Talk:Otto von Bismarck

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Otto von Bismarck is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
September 18, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Peer review This article was externally reviewed (June 2007) by PC Pro.
Overview: The Wikipedia article is poorly written in places and not as comprehensive as Britannica. Encarta "lacks the detail offered in the Wiki piece". Please examine the findings.
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Version 0.5
 This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.

Contents

[edit] Pro-Bismarck

Having read through this article, I can't help but feel that it has incredible adulation for Bismarck, to the point of being biased. His failures are completely ignored. For example, the affair of the candidancy for the throne of Spain. Bismarck attempted to have his candidate declared before the news reached France. However, it arrived late and the Spanish Government had retired. France found out and scored a diplomatic success by blocking the move, leaving Bismarck despondent until he was rescued by the arrival of the Ems telegraph (as testified in the memoirs of Moltke). His order that an already under siege Paris be shelled, to the horror of his Generals, is ignored. His tendency to have tantrums or panic is not mentioned. Nor is the quite common conclusion of how he politically retarded Germany, creating an autocratic constitution and civil services that were so dependent on his direct will and vision they had little idea how to function without him.

Other important historical facts are neglected as well, such as Italians being Prussian allies in the Austro-Prussian war. I do hope this omission was not deliberate, as the Prussian army seems to recieve considerable reverence in this article too.

Edit: Should also point out that Wilhelm II is insulted far too greatly. When he eventually dismissed Bismarck from office, Bismarck had become a stiff reactionary so devoid of vision he was determined to massacre Germans and destroy his own constitution rather than liberalise even slightly. Bismarck is also described as "the first victim" of the Emperor, which would be a fitting phrase if Wilhelm II had been a serial killer or some sort of demon, but is ill-suited for a dismissal made for political reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.223.88 (talk) 02:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll begin working on the tone as well --Banime (talk) 20:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A.J.P. Taylor is one biased (if interesting) opinion, not representative of "historians"

The part about Bismarck's role as a master statesman being "widely disregarded by historians" is based on the opinion and theories of one famous but not even close to unbiased historian. This section makes it look as though his revisionist interpretations are somehow representative of "historians." To be fair, Taylor has some positive things to say about Bismarck and maintains that he was nowhere near as much of a warmonger as sometimes claimed. He is not wholly pro or anti Bismarck, but since he was a controversial and politically outspoken historian, his opinion of Bismarck should not be representative of all "historians." Furthermore, I would not even say that this is an accurate interpretation of Taylor's take on Bismarck. Taylor denies that Bismarck came up with a master plan to unify Germany, but does not deny Bismarck's political brilliance. Rather he asserts that Bismarck's genious was more of the cunning than visionary variety. Other historians don't agree, or believe Bismarck had both. Finally, I should add that when his book first came out 1955, hostility to all things German or conservative was at its peak and political viewpoints such as those of Taylor had become the norm among intellectuals. The instances in which Taylor's views on Bismarck are positive are more surprising than the ones in which they are negative. The 1980s saw a different view of Bismarck emerge than the one put forth either by Taylor or by previous historians.Shield2 05:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree- references I have used for the Franco-Prussian War point to Bismarck in a positive light, especially with masterful decision-making with regards to Austria, France, and the German states. If there is a wide difference between Taylor, Bresler, Wawro, and Howard- all modern chroniclers of the period- and other historians, I'd like to see who thinks otherwise. He was most certainly a master politician with regards to foreign policy, regardless of his plans for German unity. Monsieurdl mon talk-mon contribs

04:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Monsierd1, Craig speaks of Bismarck in the same light. However, I'll have to take a look at the "war monger" accusations (if any) since there are many sources that disagree with that statement. --Banime (talk) 20:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

We ought really to use the major recent biographers of Bismarck, notably Lothar Gall and Otto Pflanze, in terms of our assessment. (Ah, the wonders of the exam reading list - I can tell you what books to read, but I no longer have any idea what they say.) john k (talk) 05:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm all for bringing these sources out- I just wondered why Shield2 didn't mention which historians of the 1980's and beyond he was referring to. Every reference I have used hasn't been too far off of the established opinion of Bismarck. Monsieurdl mon talk-mon contribs

18:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Section on Bismarck's role in 'designing' wars

This section (beginning with "In his later years Bismarck liked to say that Prussia�s wars against Austria and France had come about by his careful design..." until "...with drums beating and flags flying" - the section that is tagged to be wikified) doesn't seem to fit into this article. It's written in an analytical style format that is not very NPOV.

Does anyone else agree that this should this be removed? It seems a shame to remove it completely, because there is some useful information there; perhaps it should be rewritten, but does the raw information there even have a place in this article? Moonbeast 00:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Protected from editing? Why?

