Talk:Otto von Bismarck/Archive 1

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)

>> I agree with the remarks above. Bismarck was at the end of his chancellorship inclining towards a suppressive policy in the interior. After all, he was a monarchist but, more than this, a man of power who didn't hesitate to maintain his influence by disputable means. But he was no dictator either, rather an astonishing person between an autoritarian and a liberal government, somehow respecting both attitudes. His biographer Lothar Gall called him "the white revolutionary".

Something which is completely missing in this article is Bismarck's clear view of his country's situation in Europe. A powerful Germany, situated between a revanchist France and a rising Russia, had to be to strong and careful. Geography formed his policy of peace in the 1880s, when he opposed the general staff's desire to start a preventive war and insisted that Germany was "saturated" and needed peace.

So this article is not just "pro-Bismarck but also missing some nuances.

DH. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.67.67.253 (talk) 20:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I have to say that I think the tone of the article is quite fair-minded. Bismark's shepherding Germany through its precarious nation-building phase really was enormously skillful. Also, given that Wilhelm II's blunders--including especially his firing Bismark--contributed so greatly to the World War(s), it's reasonable to treat him very critically. Hickorybark (talk) 14:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The section entitled "German Unification" is now not only biased AGAINST Bismarck, it is completely off-topic in that it takes off from the topic of unification and proceeds to spend the rest of the section discussing the so-called Reptiles Fund and other Bismarckian sins. As written, the section should be retitled ("Corruption" perhaps) and a section that actually deals with the unification should be written for this heading.Milesnfowler (talk) 18:03, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Miles is right, Unification really isn't even the dominant topic of that section. I'll separate that into two sections, just to better organize it. EDIT: I just deleted that section altogether, and added a section on corruption in the "Chancellor of the German Empire" section. It's kinda bare bones, so I put an extension tag on it. Dbrainstorm (talk) 19:37, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

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. 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 this poster 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)

bo0gagee shama lam dingo dongyy biotech :AD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.231.188.5 (talk) 01:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

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)

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).

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)

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]

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]

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).

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"?

It's so difficult to accurately translate without losing meaning that I have to wonder if we should even attempt to translate it in the first place? Or maybe translate it but explain that it is not entirely accurate, or a "rough translation" or something similar. --Banime (talk) 15:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

It is not a rough tranlation. Prince is the correct tranlation of "Fürst", deriving from the latin word. There is no seperate word for "Fürst" in English, French and Italian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.57.72.38 (talk) 21:07, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

He is known as Bismarck, held the ducal title only after his chancellorship and loathed it. --77.4.95.62 (talk) 11:04, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

'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)

This saying has a long history in Germany and has been not always been in exactly those words. A modern English paraphase would be: "Whoever likes sausage or politics would do well not to watch them being made." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.255.59.45 (talk) 18:32, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

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)

Why ??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.233.39 (talk) 14:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Rather strange since Prussia more or less supported the Northern States, e.g. delivery of rifles. Without any source: rubbish —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.57.72.38 (talk) 21:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Bismarck was I mean. Unless you were referring to a different one? Be more specific please. --Banime (talk) 21:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)
  • Also I've been thinking about it, and can you really consider letting Lenin into Russia a 'blunder' of Wilhelm II's? It pretty much took Russia out of the war during World War I, which almost any rational leader would have done when stuck in a war as devastating as that, possibly even with the foreknowledge of WW2. Who knows? No one, it's up to debate between historians, which is why it should not be in this encyclopedia. Perhaps reference to the different schools of thought can be made once more research has been done but not right now. --Banime (talk) 15:04, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

University of Greifswald alumni

• Bismarck passed his first law Exam at the university of Berlin in 1835. The first exam completes the academical qualification and leads into the "Referendar" - time, ending with the second exam. It´s neither necessary nor common to attend lectures at a University after passing the first exam. Especially concerning Bismarck, who wasn´t a real ambitious student. Could anybody provide a source that B. was officialy enrolled at the Greifswald uni (or served as a Soldier there).
• Bismarck´s time in Aachen and Potsdam was part of his education as a lawyer (Referendar - time), any sources that he already planned a diplomatic career? (HerkusMonte (talk) 03:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC))
• He served in Greifswald as a soldier because of the draft. Besides he attended the agricultural lectures at Eldena agricultural academy. He probably saw his future as a farmer on the family estates in Pomerania. Eldena is a suburb of Greifswald.--Kresspahl (talk) 20:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

'Blood and Iron quote'?

His 'Blood and Iron' quote is quite famous, it should be in the article somewhere.

