7 ms·

"The Germans drew different lessons. Believing that unification had come about as a result of military competence, they mapped the future of the German Empire i

by kensai 3y ago

"The Germans drew different lessons. Believing that unification had come about as a result of military competence, they mapped the future of the German Empire in terms of military power. Thus, Chrastil concludes, German victory in 1871 became catastrophic not just for Germany but ultimately for the rest of the world." This.

ku-man 3y ago
[dead]
bell-cot 3y ago
My impression is that that lesson was NOT drawn at the time by the German A-listers, and especially not by Bismark - the AAA-list genius behind both this victory, and Germany's long process of unification. Bismark was very public, both before and after the Fraco-Prussian War, in his general opposition to European wars. Especially larger or longer wars. And he was very opposed to risking Germany getting caught in a two-front war. But then Germany's Kaiser Wilhelm I got old and died, and was soon succeeded by his grandson, Wilhelm II - who didn't like Bismark's cautious foreign policy. Wilhelm II wanted vigorous & rapid expansion, to enlarge Germany's (and his) place in the sun. Bismark, who was getting a bit old & unsteady himself, was replaced in 1890 with a new German Chancellor, more to the young Kaiser's liking. Note that both WWI and WWII stuck Germany in large, long, two-front European wars. And that Germany got into WWI under the same Kaiser (Wilhelm II) who had dumped Bismark for being too cautious and anti-war.
- Entwickler 3y ago
  This aligns with what I've read in Robert K Massie's "Dreadnought". It feels odd to title the book "Bismarck's War" and then come to that lesson. It should really have been titled "Wilhelm's Lunacy". Wilhelm's obsession with a massive fleet to compete with England lost any hopes of forming an alliance with them and resulted in Germany being seen as a threat. Having a large fleet puts you at odds against England no matter what - that is their last line of defense. It's interesting to think what might have happened had Germany abandoned any aims on a massive navy and focused all those resources on it's army instead. My hunch is no mis-alignement with England and a very different looking world today if that happened.
  - jcranmer 3y ago
    > It's interesting to think what might have happened had Germany abandoned any aims on a massive navy and focused all those resources on it's army instead. My hunch is no mis-alignement with England and a very different looking world today if that happened. I don't think so. The biggest mistake Germany made was letting its alliance with Russia lapse in 1891, in favor of trying to snag an alliance with the UK, which wasn't interested in one (Britain favored a policy of neutrality on the continent). This leads France to seize the opportunity and ally with Russia in 1894. A series of colonial issues leads the UK to realize around 1900 or so that not having any allies wasn't exactly a good thing, especially when you've got lots of people you're butting heads against. Wilhelm was an absolute wrecking ball when it came to diplomacy. His tendency to show support for anyone fighting the British in colonial ventures in the late 1890s (especially the Boer War) couldn't have helped any chance for a UK-German alliance. It's only after tentative attempts to come to an agreement break down in 1901 that the naval arms race actually becomes an issue in UK-Germany relations: indeed, it's not really until dreadnoughts make the existing fleets (lopsidedly in favor of the UK) obsolete that German navy buildup actually poses a threat to the UK. The treaties the UK does enter into are less military alliances than they are colonial tension defusing, and Wilhelm's tendency to do the opposite would have likely made any formal UK-Germany treaty rather short-lived. The naval arms race mostly takes place after the UK-German treaty attempts ended, and redirecting that money to a larger army would probably have pushed UK even harder into the Franco-Russian camp: during its period of continental isolation, its greatest fear is that of a second Napoleon, who conquers most of Europe and shuts the British out of it. A stronger German army makes that look more plausible, and aligning against Germany helps avert that catastrophe.
    - pyrale 3y ago
      > I don't think so. The biggest mistake Germany made was letting its alliance with Russia lapse in 1891 The alliance lapse was forced by then, the issue is that Russia and Austria-Hungary, the two historic German allies, were competing for influence over the Balkans. Bismarck, rather than taking a side or remaining neutral, tried to become the arbiter of that dispute, and led a duplicitous diplomacy towards Russia. That was largely due to his attempt to freeze Europe in a diplomatic state that benefited Germany, rather than acknowledging the changing nature of diplomacy and trying to find new allies and a new balance. By 1891, German diplomats were faced with a tough choice: either continuing a two-faced policy which was doomed anyway, since Russia was not stupid, or acknowledging that and letting the alliance lapse.
- bsder 3y ago