Excuse me, but why the heck is this article protected from editing?! As for me, all I wanted to do in my innocence was to emphasize the title of his "Erinnerungen", and perhaps establish some sections (for readability/structure), i.e. pure format improvement/nitpicking... Please tell me what stupid things people (might have) do(ne) to this article. I wait in suspense. --Wernher 22:21, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Have a look at the article's edit history - it seems old Mr. Bismarck has attracted a vandal who insisted on adding "funny" stuff to the article despite being reverted several times. In such cases, the protection is usually lifted after a couple of days in hopes the vandal has found something more interesting to do .P -- Ferkelparade π 22:45, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Ah, thanks for the hint. As always, I tend to overestimate the "unwashed(?) masses" when it comes to having "fun"... :) But why couldn't IP 80.225.44.81 (in this case) just be kicked out for a while, so that the rest of us could get some work done? Surely, that is sometimes done on other similar occasions. Or are the "perpetrations" too insignificant in this specific case? --Wernher 23:58, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
This page should not be protected because of vandalism that happened over a week ago and was quickly repaired. It should have a protection notice on it if it is. Someone did not do this right at all. VeryVerily 00:51, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I was a little confused myself by the missing notice, yes. Now, how do we identify this "someone" (a sysop, I presume?) in order to open up the article for further editing? I couldn't find any info on this in the edit history. --Wernher 01:27, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Update: Thanks, VeryVerily, for entering the case in WP:RFPP. I guess I should've searched for that page in the first place. :-) --Wernher
One word - "KULTURKAMPF" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.30.110.9 (talk) 15:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Socialism

While Bismark was indeed concerned with socialism in 1878, he can't have been particularly concerned with the Social Democrats, as that part was formed in 1892 (the same year that Hauptmann's Die Weber was published).

See the article on August Bebel. The SPD wasn't known by that name until 1892, yes, but the organization itself had existed since 1869, under a relatively similar name. Mackensen (talk) 11:16, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Staatssozialismus

Chancellor Otto von Bismarck secured his place in history when he became the first and foremost conservative to abandon the dogmas of laissez-faire economics. As early as 1881 Bismarck had predicted accurately:

"It is possible that all our politics will come to nothing when I am dead but state socialism will drub itself in. (Der Staatssozialismus paukt sich durch.)" [Werner Richter, Bismarck, G.P. Putnam's Sons, New York (1965) p. 275].

Staatssozialismus is the term that Bismarck coined to describe the social security legislation, which he appropriated from the platform of the German Social Democratic Party, that he sponsored and was passed by the Reichstag in the 1880s.

Krankenversicherungsgesetz (1883) [Sickness Insurance Act]

Unfallversicherungsgesetz (1884) [Accident Insurance Act]

Alters- und Invaliditätsversicherungsgesetz (1889) [Old Age and Disability Pension Act]

To which must be added:

Arbeiterschutzgesetze (1891) [Workers Protection Acts].

The latter laws improved working contitions, ended child labor, and regulated labor relations. They were advocated by Kaiser William II when, at the beginning of his reign, he attempted to put himself at the head of the international labor movement. In March 1890, at the Congress of Labor in Berlin that he had organized, the Kaiser's opening address had outlined the needed reforms that had to be implemented as soon as possible. [restored by Italus: June 14, 2007]

[edit] Premonition about a European war

In February 1888, during a Bulgarian crisis, Bismarck addressed the Reichstag on the dangers of a European war. The Article gives the English translation at the end of "Foreign Policies." The following is the original German.

Bulgarien, das Ländchen zwischen Donau und Balkan, ist überhaupt kein Object von hinreichender Grösse, .. um seinetwillen Europa von Moskau bis an die Pyrenäen und von der Nordsee bis Palermo hin in einen Krieg zu stürzen, dessen Ausgang kein Mensch voraussehen kann; man würde am Ende nach dem Kriege kaum mehr wissen, warum man sich geschlagen hat. [Emil Ludwig, Wilhelm der Zweite, Ernst Rowohlt Verlag, Berlin (1926) p. 78]

[restored by Italus: June 19, 2007]

[edit] Mis-formatted double quotation in "Foreign policies"

In section "Foreign policies", there is an indented sentence For the first time he dwells upon the imminent possibility that ... which sounds like a quote of a historian, followed by a couple of quoted sentences, which the article says are quoted from Emil Ludwig, but sound like they would be from Bismarck. It seems the whole passage is a quote from Emil Ludwig. Please confirm this, and use the "blockquote" syntax or the quotation template twice. -Pgan002 23:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Your observations are correct, and the passage has been restored as originally posted, before it was improperly edited. User:Italus 26 August 2007 —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 02:05, August 27, 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Name

Seeing as Fürst (often translated as "Prince", albeit that should be reserved for Prinz) is a lower rank in the German nobility than Herzog ("Duke"), shouldn't his name be changed to "Otto Eduard Leopold, Duke of Lauenburg, Prince von Bismarck , Count von Bismarck-Schönhausen"?

