3 ms·

It's a long discussion, but in my opinion, Imperial Germany suffered the same failure as the Napoleonic empire: a failure to acknowledge that their imperialism

by pyrale 3y ago

It's a long discussion, but in my opinion, Imperial Germany suffered the same failure as the Napoleonic empire: a failure to acknowledge that their imperialism caused diplomatic tensions, and that they could not eat their lunch and keep their neighbours happy. Bismarck tried to freeze Europe in that situation, but that was unsustainable, and ultimately it failed and left Germany in a bad diplomatic situation when WW1 started. It's not about judging whether that particular was evil or not, it's about acknowledging that its diplomatic policy was doomed to fail.

hef19898 3y ago
It took a different Emperor, and chancellor and different treaties dor the Bismarck system to fail. And decades. For the time, it worked fine. The Bismarck had no sqy in adapting it, and there is no way to tell if would have been able to do so if he were allowed, can hardly be blamed on Bismarck. But I agree, Europe most likely was bound to blow up anyway. Bismarck at least tried to prevent that. Sure, most likely until he thought Prussia could win, but try, and succeed, he did. As much as he was a non-democrat, people got the Nobel Peace Price for less. I honestly have no idea why people paint Napoleon as a proto-Hitler (mostly Brits, which is strange since Britain defeated him) and Bismarck as some kind of either incompetent idiot or yet another stepping stone that got to WW2. I don't know, maybe those people mix up Bismarck and Hindenburg in their imagination, because the actually did put Hitler and the Nazis in power.
- pyrale 3y ago
  > It took a different Emperor, and chancellor and different treaties dor the Bismarck system to fail. And decades. Bismarck left power in 1890, the Russian alliance officially died in 1891. That's not exactly a decade.
  - hef19898 3y ago
    But it took until 1914 for war to break out, didn't it?
panick21_ 3y ago
> Bismarck tried to freeze Europe in that situation No he didn't, he was quite flexible in his approach as for what was needed at any point in time. > it failed and left Germany in a bad diplomatic situation when WW1 started. Not really. Germany was in a fantastic situation when he left. And even by WW1 Germany wasn't in a bad situation. Relationship with Britain had been improving for years. Relationship with the Ottoman had also been improving. British French relationship wasn't that close. And British Russian relation were a disaster. The reality is Bismark did brilliantly and the people that came after him were idiots. - Building a huge North Atlantic Navy, rather then a smaller Baltic Navy. - Instead of Balancing Russia and Austria going all in on Austria - Creating international crisis over irrelevant issues to bring France/Britain, Russia/Britain closer together. And then to start the War did the dumbest possible things and instantly made sure Britain was on the other side.
- pyrale 3y ago
  > Instead of Balancing Russia and Austria going all in on Austria That was already Bismarck's choice : he signed a secret deal aligning Germany with Austria in case of conflict, and jeopardized his relations with Russia at the Berlin conference. > And then to start the War did the dumbest possible things and instantly made sure Britain was on the other side. Britain would have been on the other side regardless, already in 1875, Britain and Russia were more likely to align with France if Germany sought a preventive war.
  - panick21_ 3y ago
    > That was already Bismarck's choice And its secret deal because he is playing both sides. That's the whole point. > Britain would have been on the other side regardless This isn't at all true. Britain-German relations were actually quite good. And British-Russian relations were terrible. Germany had messed up generally good relations with Britain because of the idiotic Navy project. But by 1912 this was basically over and relations were improving. British-Russian relations were going to over Persia. Look at how close the margins for war were in British Parliament even after Belgium. > if Germany sought a preventive war Ok but I'm not talking about a preventative war.

by pyrale 3y ago

hef19898 3y ago

It took a different Emperor, and chancellor and different treaties dor the Bismarck system to fail. And decades. For the time, it worked fine. The Bismarck had no sqy in adapting it, and there is no way to tell if would have been able to do so if he were allowed, can hardly be blamed on Bismarck. But I agree, Europe most likely was bound to blow up anyway. Bismarck at least tried to prevent that. Sure, most likely until he thought Prussia could win, but try, and succeed, he did. As much as he was a non-democrat, people got the Nobel Peace Price for less. I honestly have no idea why people paint Napoleon as a proto-Hitler (mostly Brits, which is strange since Britain defeated him) and Bismarck as some kind of either incompetent idiot or yet another stepping stone that got to WW2. I don't know, maybe those people mix up Bismarck and Hindenburg in their imagination, because the actually did put Hitler and the Nazis in power.

pyrale 3y ago
> It took a different Emperor, and chancellor and different treaties dor the Bismarck system to fail. And decades. Bismarck left power in 1890, the Russian alliance officially died in 1891. That's not exactly a decade.
- hef19898 3y ago
  But it took until 1914 for war to break out, didn't it?

panick21_ 3y ago

> Bismarck tried to freeze Europe in that situation No he didn't, he was quite flexible in his approach as for what was needed at any point in time. > it failed and left Germany in a bad diplomatic situation when WW1 started. Not really. Germany was in a fantastic situation when he left. And even by WW1 Germany wasn't in a bad situation. Relationship with Britain had been improving for years. Relationship with the Ottoman had also been improving. British French relationship wasn't that close. And British Russian relation were a disaster. The reality is Bismark did brilliantly and the people that came after him were idiots. - Building a huge North Atlantic Navy, rather then a smaller Baltic Navy. - Instead of Balancing Russia and Austria going all in on Austria - Creating international crisis over irrelevant issues to bring France/Britain, Russia/Britain closer together. And then to start the War did the dumbest possible things and instantly made sure Britain was on the other side.

pyrale 3y ago
> Instead of Balancing Russia and Austria going all in on Austria That was already Bismarck's choice : he signed a secret deal aligning Germany with Austria in case of conflict, and jeopardized his relations with Russia at the Berlin conference. > And then to start the War did the dumbest possible things and instantly made sure Britain was on the other side. Britain would have been on the other side regardless, already in 1875, Britain and Russia were more likely to align with France if Germany sought a preventive war.
- panick21_ 3y ago
  > That was already Bismarck's choice And its secret deal because he is playing both sides. That's the whole point. > Britain would have been on the other side regardless This isn't at all true. Britain-German relations were actually quite good. And British-Russian relations were terrible. Germany had messed up generally good relations with Britain because of the idiotic Navy project. But by 1912 this was basically over and relations were improving. British-Russian relations were going to over Persia. Look at how close the margins for war were in British Parliament even after Belgium. > if Germany sought a preventive war Ok but I'm not talking about a preventative war.