  > Wilhelm II wanted vigorous & rapid expansion, to enlarge Germany's (and his) place in the sun. Bismark, who was getting a bit old & unsteady himself, was replaced in 1890 with a new German Chancellor, more to the young Kaiser's liking. Otto von Bismarck was very adept at putting together treaties and alliances to hold things at bay or in stasis until Prussia could benefit. Bismarck understood to have limited objectives--Bismarck had a plan--Bismarck always had a plan. "Twisted History--Otto von Bismarck" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zc3Y-dU_GjM&list=PLhyKYa0YJ_5DTz_FAbdQyXo9TZdx1hTWf https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zc3Y-dU_GjM&list=PLhyKYa0YJ_... Wilhelm II, alas, was an idiot. Anything with subtlety was doomed. To be fair, it wasn't clear that even Bismarck could have kept all the plates spinning indefinitely. And Bismarck was getting old.
  - pyrale 3y ago
    > To be fair, it wasn't clear that even Bismarck could have kept all the plates spinning indefinitely. The biggest plate (the Russian alliance) was already falling when Bismarck was replaced, it hit the floor when German diplomats decided Bismarck's two-faced policy was unsustainable.
petsfed 3y ago
I hear echoes of "every power is a prisoner of its last victory". You can see the same thing in Soviet and American Cold War doctrine, but also in the way that just about everybody started WWI (and why the casualties were so horrific). By the time WWI rolled around, German veterans still in service were almost exclusively veterans of colonial wars. However, just about everybody from the Kaiser and central command down to the rank and file believed that a war against other Europeans would (and should) be fought differently from those colonial wars. Thus, the military philosophy that they thought won the Franco-Prussian war was brought to the present with very little modification, but enacted by people who had never actually seen its use. This still happens today, too. Look at the volume of tanks that NATO countries shipped to Iraq and Afghanistan. What tank losses occurred were predominantly from infantry, because there were simply no enemy tanks available to engage.
- Arrath 3y ago
  > This still happens today, too. Look at the volume of tanks that NATO countries shipped to Iraq and Afghanistan. What tank losses occurred were predominantly from infantry, because there were simply no enemy tanks available to engage. "Fighting the last war" has been another way I've heard it referred to. It is why, for instance, I didn't agree with the US DoD curtailing the F-22 purchase plans in favor of more counter-insurgency focused efforts. As to tanks in Iraq/Afghanistan, lets not get tricked into thinking they were useless because there were no tanks for them to fight. They proved supremely useful as mobile pillboxes or observation posts, that could sit somewhere and use their sensor suites that were far and away better than the binoculars or nvg's a solider could put to their face.
  - wizerdrobe 3y ago
    I’m instead worried we will think air and armor are mostly impervious in consideration to a near-peer conflict with eastern enemies.
    - Arrath 3y ago
      I would hope that watching the war in Ukraine would disabuse such notions.
goodbyesf 3y ago
The quote is pure nonsense as is most historical narratives. > Believing that unification had come about as a result of military competence It did. > they mapped the future of the German Empire in terms of military power. All empires are created in terms of military power. In what terms was the german empire supposed to compete against the british, french, russian, american, japanese, etc empires? The statement cannot be dumb because it's devoid of substance. It's literally a meaningless statement. > Thus, Chrastil concludes, German victory in 1871 became catastrophic not just for Germany but ultimately for the rest of the world. How was it 'catastrophic' as without it, germany wouldn't have existed? Also, 'rest of the world'? Germany's rise and germany's role in ww1/ww2 primarily affected germany's neighbors. Just because it was catastrophic for parts of europe doesn't mean it was catastrophic for everyone else. It's the same nonsense like 'the world is against russia' when most of the world is on russia's side or neutral. Like they all read from the same propaganda manual.
- ffhhttt 3y ago
  Germany being divided in South and North Germany (or eventually forming a somewhat loose federation) wouldn’t exactly have been a tragedy for the German nation. And it likely would’ve meant no WW1
  - hef19898 3y ago
    It was not the Prussians and Germans that declared war first in WW1, that honour belongs to Austria-Hungary. There were too many people at the time who wanted that war for various reasons for it not to happen ine way or the other. Some French wanted Alssace-Lorraine back. Austria wanted the Balkans. Germany wanted to settle tensions with Russia before the latter cought up enough to make that impossible (again, history showed the reasoning was largely correct), Russia did want Austria to get the Balkans and Britian was bound by alliances they needed to maintain their colonies. Not to forget the Ottomans, they and the Russians wanted the same patches of land along the black sea. And the Ottomans and British wanted the same land across North Africa. WW1 was almost guaranteed to happen, if anything Bismarck's treaties might have delayed that.