[edit] 'Laws and Sausages' quote

Did Bismarck say or write, "There are two things you should never watch being made. Laws and sausages." (or something to that effect)?

72.82.196.21 21:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC) 72.65.24.19 20:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC) yea that's a funny quote he said that. Who knows what he has against sausages but....

What Bismarck meant by this was that both processes are unpleasant, not that the actual products are bad Franny-K 19:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Yep. The original quote is: "Es gibt zwei Sachen da sollte man besser nicht wissen wie es gemacht wird - Wurst und Politik". It has been translated into various versions. - 52 Pickup 14:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Do you have a reference for this quote? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Italus (talk • contribs) 02:09, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bismarck and the U.S. Civil War

I seem to remember that Bismarck once said that he made a serious mistake by not supporting the Confederacy in the United States Civil War, because a weak and divided American republic would have been in Germany's long-term best interests. If I could find some confiirmation of that it might make a dandy addition to the "Prophecies" section. Cranston Lamont 15:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This article was reviewed by a leading academic in the field

In PCPro on 12th July 2007 Dr Chris Clark Historian, St Catherine's College, Cambridge is quoted as saying-

Dr Clark describes the Wikipedia entry as "largely sound on the facts" bar one typo, although he notes "a marked deterioration towards the end". Here, the interpretations offered weren't subtle, while the handling of the health insurance question is simplistic. What's more, the section on Bismarck legacy "leaves out the prominent theme of the Bismarck cult that flowered after his departure from office". Lumos3 21:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
This is already noted in the template at the top and is covered by Wikipedia:External peer review/PCPRO154. violet/riga (t) 13:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Format of Vereinigter Landtag link? (early political career section)

Is it more appropriate to link it as Vereinigter Landtag as it is currently linked, or as Vereinigter Landtag? I can't find anything on this in WP:MOS-L. nhinchey 16:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Improvement

Hey, I was looking at the introduction and saw some things that could be changed but would like more input. I believe that the quote in the intro is out of place within the article but especially within the intro. I cannot find another place to put it, so I would just take it out, but I figured other editors can help me find a better place for it. Also any more suggestions with what needs to be improved? I've studied Bismarck intensively for a year now and I can take a look at any sections that need improvement. --Banime (talk) 20:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I ended up taking it out. Let me know if you feel it must go back in --Banime (talk) 21:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I significantly reduced the lead section according to the lead section guidelines of Wikipedia. --Banime (talk) 20:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I made a clarification on the power of Bismarck within the empire. The old version stated that because of his position as chancellor he held complete power over dominant and foreign policy, but that is a gross simplification of the situation. I changed it to emphasized it was both his imperial AND Prussian offices that he held that gave him a LARGE AMOUNT of power (but not complete) over foreign and domestic policies. Let me know your thoughts --Banime (talk) 20:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


what was the name of that german chancellor? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.113.9 (talk) 12:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

He was the german chancellor... --Banime (talk) 12:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Two questions

  • Does "landowner" (as in his family origin) = "junker"? - should link there if so.
  • "chosen as a representative to the newly created Prussian legislature" - elected? or if not how "chosen"? The first step on the ladder to power is always the most interesting.

—Cutler (talk) 15:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Correct on the first point, I'll look into changing it. As for the second point, I'm actually not sure I'll have to look it up and confirm --Banime (talk) 12:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wilhelm II Legacy without Bismarck

  • Without a chancellor such as Bismarck to guide him, two long lasting blunders of Wilhelm II were far reaching: his 1917 decision to let Lenin into Russia enabled the establishment of the Communist leaders-such as Stalin-from 1917-1991; his 1918 decision to abdicate political power ment that the weak post World War I Weimer Republic lead to the establisment of Hitler 1933-1945. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.53.145.53 (talk) 10:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
    • It's true that Bismarck may have altered these actions, I don't think there was a direct correlation between Bismarck leaving and what happened next, it is all speculation. I don't think you can say Bismarck's legacy is Wilhelm II's actions after his dismissal, since there were many contributing factors to the direction of Germany after he resigned. I guess it could be argued that the system Bismarck set up led to these results, however that is more a topic for a research paper and not an encyclopedia. --Banime (talk) 22:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)