hobsbawm, it was Bismarck who "remained undisputed world champion at the game of multilateral diplomatic chess for almost twenty years after 1871, [and] devoted himself exclusively, and successfully, to maintaining peace between the powers."

That statement, esp. the "exclusively", is contradicted a few sentences below, where his domestic policies are praised extensively. Without an explanation, it almost looks as if the article is written by more than one person, who don't talk to each other very much.

Oh wait.....194.25.30.9 (talk) 14:28, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

the quote obviously deals with his foreign policy (multilateral diplomatic chess ) which was exclusively devoted to peace. Rjensen (talk) 15:59, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Obviously? You mean, your research said so?

You are in denial. The word "exclusively" loses all meaning if, as you say, it only applies to a small subset of the area of inquiry. "Obama exclusively devoted himself to health care reform", if you only look at his work in health care reform. Bullshit. There is a contradiction.

Well, no suprise here, it's Wikipedia, even obvious misinformations get a strong defense.-194.25.30.9 (talk) 17:17, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Alsace-Lorraine

I've just reverted an IP's edit that reversed tghe statement on whether Bismarck approved of the annexation of Alsace-Lorraine - from his disapproving because he didn't want France to go to war over it to his approving and going so far as to plant newspaper stories in support of the annexation. Neither version has a source immediately following. Which is correct? Yngvadottir (talk) 13:45, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Historians debate the Alsace annexation. Wiki reports the debate and does not try to decide it, so I added: In the end, France had to cede Alsace and part of Lorraine, as Moltke and his generals wanted it as a buffer. Historians debate whether Bismarck wanted this annexation or was forced into it by a wave of German public and elite opinion.[ref>Fritz Stern (2013). Gold and Iron. p. 139.[/ref> Rjensen (talk) 10:46, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

More importantly, the current statement on public opinion is false on its face and needs only a quick edit. The Prussian people opposed the claim of the Danish prince because the principalities were primarily German-speaking. Saying that because they were German-speaking, the Prussian public approved of the claim is just factually wrong and should be obvious to anyone who reads even the rest of the paragraph. 45.48.161.235 (talk) 01:16, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

defeating his arch-enemy

France was no arch enemy before 1860? But Bismarck and NIII were in the same business and competitors from then, rather? After the end of NIII I guess France took over the previous rather personal views of NIII? I guess "defeating his future arch-enemy " would be better? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zzalpha (talk • contribs) 08:22, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Prob Wmcarterovo (talk) 18:30, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Bismarck in popular culture: Primary sources ok by Wiki rules

The title of a game or film or TV show is the reference to a primary source and that is all that is required. The Wiki rule wp:primary is A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. to say that "Bismarck is a character in game xxx" therefore is a straightforward, descriptive statements of facts Rjensen (talk) 02:21, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

One editor erased all that good info saying Please read the RfC: Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 63#popular-culture-RfC, a secondary source is needed) (undo | thank) a) that was a commentary NOT a Wikipedia rule. I quoted the actual rule above, b) anyway it allows for this saying Reference required save for obvious cases where mentioned by name by the referencing work. Rjensen (talk) 02:25, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, the issue has been resolved (with the exception of the Victoria II cover). WP:RfCs aren't mere "commentary", though. They are community consensus on the interpretation of rules, in this case the WP:Verifiability policy. On a related note, the section is still less than ideal, failing the standards set at MOS:POPCULT. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:24, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

the actual box cover shows that the gamemaker was selling the Bismarck image to the popular culture. The instances given are central to Bismarck's popular image as powerful militaristic leader--these are not merely one-line incidental mentions. Rjensen (talk) 05:46, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Antimony1794 (talk) 14:41, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 April 2017

Add section on the dissolution of the Reichstag. Include any or all of the following quote from Jonathan Steinberg's "Bismarck: A Life", pages 367-8:

On 11 May 1878 a worker named Max HODEL fired three shots at the Kaiser as he rode with his daughter, the Grand Duchess of Baden, in an open carriage along Unter den Linden. Nobody was hut and HODEL was arrested. On 2 June Dr Karl Nobiling, a failed academic, tried again from a second-story window overlooking the same avenue and this time the Kaiser was hit by pellets in three places. The wounds would not have been serious but the Kaiser was by now 81 years old. Tiedemann's account of how Bismarck reacted to the news must be one of the most remarkable eye-witness pictures of Bismarck's quickness of mind and political adroitness ever written. Here it is in full. The scene took place in Friedrichsruh that afternoon.