by kensai 3y ago

ku-man 3y ago

[dead]

bell-cot 3y ago

My impression is that that lesson was NOT drawn at the time by the German A-listers, and especially not by Bismark - the AAA-list genius behind both this victory, and Germany's long process of unification. Bismark was very public, both before and after the Fraco-Prussian War, in his general opposition to European wars. Especially larger or longer wars. And he was very opposed to risking Germany getting caught in a two-front war. But then Germany's Kaiser Wilhelm I got old and died, and was soon succeeded by his grandson, Wilhelm II - who didn't like Bismark's cautious foreign policy. Wilhelm II wanted vigorous & rapid expansion, to enlarge Germany's (and his) place in the sun. Bismark, who was getting a bit old & unsteady himself, was replaced in 1890 with a new German Chancellor, more to the young Kaiser's liking. Note that both WWI and WWII stuck Germany in large, long, two-front European wars. And that Germany got into WWI under the same Kaiser (Wilhelm II) who had dumped Bismark for being too cautious and anti-war.

Entwickler 3y ago
This aligns with what I've read in Robert K Massie's "Dreadnought". It feels odd to title the book "Bismarck's War" and then come to that lesson. It should really have been titled "Wilhelm's Lunacy". Wilhelm's obsession with a massive fleet to compete with England lost any hopes of forming an alliance with them and resulted in Germany being seen as a threat. Having a large fleet puts you at odds against England no matter what - that is their last line of defense. It's interesting to think what might have happened had Germany abandoned any aims on a massive navy and focused all those resources on it's army instead. My hunch is no mis-alignement with England and a very different looking world today if that happened.
- jcranmer 3y ago
  > It's interesting to think what might have happened had Germany abandoned any aims on a massive navy and focused all those resources on it's army instead. My hunch is no mis-alignement with England and a very different looking world today if that happened. I don't think so. The biggest mistake Germany made was letting its alliance with Russia lapse in 1891, in favor of trying to snag an alliance with the UK, which wasn't interested in one (Britain favored a policy of neutrality on the continent). This leads France to seize the opportunity and ally with Russia in 1894. A series of colonial issues leads the UK to realize around 1900 or so that not having any allies wasn't exactly a good thing, especially when you've got lots of people you're butting heads against. Wilhelm was an absolute wrecking ball when it came to diplomacy. His tendency to show support for anyone fighting the British in colonial ventures in the late 1890s (especially the Boer War) couldn't have helped any chance for a UK-German alliance. It's only after tentative attempts to come to an agreement break down in 1901 that the naval arms race actually becomes an issue in UK-Germany relations: indeed, it's not really until dreadnoughts make the existing fleets (lopsidedly in favor of the UK) obsolete that German navy buildup actually poses a threat to the UK. The treaties the UK does enter into are less military alliances than they are colonial tension defusing, and Wilhelm's tendency to do the opposite would have likely made any formal UK-Germany treaty rather short-lived. The naval arms race mostly takes place after the UK-German treaty attempts ended, and redirecting that money to a larger army would probably have pushed UK even harder into the Franco-Russian camp: during its period of continental isolation, its greatest fear is that of a second Napoleon, who conquers most of Europe and shuts the British out of it. A stronger German army makes that look more plausible, and aligning against Germany helps avert that catastrophe.
  - pyrale 3y ago
    > I don't think so. The biggest mistake Germany made was letting its alliance with Russia lapse in 1891 The alliance lapse was forced by then, the issue is that Russia and Austria-Hungary, the two historic German allies, were competing for influence over the Balkans. Bismarck, rather than taking a side or remaining neutral, tried to become the arbiter of that dispute, and led a duplicitous diplomacy towards Russia. That was largely due to his attempt to freeze Europe in a diplomatic state that benefited Germany, rather than acknowledging the changing nature of diplomacy and trying to find new allies and a new balance. By 1891, German diplomats were faced with a tough choice: either continuing a two-faced policy which was doomed anyway, since Russia was not stupid, or acknowledging that and letting the alliance lapse.
bsder 3y ago
> Wilhelm II wanted vigorous & rapid expansion, to enlarge Germany's (and his) place in the sun. Bismark, who was getting a bit old & unsteady himself, was replaced in 1890 with a new German Chancellor, more to the young Kaiser's liking. Otto von Bismarck was very adept at putting together treaties and alliances to hold things at bay or in stasis until Prussia could benefit. Bismarck understood to have limited objectives--Bismarck had a plan--Bismarck always had a plan. "Twisted History--Otto von Bismarck" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zc3Y-dU_GjM&list=PLhyKYa0YJ_5DTz_FAbdQyXo9TZdx1hTWf https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zc3Y-dU_GjM&list=PLhyKYa0YJ_... Wilhelm II, alas, was an idiot. Anything with subtlety was doomed. To be fair, it wasn't clear that even Bismarck could have kept all the plates spinning indefinitely. And Bismarck was getting old.
- pyrale 3y ago
  > To be fair, it wasn't clear that even Bismarck could have kept all the plates spinning indefinitely. The biggest plate (the Russian alliance) was already falling when Bismarck was replaced, it hit the floor when German diplomats decided Bismarck's two-faced policy was unsustainable.

