Bismarck

Bismarck
By Emil Ludwig

As a biography on a great person captures ones life story, if that person is a prime mover of his day, it paints that story against the social backdrop of its time and place, history on a grand scale. This book clearly captures the personality of a German in Europe from 1815 through to 1892. In reading the descriptions of people and events it brought to light for me the animated Christmas characters of today’s cartoons. The reader could picture a burgomaster at the pastry shop exclaiming some new bit of news on the unification of the German states. As a prelude to this and other prominent events of 19th century Europe you read about the mortar of the man who cemented a people together. In the larger view Bismarck did not see himself so much as German but as European. That European bias was founded first in Pomerania, then in Prussia, and finally a group of other kingdoms of German speaking tongue. He always saw the larger picture of his people role on the European continent. He is most remembered as the country gentleman turned Iron Chancellor. History in the words of Emil Ludwig remembers him with more personal thoroughness. In that thoroughness comes a little enlightenment and a few lessons learned.

Bismarck was born into a family of county gentlemen who was meant to inherit the family farm. This is an entitled stature where he could have simply blended in with his countrymen. His father who was once involved with the Hohenzollern realm of politics fell out of favor. So Otto Bismarck rose through the political rank through his pen and a few strokes in good fortune, from being in the right place doing the right thing. In his developing years to read of Bismarck in spirit and in mind, your find both conflicted with the other. I call him Otto Bismarck at this point he had not earned the title von or his later title prince. As part of his rise to power the reader learns the stratum levels and the rules and of edict associated with each level of German society.

As a historical synopsis the moments that framed Bismarck’s mind and hence the mind of Germany in it’s infancy began with his rambunctious 20’s. His father was a conservative noble and his mother a liberal. His father enriched his thoughts with an appreciation for nature and the country for which it is founded and things as they are. His mother commanded him to make things as they should be, so he rebelled for 60 years. As the parent of four children there are lessons to be learned and most of all is patience; patience to get beyond conflict. This conflict albeit defined Bismarck, it also was quite prevalent in his German countrymen and appears to the root of Germany’s turbulent beginning.

Upon meeting his wife Johanna with her pious ways, melded with his brewing contempt held for the German mind, compelled him to finally set course on doing something about it. His role in the 1848 revolution was the culmination of a cultivated relationship with the King and simply a blessing of the good fortune to be in the right place at the right time at the apex of the revolution. Once he was finally appointed Chancellor, years later his conflicted views of society and royalty found a need for him to rule with an iron fist.


Bismarck was very spiritual internally, he was connected to things of the forest and the land as their simple reality of co-existence did not muddle with interpretations of the way things are. They just were. He was truly one with himself and reality in nature was where he found God. Yet conflict arose in his intellect as he socialized with his countrymen. Hence the following quote. Bismarck ''I cannot understand how a man who reflects about himself, yet still knows nothing or will know nothing of God, can endure his life ''. Keep in mind at the time of this quote Bismarck had no appreciation for religion but saw God in nature as a metaphor of reality. Bismarck falls back on religion if he must have a master.

It would be a gross oversight if I did not dwell a bit on Bismarck’s view of his countrymen. After all they were the crucible of his conflict. Against a spiritual oneness with nature Bismarck judged his countrymen at many levels poorly. First with the king he despised the inheritance of authority by persons not necessarily fit for the duties of the job. He despised the bourgeoisies, noblemen of privilege and thus parliamentary voice, which was equally unearned. How could noble men make decisions over others when their only claim to do so was through inheritance? He held out hope for the workingman but found him to inept for much more than his working lot in life. In this harsh judgment of others his life was full of solitude in terms of people. They were apt to blame their plight on the rulers. Bismarck: ‘‘they are all petty and narrow-minded. Not one of them works with an eye on the whole. Each one of them is busy stuffing his own mattress. We are all extremely unaccommodating to one another and far too accommodating to foreigners ''

In German Society the notion of responsibility and guilt should underscore the common denominator between Bismarck and the society he grew up with, ruled, and died with. Bismarck held that sense of responsibility, instilled upon him by the practices of the Lutheran faith, as illustrated by the Scandinavian humor found Minnesota’s Prairie Home companion (on NPR, Saturday’s at 6:00PM and Sundays at 12:00 PM.) A responsibility that has one holding guilt both as a moral sense of honor and a practical sense of punishment. In all cases guilt vested upon others allowed for the people to blame their lot on their rulers and conversely the rulers found their subjects guilty of divergence to their standards. This was easy to see in the dynamic description between Bismarck and his society throughout all phases of his life. Never did it occur to anyone that their blame led to flames of war. Bismarck: '' the differences between people only depend upon the way in which life ripens one's disposition...’’ In the difference is also Bismarck’s personal conflict as we writes of the likeness of Austrians and Prussians (man, one man). Through contrast of hypocrisy by tearing off the mask of man. Bismarck moves away from religion and towards truth. Unity

The notion of blind ambition underscores not only Bismarck’s kings but also the dynamics of king and subject in Germany from 1850 through to 1914. Bismarck despised this characteristic in others whether it was a royalty, a noble, gentry, a commoner, or a peasant; those who recklessly went forth through life with a total disregard to the consequences of their action were held in virtual contempt by a man who saw him self outside of this human phenomena. While the consequences of such behavior of the people were not a hindrance to the man Bismarck, that same man swayed in the balance of the blind ambition of the King he served. King’s Fredrick and William I recognized their need of a Bismarck Chancellor to fill the gaps of their own ineptness, while William II fell to the winds of the bourgeoisies and the pheasants as they argued for a liberal state. As Bismarck fell from royal favor so did the train of events begin to Germany’s Kaiser Wilhelm (William II) to lead his following people willy-nilly into a war.

