12 ms·

Since the author also released "How to be childless – A history and philosophy of life without children" I think I'll have to expect a lot of framing baked into

Since the author also released "How to be childless – A history and philosophy of life without children" I think I'll have to expect a lot of framing baked into this, including accidentally/intentionally leaving out contexts. Note the "fueling" of "Nationalism", "committed" atrocities on the German side, while the French side only gets confronted by "wild rumors" and "accusations". At that time Nationalism was a force for good throughout Europe demanding more egalitarian rights for citizens, democracy and separation of state powers, but also promoting independence of other nations as nationalists of one nation even travelled to other countries to support their Nationalists, for instance to Poland in support of their protests against Tsarist rule. She leaves out this context, as well as that the French state (throughout being an ancien regime as well as being run by Napoleon) was waging multiple anti-German wars, basically treating the lands to its east like its Hinterland in need of Franconization (E.g. At the end of the 18th century just about 1% of the Elsassians spoke French, and even in 1953 80% of Elasassians were in favor of German speaking public schools). She also seems to leave out the context, that Bismarck was an aristocrat and thus anything but a nationalist. And since she seems to be in need to see (or letting us see) the word nationalism in todays western liberal meaning, that whole differentiation seems inaccessible to her. Germany "refrained from ethnic cleansing" (written as if this was some sort of novelty for Germans) because they considered the occupants German. The mild peace-conditions were given by Germany because Bismarck knew that anything else would foster even more French resentment then there already was („Toujours y penser, jamais en parler"), which would then foster more German nationalism, which in turn would hurt his Juncker-Class.

pyrale 3y ago
I'm not sure how you relate this article to an unrelated book on being childless. Nevertheless, it is true that Prussian imperialism ultimately was a disaster for Germany. I'm not sure how that relates to a "French side", unless you also want to say that there was an "Austrian side", a "Polish side", a "Danish side", etc. > At that time Nationalism was a force for good throughout Europe demanding more egalitarian rights for citizens That aspect of nationalism was dead since 1848 in Germany, in no small part due to Prussia. In fact, the 2nd reich was illiberal, with a parliament which was mostly powerless. > She leaves out this context, as well as that the French state [...] The book is about 1870. France had been mostly powerless and diplomatically isolated since 1815. But yeah, nice irredentist propaganda.
- hef19898 3y ago
  Well, Prussian Imperialism went well until 1918. Quite a run, if you ask me. Not saying it was a good thing, but at the time it achieved Prussias goals. There is a tendency to paint one beligerent of any given war as evil and the other(s) as good. That didn't even work for WW1, it does for WW2, the evil side clearly is the axis. When looking closer so, no side in WW2 was truely good. On the allied side there was Stalins USSR, bombing of civilians and the like. On the Axis nothing to defend so, especially the Germans started a world war with a planned and intentional mass tenocide at its core fornno other reason than murdering all jews in Europe. 1870, and in 1914, things were different. War was still an accepted way of conducting state business. And those used to be way less devastating than WW1 turned out to be.
  - tristramb 3y ago
    Prussian imperialism was failing from 1914 when they failed to reach Paris and force France to surrender. Moltke the Younger recognised this at the time, but it took 4 years for rest of the German High Command to see it, and for the Allies to get their act together. Even if the German spring offensive in 1918 had succeeded, it would have only pushed the British Army back across the Channel, it wouldn't have stopped the British naval blockade which was crippling Germany, nor would it have stopped the build-up of US troops in France.
    - hef19898 3y ago
      Agree, Germany lost WW1 when they failed to capture Paris and kick France out of war. And they lost WW2 when the same happened with the USSR at Moscow. That being said, the Entente got their act together as fast as Germany and Austria did in WW1. Without means to break static defenses, the stalemate at the Western and Italian fronts was a certainty, in hindsight. Wars of movement, in the East during WW2 went rather well for Germany. Especially after the shipped Lenin there, but this isba whole bunch of different cans with different worms.
      - hef19898 3y ago
hef19898 3y ago
I'll have to read up on that period again, so what I say might very well getting some things wrong. Prussia, under Bismarck, was very much on its way to form a proper Nation. It fought multiple wars, including against Austria-Hungary. Also true, Bismarck saw the risk of a global, and disastrous conflict if the European powers were not balanced well, hence his, IMHO, ingenious system of mutual alliances, non-aggression pacts and the like that was designed to isolate whatever nation started to declare war on others. This is something especially Americans seem to totally miss, the same way Brits have a biased view on Napoleon. What allowed WW1 to happen, among a lot of other reasons, was Wilhelm II's dismanzling of Bismarks alliances and treaties. Also true, despite giving Prussia its first social insurance system, Bismarck was an aristocrate through and through, and by no means a democrat. But drawing a direct line from Bismarck, to the war of 1870, ober WW1 to WW2 goes to far. Heck, that lone is already sketchy if one tries to link the Nazis directly to WW1, going even further back is somewhat misleading. Edit: To emphasize, my comment is related to the article, explicitly not the book discussed in said article which I didn't read. Overall, I like it when wars are looked at and analyzed from different perspectives than battles and the like. So, I think the book authors approach of covering those aspects, and she does have some body of work for that on tha war of 1870, is a very interesting and important one.
- pyrale 3y ago
  > What allowed WW1 to happen, among a lot of other reasons, was Wilhelm II's dismanzling of Bismarks alliances and treaties. That's a commonly held view, but Bismark is partly responsible for the inability of Germany to win WW1. He was the one that set up pre-WW1's alliances, and especially, he was the one that alienated Russia with duplicitous diplomacy. That policy, which culminated at the Berlin conference is, ultimately, the thing that allowed France to break from its diplomatic isolation.
  - hef19898 3y ago
    Bismarck, and that is my take, was one of the few people as it turned out, that understood fully well that Germany / Prussia was in no position to ever win a two front war in Europe. He also seems to have understood that fast, quick wars, like the war of 1870, was the only kind of war Germany could win. And that those wars were a thing of the past. hence his well balanced system of treaties, including secret ones, to reduce the likelihood of that happening. And France getting out of isolation was actually a good thing, or at least not a bad one. Or was France, after 1870, on the attacking side of any war? It wasn't. it wasn't even involved in a lot of wars not forced upon it by others until the futile attempts to hold on to the colonies post WW2. And no, Bismarck did not set-up the pre-WW1 alliances, the alliances in place leading up to WW2 were not designed by Bismarck. Those alliances were the result of Wilhelm 2's actions in dissolving the rather ambiguous Bismarck system, which led to the building of the Prusso-German-Austrian block on one side and the British-French-Russian one on the other. Exactly what Bismarck wanted to avoid, and did as long as he had a say. EDIT: Prussia, and Germany general, was only able to win quick wars. Everything else required allies, and that fact was already by Frederick the Great and driven home clearly by the Napoleonic wars. The reasons are, in a nutshell, the fact any prolonged war will inevitably be a two front one. That Prussia didn't have the necessary resources for a prolonged war. And that without secured access to the sea, any colonies Prussia / Germany had were basically useless. And that access was a non-started as soon as the Royal navy, or even the French one later, got involved. So in the end, either Prussia / Germany won quick and decisively, or it was outgunned, outnumbered and outresourced on two fronts. Bismarck had nothing to do with that, that is caused by geography. And history showed us the Germany was well able to win on one front: The Eastern one in WW1 and the Western one, initially, in WW2. Throw in a second one, and the war is lost. Or rather not winning quickly on the second one, and the war is lost (as shown by Barbarossa's failure to defeat the USSR at Moscow, and even then it is doubtful the USSR would just have rolled over). Funny side effect of that: the German armed forces, and as an extent, but to a lesser degree, German industry suck at logistics and supply chain management to this very day.
rpastuszak 3y ago
> Since the author also released "How to be childless – A history and philosophy of life without children" I think I'll have to expect a lot of framing baked into this, including accidentally/intentionally leaving out contexts. I'm a bit lost. How does this relate to the rest of the comment?
- rpastuszak 3y ago
  I don’t care much about the downvotes, so please go ahead, but that was not a loaded question. I’m genuinely curious, I’m not intentionally obtuse and I’m not implying anything.
- rospaya 3y ago
  It's just plain old sexism.
- somedude895 3y ago
  I think because advocating for not having children is often something that progressives do and as such the author could be biased against nationalism, no matter the historical context.
- voldacar 3y ago
  It's heavily coded for one side of the culture war.