"As I was underway to the AUMUHLE and Friedrichsruh Park, I caught sight of the Prince, who, accompanied by his dogs, was walking slowly in the bright sunshine across the field. I walked towards him and joined him after a brief greeting. He was in excellent humour and chatted about his walk and on the beneficial effect which a long walk in the forest air had on his nerves. After a short pause, I said, 'some very important telegrams have arrived'. He answered in a joking tone, 'and they are so urgent that we have to attend to them here in the open field?' I replied, 'unfortunately! They contain shocking news. Another attempt has been made on the Kaiser's life and this time the shots have hit him. The Kaiser is seriously hurt.' With a jot, the Prince stopped. He droev his oaken walking stick into the ground and said taking a deep breath as if a mental lightning bolt had struck him, 'then we dissolve the Reichstag'. Quickly he walked back to the house and while walking inquired about the details of the assassination attempt."

The instant 'combination', as Morier puts it, made him the most gifted political tactician of the nineteenth century. [...] A Crown Council under Crown Prince approved the dissolution of the Reichstag in spite of National Liberal protests...The Liberal threat had been banished and, as it happens, forever. Liberal votes declined until, on 30 July 1932, in Hitler's triumphant summer election before the seizure of power, the two great parties of 1871 had dwindled to 1 per cent each of the votes cast. Antimony1794 (talk) 19:21, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I recommend against it. Steinberg has 590 pages to work with --20 times what Wiki has. The only point worth mentioning here, in my opinion, is that Bismarck immediately used a failed assassination attempt to weaken the Liberals. Rjensen (talk) 22:08, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree, a succinct reference such as Rjensen proposes is superior to an unnecessarily long new section. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:14, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, all! This is one of my first edit requests, so I'm still trying to get a sense of what's helpful/important. Antimony1794 (talk) 14:41, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I am closing this edit request per the above discussion. Also semi-protection of this article has recently expired, so all users should be able to edit it. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:41, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Otto von Bismarck. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170315175229/http://www.dli.ernet.in/handle/2015/12322 to http://www.dli.ernet.in/handle/2015/12322

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:14, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Appeal To Empress Frederick

In my opinion, the following reference, which was contained in an old version of the article, should be restored. It is indicative of how Bismarck had completely alienated so many people. When Bismarck realized that his dismissal was imminent:

All Bismarck’s resources were deployed; he even asked Empress Frederick to use her influence with her son on his behalf. But the wizard had lost his magic; his spells were powerless because they were exerted on people who did not respect them, and he who had so signally disregarded Kant’s command to use people as ends in themselves had too small a stock of loyalty to draw on. As Lord Salisbury told Queen Victoria: 'The very qualities which Bismarck fostered in the Emperor in order to strengthen himself when the Emperor Frederick should come to the throne have been the qualities by which he has been overthrown.' The Empress, with what must have been a mixture of pity and triumph, told him that her influence with her son could not save him for he himself had destroyed it. [Michael Balfour, The Kaiser and his Times, Houghton Mifflin (1964) p. 132]Italus (talk) 14:12, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Image layout