The quotation from F.B.M. Hollyday, Bismarck (Great Lives Observed), Prentice-Hall, (1970) pp. 16-18 has been added to the article under "German unification."Italus (talk) 16:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

(more) Pictures

Can someone please delete the black and white picture of Wilheim's coronation and move the text to the caption of the second? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vi3Uscom (talk • contribs) 19:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I have found an interesting extra picture perhaps to be inserted into the article. I do not know where and do not want to stomp it in there so I just announce it here. Media:Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-R29818,_Otto_von_Bismarck.jpg This image has recently been shared with Wikipedia by the German federal archive and I think that it could fit into the histroy part (around 1875) or I personally would like it as the title picture of him because of the straight character of the image. --TheRealISA (talk) 13:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

Some d--k has been vandalising this page, and the Wilhelm I page too. I don't know what else. I reverted some of the vandalism yesterday, but I see there's still a header called "The Reptiles Slush Fund." I don't know what that header should actually be so I can't fix it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.37.171.36 (talk) 16:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

...Oh wait! Perhaps it's not vandalism. The other stuff definitely was though. I'll just step aside now and hope some Bismarck expert wanders by. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.37.171.36 (talk) 17:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Top Picture?

That colored picture is pretty horrible, why not use the original Black & White one? 80.198.8.185 (talk) 20:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Erfurt Union... Quick question, if Prussia failed to support the Union then why were they humiliated at the Capitulation of Olmutz....i was under the impression that the plans for the 'Kleindeutschland' was supported by Prussia...maybe im wrong...just thought i'd ask. Tom —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.197.86.13 (talk) 17:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Alleged Military Coup

(On 16 September 2009 I had added the following to the article, but it was deleted by HerkusMonte on 17 September 2009.)

Although Bismarck had sponsored landmark social security legislation, by 1889-90 he had become disillusioned with the attitude of workers. In particular, he was opposed to wage increases, improving working conditions, and regulating labor relations. Moreover the Kartell, the shifting political coalition that Bismarck had been able to forge since 1867, had lost a working majority in the Reichstag. Bismarck also attempted to sabotage the Labor Conference that the Kaiser was organizing. It has been alleged that Bismarck was organizing a military coup that would disband the striking miners, dissolve the Reichstag, repeal the universal suffrage law, introduce limited suffrage, reduce the Kaiser to a puppet, and establish a military dictatorship.

The book that accompanied the BBC series Fall of Eagles--which covered the period 1848-1918 and traced the downfall of the Romanov, Hapsburg and Hohenzollern dynasties--contains an interview in which Louis Ferdinand, a grandson of the Kaiser, says:

Had Bismarck stayed he would not have helped. He already wanted to abolish all the reforms that had been introduced. He was aspiring to establish a kind of shogunate and hoped to treat our family in the same way the Japanese shoguns treated the Japanese emperors isolated in Kyoto. My grandfather had no other choice but to dismiss him. [C. L. Sulzberger, The Fall of Eagles, Crown (1977) p. 391]

Italus (talk) 13:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Such an exceptional claim needs an exceptional source. A planned coup d'etat would have been mentioned by reliable scholars. C. L. Sulzberger was a journalist, not a historian and just because Louis Ferdinand, Prince of Prussia once made such a statement, it's still WP:Fringe. HerkusMonte (talk) 16:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The stuff about a shogunate is not precisely fringe - it's presumably a recapitulation by Louis Ferdinand of his grandfather's explanation of why he got rid of Bismarck. The claim that Bismarck intended to "reduce the Kaiser to a puppet" seems wrong, though - Bismarck thought the Kaiser was already a puppet, and had to be disabused of the notion by getting fired. Other than that, I don't think there's anything so extraordinary in Italus's version. Bismarck certainly was looking towards a reactionary coup d'état in 1890 - he wanted to repress the workers, and discovered that the Kaiser instead wanted to embark on a program of social reform to gain the workers' support. Here's AJP Taylor on the aftermath of the elections of 1890, when the Social Democrats won:

The three anti-Bismarckian parties taken together—Social Democrats, Centre, Progressives—held nearly two-thirds of the seats in the Reichstag. Now surely the time had come for a coup d'état. Bismarck assured William II that there could be no renewal of the anti-Socialist law and no new army-law with the existing Reichstag, or indeed with any other returned by universal suffrage. The princes who had made the German Reich in 1871 should now come together and dissolve it...William II was swept away for a moment. He grasped Bismarck's hand and exclaimed: 'No surrender'.