pyrale 3y ago

I'm not sure how you relate this article to an unrelated book on being childless. Nevertheless, it is true that Prussian imperialism ultimately was a disaster for Germany. I'm not sure how that relates to a "French side", unless you also want to say that there was an "Austrian side", a "Polish side", a "Danish side", etc. > At that time Nationalism was a force for good throughout Europe demanding more egalitarian rights for citizens That aspect of nationalism was dead since 1848 in Germany, in no small part due to Prussia. In fact, the 2nd reich was illiberal, with a parliament which was mostly powerless. > She leaves out this context, as well as that the French state [...] The book is about 1870. France had been mostly powerless and diplomatically isolated since 1815. But yeah, nice irredentist propaganda.

hef19898 3y ago
Well, Prussian Imperialism went well until 1918. Quite a run, if you ask me. Not saying it was a good thing, but at the time it achieved Prussias goals. There is a tendency to paint one beligerent of any given war as evil and the other(s) as good. That didn't even work for WW1, it does for WW2, the evil side clearly is the axis. When looking closer so, no side in WW2 was truely good. On the allied side there was Stalins USSR, bombing of civilians and the like. On the Axis nothing to defend so, especially the Germans started a world war with a planned and intentional mass tenocide at its core fornno other reason than murdering all jews in Europe. 1870, and in 1914, things were different. War was still an accepted way of conducting state business. And those used to be way less devastating than WW1 turned out to be.
- tristramb 3y ago
  Prussian imperialism was failing from 1914 when they failed to reach Paris and force France to surrender. Moltke the Younger recognised this at the time, but it took 4 years for rest of the German High Command to see it, and for the Allies to get their act together. Even if the German spring offensive in 1918 had succeeded, it would have only pushed the British Army back across the Channel, it wouldn't have stopped the British naval blockade which was crippling Germany, nor would it have stopped the build-up of US troops in France.
  - hef19898 3y ago
    Agree, Germany lost WW1 when they failed to capture Paris and kick France out of war. And they lost WW2 when the same happened with the USSR at Moscow. That being said, the Entente got their act together as fast as Germany and Austria did in WW1. Without means to break static defenses, the stalemate at the Western and Italian fronts was a certainty, in hindsight. Wars of movement, in the East during WW2 went rather well for Germany. Especially after the shipped Lenin there, but this isba whole bunch of different cans with different worms.
    - hef19898 3y ago

