Otto von Bismarck - Lies - Extra History
Added 2017-12-02 10:50:13 +0000 UTCJames looks back at the Otto von Bismarck to answer questions and discuss errors. That's right, it's time for Lies!
Comments
Of course. It's, in my opinion, one of the most significant videos from Extra History. It's an event that changed the course of our world's history forever and so many thing that could've gone wrong in preventing it, HAVE went wrong. But the Balkan Wars is one of the main issues that were important to leading to the Seminal Tragedy and later Catastrophe, including the whole thing Serbs hating Austrians and Serbia being Russian allies, who they were willing to fight for the the bitter end, and that's the result of /and events leading up to the Balkan wars.
Jaka Torkar
2017-12-05 15:27:26 +0000 UTCThanks for the write-up, Sudarshan. I (Soraya) always feel like I can't properly engage with your points because I'm not James and didn't write this series, and unfortunately he travels so much that I could only get hold of him long enough to respond the once. But may I say that I'm looking forward to the next series on Khosrau starting next week, because I *did* write that one and if you have long comments to share with us it'll be fun to talk with you about them! -Soraya
Extra History
2017-12-05 03:14:10 +0000 UTCThank you, Kitty!
Extra History
2017-12-05 03:12:28 +0000 UTCGotta fill in those gaps around the initial World War I video, eh?
Extra History
2017-12-05 03:12:21 +0000 UTCthis is great. thanks for insight
Irakli Tchigladze
2017-12-03 00:14:49 +0000 UTCA couple of points about this: 1) Bismarck was very definitely an anti-semite. Jonathan Steinberg's recent biography and modern German historians (Volker Ullrich, Hans-Ulrich Wehler) have proven this. Now of course being an anti-semite doesn't make one a Nazi (Churchill and De Gaulle were also anti-semites and they defied Nazism) but it would be ridiculous to downplay and excuse Bismarck given the precedents and incidents he set in motion. And I don't know what exactly is to be gained by saying "not racists but they partnered with racists to get votes" that doesn't make you better, that means that this wasn't disqualifying for you, you become an enabler, you become the embodiment of what Hannah Arendt calls "the banality of evil" and I don't think that makes you less of a racist, either in 19th Century, or in 21st Century America. 2) Bismarck's idea of conservatism is nothing to commend or celebrate nor was it new. It's a basic common political party trick dating back to Ancient Rome as shown in your Gracchi Episode where Gaius Gracchus loses some of his influence and power when his opponents start co-opting some of his ideas and proposals. In England, the Tories used tricks like this against Whigs and others going back to the late 18th and early 19th Century. Benjamin Disraeli the conservative MP actually passed the 1867 Reform Bill precisely to co-opt and defuse labor movements in England, and also saw the increase of wages and other relief measures. Commending conservatism on this front is more or less praising them for doing the right thing after they did everything else. And as Corey Robin argued in his recent book on the history of conservative ideology ("The Reactionary Mind"), conservatism is a pardoxical forward movement of change, that co-opts as many positions it once decried to stay relevant. 3) Bismarck's whole campaign to defuse and depower socialists didn't rely mainly or entirely on his policies as you seem to suggest. It relied extensively on his powers as an autocrat and repressive strongman, by which socialist parties were coerced, suppressed, often arbitrarily imprisoned and kept under surveillance. Your notion of pragmatic conservatism that can defuse revolutionary tension can find better examples in the history of English Parliament such as Disraeli, Edmund Burke, or even Churchill who at different points would oppose workers rights and movements, and other moments suggest raising taxes on the rich. In Modern German history, you can find a better example in say Konrad Adenauer, but commending Bismarck's policies for stamping the threat of socialist movements is like praising Vladimir Putin for his regime. And I find it strange that you give tentative praise for Bismarck for his authoritarianism when similar arguments and statements (sometimes we need autocrats but it's only short term so we can get democracy later) is used today to apply and defend real-life authoritarian power whether in Russia, in India, in Turkey, and elsewhere. 4) The entire schema you mention about the lead-up to the Nazizeit is completely dated. Yes Germans lost World War I, yes there was an economic collapse at the start of the early 20s, but the Weimar Republic recovered strongly mid-decade and was surpassing pre-war output, they could have easily paid the reparations that they kept getting delays, deferrments and cancellations from France for (courtesy Gustave Stresemann). There's a reason Hitler failed in his first bid of power after all in the Beer Hall Putsch. The late 20s and early 30s could have seen the Social Democrats come out ahead of the Nazis (the 1933 election was after all a close-run thing, and even then Nazi gangs beat up and intimidated voters to make it as far as they did). The real reason why Hitler came to power was his support from the Prussian Junckers, the class of Germans who Bismarck aided, enriched, and supported and who kept rejecting land reforms of their estates, and who dreamed of conquest and expansion East (Drang nach osten) and whose dreams led to World War I, the suppression of the German Revolution of 1918, and the War in the East, and the Holocaust. To quote Jonathan Steinberg, from his biography on Bismarck: "The First World War destroyed much of Bismarck's Germany and defeat ended the monarchies in all the many German states. In 1925 the citizens of the unloved Weimar Rpeublic elected Paul von Beneckendorff und Hindenberg (1847-1934), a Prussian field marshal, to be their President...He belonged to, and had grown up in, Bismarck's world and looked it...It was Hindenburg, the last ruling Junker, who handed Adolf Hitler the office that Bismarck had created β that of Reich Chancellor. His only reservation typically had to do not so much with Hitler's policy but his rank. Hitler had been only a corporal and Hindenburg found that fact deeply distasteful...Bismarck's legacy passed through Hindenburg to the last genius-statesman that Germany produced, Adolf Hitler, and the legacy was thus linear and direct between Bismarck and Hitler." β Jonathan Steinberg, Bismarck: A Life, Page 474βPage 478.
Sudarshan Ramani
2017-12-02 19:57:35 +0000 UTCKitty Luv da Lies!! Thank You, James and all of the EH crew!!
Kathyrne
2017-12-02 16:27:02 +0000 UTCJust waiting for the Balkan Wars vieo. =)
Jaka Torkar
2017-12-02 11:47:00 +0000 UTC