petsfed 3y ago

I hear echoes of "every power is a prisoner of its last victory". You can see the same thing in Soviet and American Cold War doctrine, but also in the way that just about everybody started WWI (and why the casualties were so horrific). By the time WWI rolled around, German veterans still in service were almost exclusively veterans of colonial wars. However, just about everybody from the Kaiser and central command down to the rank and file believed that a war against other Europeans would (and should) be fought differently from those colonial wars. Thus, the military philosophy that they thought won the Franco-Prussian war was brought to the present with very little modification, but enacted by people who had never actually seen its use. This still happens today, too. Look at the volume of tanks that NATO countries shipped to Iraq and Afghanistan. What tank losses occurred were predominantly from infantry, because there were simply no enemy tanks available to engage.

Arrath 3y ago
> This still happens today, too. Look at the volume of tanks that NATO countries shipped to Iraq and Afghanistan. What tank losses occurred were predominantly from infantry, because there were simply no enemy tanks available to engage. "Fighting the last war" has been another way I've heard it referred to. It is why, for instance, I didn't agree with the US DoD curtailing the F-22 purchase plans in favor of more counter-insurgency focused efforts. As to tanks in Iraq/Afghanistan, lets not get tricked into thinking they were useless because there were no tanks for them to fight. They proved supremely useful as mobile pillboxes or observation posts, that could sit somewhere and use their sensor suites that were far and away better than the binoculars or nvg's a solider could put to their face.
- wizerdrobe 3y ago
  I’m instead worried we will think air and armor are mostly impervious in consideration to a near-peer conflict with eastern enemies.
  - Arrath 3y ago
    I would hope that watching the war in Ukraine would disabuse such notions.

goodbyesf 3y ago

The quote is pure nonsense as is most historical narratives. > Believing that unification had come about as a result of military competence It did. > they mapped the future of the German Empire in terms of military power. All empires are created in terms of military power. In what terms was the german empire supposed to compete against the british, french, russian, american, japanese, etc empires? The statement cannot be dumb because it's devoid of substance. It's literally a meaningless statement. > Thus, Chrastil concludes, German victory in 1871 became catastrophic not just for Germany but ultimately for the rest of the world. How was it 'catastrophic' as without it, germany wouldn't have existed? Also, 'rest of the world'? Germany's rise and germany's role in ww1/ww2 primarily affected germany's neighbors. Just because it was catastrophic for parts of europe doesn't mean it was catastrophic for everyone else. It's the same nonsense like 'the world is against russia' when most of the world is on russia's side or neutral. Like they all read from the same propaganda manual.

ffhhttt 3y ago
Germany being divided in South and North Germany (or eventually forming a somewhat loose federation) wouldn’t exactly have been a tragedy for the German nation. And it likely would’ve meant no WW1
- hef19898 3y ago
  It was not the Prussians and Germans that declared war first in WW1, that honour belongs to Austria-Hungary. There were too many people at the time who wanted that war for various reasons for it not to happen ine way or the other. Some French wanted Alssace-Lorraine back. Austria wanted the Balkans. Germany wanted to settle tensions with Russia before the latter cought up enough to make that impossible (again, history showed the reasoning was largely correct), Russia did want Austria to get the Balkans and Britian was bound by alliances they needed to maintain their colonies. Not to forget the Ottomans, they and the Russians wanted the same patches of land along the black sea. And the Ottomans and British wanted the same land across North Africa. WW1 was almost guaranteed to happen, if anything Bismarck's treaties might have delayed that.