The current layout has numerous images that are far too large; that overlap sections unnecessarily; that dislodge headers and quotes from flush left; among other problems. I cleaned up many of these issues with this layout. My layout also moved some images closer to the relevant text. This revert states that the previous layout was "superior." Perhaps I shrunk the images a bit smaller than necessary, but otherwise this statement is clearly not the case. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 02:12, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I note that similar changes were made in December by Keith-264 and were reverted by the same editor, also with insufficient reason. Keith-264 also started a thread above inquiring about the revert and received no response. These changes simply bring the layout in line with MoS policies WP:LAYIM, MOS:IMGLOC and MOS:IMGSIZE. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 02:48, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Note, please, that MOS is a guideline. It is not policy, and it is not mandatory. The changes you, and Keith-264, made do not improve the article, and the current layout is superior. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:21, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes they did, the pics etc are far too big and overwhelm the text. It looks like you're outside the consensus.Keith-264 (talk) 07:06, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Clarify liberalism in social legislation section

There is this paragraph that seems to be an excerpt.

granting social rights to enhance the integration of a hierarchical society, to forge a bond between workers and the state so as to strengthen the latter, to maintain traditional relations of authority between social and status groups, and to provide a countervailing power against the modernist forces of liberalism and socialism.

Perhaps it would be useful to add that this is about liberalism (classical liberalism?) and not Modern liberalism in the United States. --JamesPoulson (talk) 18:04, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done Linked. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:15, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

The Liberal Party is the key here--Bismark moved from support to opposition. Bismarck is not likely to be confused with John F Kennedy. Rjensen (talk) 22:09, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

That was my initial thought, but I don't see any harm in the wikilinks I added. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:17, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

The issue here is that "liberal" means something like progressive or social democrat in the USA and it's starting to be used in the same way in the UK while liberal most often refers to economic liberalism in European politics as it might have done in Bismarck's time. --JamesPoulson (talk) 19:10, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I believe we understand what the issue is, but the fact that Bismarck was a 19th-century German personage and not a 20th-century or 21st-century American or European mitigates against any misunderstanding. Context is, after all, everything. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:19, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Recent edits

@Beyond My Ken: My recent edits were minor since they had no effect on content. The article is a bit of a mess, the pix are not in thumb or upright, some are above headers so aren't level with the text and their layout is a bit of a slalom down the page. Citations and references are in double column, which makes it pointless to keep them in alphabetical order and many are in citation rather than cite book format, which means that they're covered in harv error notices (only visible if you have a page like User:Keith-264/common.js this) and few of them have isbn numbers. The article is unworthy of B class until these failings are remedied. I was also puzzled at biblio' labels like Book being prefaced by two colons, bolding is enough isn't it? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 09:04, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello?Keith-264 (talk) 00:57, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I have noticed this as well. ―Gregorius II 22:14, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

@Keith-264: I have resolved the various Harvard warnings that were present in the Bibliography section. The Notes section has not yet been fixed. ―Gregorius II 05:41, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

CE

Added ref=harv or ref=harvid to references and managed to get rid of most of the red in the footnotes but I fear that many of the references that have now got harv warnings are referred to in the text but not by sfns. 'Twill be a labour of Hercules to impose a consistent citation format on such a sprawling article. It dosn't help ither when someone meddles with the alphasort and replaces it with asinine columns half-way through. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 07:44, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Columns are now automatically set by reflist and do not have to be specified. The notes here are not "footnotes" they are "endnotes", and when using notes which reference sources in a bibliography, as the harvard system does, it is best to have both in the same section. This set-up is long-standing status-quo and, by policy, should not be screwed around with if there is no compelling reason to do so. The work being done on fixing the references is laudable, but this other stuff is not. Please stop. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:48, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

You don't know what you're talking about. Look up sfn before you have apoplexy and look up WP:OWN and remember that there are three interested editors, two of whom agree. You don't wield a veto. Keith-264 (talk) 07:54, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

The changes I have reverted have nothing whatsoever to do with sfn referencing. Please got a WP:CONSENSUS on this page before you make that change again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:56, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Wah! You have lost all sense of proportion and you still haven't done your homework on the sfn format. I've finished for the non so perhaps you'd like the last word? Keith-264 (talk) 08:03, 17 June 2018 (UTC)