hef19898 3y ago

I'll have to read up on that period again, so what I say might very well getting some things wrong. Prussia, under Bismarck, was very much on its way to form a proper Nation. It fought multiple wars, including against Austria-Hungary. Also true, Bismarck saw the risk of a global, and disastrous conflict if the European powers were not balanced well, hence his, IMHO, ingenious system of mutual alliances, non-aggression pacts and the like that was designed to isolate whatever nation started to declare war on others. This is something especially Americans seem to totally miss, the same way Brits have a biased view on Napoleon. What allowed WW1 to happen, among a lot of other reasons, was Wilhelm II's dismanzling of Bismarks alliances and treaties. Also true, despite giving Prussia its first social insurance system, Bismarck was an aristocrate through and through, and by no means a democrat. But drawing a direct line from Bismarck, to the war of 1870, ober WW1 to WW2 goes to far. Heck, that lone is already sketchy if one tries to link the Nazis directly to WW1, going even further back is somewhat misleading. Edit: To emphasize, my comment is related to the article, explicitly not the book discussed in said article which I didn't read. Overall, I like it when wars are looked at and analyzed from different perspectives than battles and the like. So, I think the book authors approach of covering those aspects, and she does have some body of work for that on tha war of 1870, is a very interesting and important one.

pyrale 3y ago
> What allowed WW1 to happen, among a lot of other reasons, was Wilhelm II's dismanzling of Bismarks alliances and treaties. That's a commonly held view, but Bismark is partly responsible for the inability of Germany to win WW1. He was the one that set up pre-WW1's alliances, and especially, he was the one that alienated Russia with duplicitous diplomacy. That policy, which culminated at the Berlin conference is, ultimately, the thing that allowed France to break from its diplomatic isolation.
- hef19898 3y ago
  Bismarck, and that is my take, was one of the few people as it turned out, that understood fully well that Germany / Prussia was in no position to ever win a two front war in Europe. He also seems to have understood that fast, quick wars, like the war of 1870, was the only kind of war Germany could win. And that those wars were a thing of the past. hence his well balanced system of treaties, including secret ones, to reduce the likelihood of that happening. And France getting out of isolation was actually a good thing, or at least not a bad one. Or was France, after 1870, on the attacking side of any war? It wasn't. it wasn't even involved in a lot of wars not forced upon it by others until the futile attempts to hold on to the colonies post WW2. And no, Bismarck did not set-up the pre-WW1 alliances, the alliances in place leading up to WW2 were not designed by Bismarck. Those alliances were the result of Wilhelm 2's actions in dissolving the rather ambiguous Bismarck system, which led to the building of the Prusso-German-Austrian block on one side and the British-French-Russian one on the other. Exactly what Bismarck wanted to avoid, and did as long as he had a say. EDIT: Prussia, and Germany general, was only able to win quick wars. Everything else required allies, and that fact was already by Frederick the Great and driven home clearly by the Napoleonic wars. The reasons are, in a nutshell, the fact any prolonged war will inevitably be a two front one. That Prussia didn't have the necessary resources for a prolonged war. And that without secured access to the sea, any colonies Prussia / Germany had were basically useless. And that access was a non-started as soon as the Royal navy, or even the French one later, got involved. So in the end, either Prussia / Germany won quick and decisively, or it was outgunned, outnumbered and outresourced on two fronts. Bismarck had nothing to do with that, that is caused by geography. And history showed us the Germany was well able to win on one front: The Eastern one in WW1 and the Western one, initially, in WW2. Throw in a second one, and the war is lost. Or rather not winning quickly on the second one, and the war is lost (as shown by Barbarossa's failure to defeat the USSR at Moscow, and even then it is doubtful the USSR would just have rolled over). Funny side effect of that: the German armed forces, and as an extent, but to a lesser degree, German industry suck at logistics and supply chain management to this very day.

rpastuszak 3y ago

> Since the author also released "How to be childless – A history and philosophy of life without children" I think I'll have to expect a lot of framing baked into this, including accidentally/intentionally leaving out contexts. I'm a bit lost. How does this relate to the rest of the comment?

rpastuszak 3y ago
I don’t care much about the downvotes, so please go ahead, but that was not a loaded question. I’m genuinely curious, I’m not intentionally obtuse and I’m not implying anything.
rospaya 3y ago
It's just plain old sexism.
somedude895 3y ago
I think because advocating for not having children is often something that progressives do and as such the author could be biased against nationalism, no matter the historical context.
voldacar 3y ago
It's heavily coded for one side of the culture war.