Reichstag being Bismarck’s archrival was represented by the noble bourgeoisies. Keep in mind these folks albeit land owners, were undeserving landowners as they were entitled their land they leveraged this stature to have a say in the direction of their land. That direction was directed solely at the selfish interest of those who have not worked a day in their life. On the political spectrum Bismarck called these folks liberal. I found it interesting that criterion for classification groups of people vary in frames of time and geography. Workers fell in to the Socialist movement of Germany in the day. Karl Marx was very active right in the heart of German lands. Sandwiched between republican but capitalistic France (then!!) and homeland monarchist, Germans were looking over both shoulders for a direction to move in as they sought alternatives to conservative monarchal government. As William II went with Socialist (liberal thinking people) Caesar went with Christians (liberals of their time). Neither Rome nor the Reich exists today. At least intriguing I say.

Bismarck’s most revered statement in my opinion: in prelude: Hegel and Fichte influenced Germans with a philosophy of the metaphysical nation, the German nation. Thanks to their influence on Bismarck, whole development and in full conformity with its subjective and objective history, is vouchsafed this great prize, this supreme historical honor, that is able to create for itself a territory out of the simple spiritual national idea, that is able to generate being out of thought. Such an act resembles God's creation of the world. The thought: “In my opinion, While I cannot argue the notion that thought precedes action and forms a sense of reality, if the origin of rational thought is not properly based, all subsequent thought and their associated actions are prone to error.”


Bismarck was not immune to error himself. His iron fist not only sowed the seeds of political failure internally but also found him branded historically as the founder of Real Politick. Real Politick was never used in this book. The expression, however it is commonly associated to Bismarck, never came up. I might say that the real deal is Bismarck did make arrangements with other countries, as he did not hold to a standoff German dictation of international relationships. It only appeared that way.

Austria posed problems for the mind of Bismarck throughout his life. In the early days his problem largely stemmed from the liberal ways of Austria’s German nobles. Like his successors he could not conceive of a united Germany that included non-German speaking people, so the Hungarians and Slavs only complicated a union with Vienna. Unlike his successors, he never saw the need for more land as a medium to serve its German people. Hence he deplored the notion of German people on the wrong side of the Austrian boarder and as well was against the annexation of Alsace-Lorraine. He did however see that the only way to unite Germany was to have a couple of small wars with Austria and France. It appeared that to unite a conflicted people he had to find a separate common cause.


Once united however, Bismarck’s aim was to disentangle Germany from foreign affairs using Machiavellian diplomacy common more so then than now,. Bismarck’s strategy was to keep alliances with monarchies while holding them separate from each other. This was metaphorically described as a husband keeping his wife and mistress at his disposal. He had an open loyalty towards Austria as they looked west to France. He viewed the republic of France as a monarchy as it still suffered from the Emperor Napoleon syndrome but could not figure out his intrigue for England. However he had a secret pact with Russia to not ally with Austria should she make war with Russia. When, William II assumed power he did not renew the secret pact leaving to the eventual Russo-Franco pact that surrounded the now powerful Germany. Step one to the Great War of 1914. (not covered in the book I just read on the causes of WWI). This book makes clear that a secret alliance out of view of The People is what held their people safe from two empires eager to hold and upper hand on what use to be as in the case of William II. Bismarck knew better than anyone else the critical faults of royalty. One can clearly point to those faults as the prime falling dominos to the Great War of 1914.

Once King William II (Wilhelm) was exposed as a liberal Bismarck could no longer function as the conservative chancellor. Machiavelli crept in from all corners leaving Bismarck to political exile. He was shunned by his peers, his Junker family, and most importantly the King. Bismarck ran Germany with no outside intellectual stimulus, including books or intellectual visitors. Had Bismarck’s embraced a practice of consensus building in full appreciation that he is one with his country men as opposed to as separate ruler, this fate would likely have been averted. It could be surmised, by the intellectuals of the time that this trait made Germany through Bismarck look outside for internal solutions. This then made them prone to look for war. His prophetic disposition of William II in his exile Bismarck predicted the disastrous path of Wilhelm. It was a path he was prone to himself, so he knew it well. After unification, he also knew how to keep that tendency in check. He concluded this prediction with a general observation of kings: “Since 1847 I have always defended the monarchal principle, and have held it aloft like a banner. But now I have seen three king naked, and often enough behavior of these exalted gentlemen was by no means kingly. To say as much to the world ....would, however, conflict with my monarchical principle. To maintain cowardly silence was equally impossible. In this phrase you find the seeds of what many historians write as a conflicted ruler.

My judgment: Bismarck, whether you liked him or not withstanding, was a man guided by his own principle. He saw life as it was. He saw on all rungs of a social ladder those people both German and European capable of complacency and a continuation of a muddled world. He viewed himself above this but unfortunately separate from this. In the end I believe Bismarck was able to reconcile all of his life’s stories with his own spirit regardless of the trivial soapbox plays of including Act I. of Royal family, II. Parliamentary bourgeoisies, and III. Junker family intrigue played out. He died not one with society but at peace with himself and his immediate family. I suspect he has all the right stuff to come back and work on consensus building in the dawning world of One Man. Making that proclamation without a bit of lessons learned would be a mistake. If indeed Bismarck came back with the realization that he is not separate but one with his countrymen, he would bring his other virtues to bear upon a countrymen who would listen. If he were to balance the lessons learned from his parents, those to be one with the way things are and at the same time to live life with a fresh outlook moment by moment, there would be hope for a fuller life, not just for Bismarck and Germany, but all of mankind. To balance is not to hold them in conflict, but to see them and allow them to be just as they are.