The Emperor's mood soon changed. He was not by nature a man of violence, despite the theatrical utterances which subsequently made him a byword in Europe. As Bismarck said, he was more Coburg than Hohenzollern—conciliatory, anxious for popularity, and above all, high-minded. Unlike his grandfather, he had read the imperial constitution and understood it. He would not start his reign with illegality and bloodshed. Rather he would abandon the anti-socialist law, postpone even the increase of the armed forces, and seek to conciliate the working-classes by labour legislation. On 4 March, Bismarck learnt that the emperor had again changed his mind and was opposing a repressive policy. According to the imperial constitution, the chancellor should resign if he lost the emperor's confidence. But Bismarck had threatened to resign only when he knew that his resignation would not be accepted. Even now, he was misled by his memories of his old successes against William I. He did not understand that there was an essential difference. William I always retained confidence in Bismarck, even when he opposed his policy. William II had no confidence in Bismarck and wished to be rid of him. -A.J.P. Taylor Bismarck (New York, 1955), 244-245.

Italus's version seems to be an overly strong rendition of these events, but Bismarck really was proposing a coup d'état to overthrow the constitution, repress the socialists, and establish a dictatorship. john k (talk) 01:52, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for posting the above from A.J.P. Taylor. The Kaiser discussed the break with Bismarck in Chapter 1 of his Memoirs at http://books.google.com/books?id=ywZoAAAAMAAJ&dq=kaiser+%22My+Memoirs . The following is from pp.36-39.

During the spring and summer [1889] a mass of material was collected from the announcements and reports received, which showed clearly that all was not well in industrial circles; that many a demand of the workers was justified and, to say the least, entitled to sympathetic investigation both on the part of the employers and the officials. The realization of this, which was confirmed when I questioned my former tutor, Privy Councillor Dr. Hintzpeter—a man particularly well informed on social phenomena, especially those in his own province—caused the resolve to ripen in me to summon the State Council, include employers and employees in its deliberations, and to bring about, under my personal direction, a thorough investigation of the labour question. I decided that by this method there would be acquired guiding principles and material which would serve the chancellor and the Prussian Government as a basis for working out appropriate projects for new laws.

Inspired by such thoughts I went to His Excellency von Botticher, who at once prophesied opposition on the part of the chancellor to such action, and advised strongly against it. I stuck to my ideas, adducing, in support of them, the maxim of Frederick the Great: "Je veux etre un Roi des gueux." ["I wish to be a King of the rabble."] I said that it was my duty to take care of those Germans who were exhausted by industry, to protect their strength and better their chances of existence.

The predicted opposition from Prince Bismarck was soon forthcoming. There was much trouble and fighting before I put through what I wanted, owing to the fact that some of the big industrial interests ranged themselves on the side of the chancellor. The State Council met, presided over by me. At the opening session the chancellor unexpectedly appeared. He made a speech in which he ironically criticized and disapproved of the whole undertaking set in motion by me, and refused his co-operation. Thereupon he walked out of the room.

After his departure, the strange scene had its effect on the assembly. The fury and ruthlessness which the great chancellor brought to the support of his own policy and against mine, based upon his absolute belief in the correctness of his own judgment, made a tremendous impression upon me and all those present. Nevertheless, it stood to reason that I was deeply hurt by what had occurred. The assembly proceeded to take up its work again and turned out a wealth of material for the extension of that social legislation called into being by Emperor William the Great, which is the pride of Germany, in that it evinces a protective attitude towards the labouring classes such as is not to be found in any other country on earth.

Thereupon I decided to summon an International Social Congress. Prince Bismarck opposed this also. Switzerland was contemplating something similar and had thought of convening a congress at Berne. Roth, the Swiss Ambassador, hearing of my scheme, advised the cancellation of the invitations to Berne and acceptance of an invitation to Berlin. What he wished occurred. Thanks to the generosity of Herr Roth it was possible to convene the congress at Berlin, The material collected as a result of it was worked out and applied in the form of laws—only in Germany, however.

Later on I talked with Bismarck concerning his project of fighting the Socialists with cannon and bayonets in the event of their resort to revolutionary acts. I sought to convince him that it was out of the question for me, almost immediately after William the Great had closed his eyes after a blessed reign, to stain the first years of my government with the blood of my own people. Bismarck was unmoved; he declared that he would assume responsibility for his actions; that all I need do was to leave the matter to him. I answered that I could not square such a course with my conscience and my responsibility before God, particularly as I knew perfectly well that conditions among the labouring classes were bad and must be bettered at all costs.

The conflict between the views of the Emperor and the chancellor relative to the social question—i.e. the furtherance of the welfare of the labouring classes of the population with participation therein by the State—was the real cause of the break between us, and caused a hostility towards me lasting for years on the part of Bismarck and a large part of the German nation—especially of the official class—that was devoted to him.

This conflict between the chancellor and myself arose because of his belief that the social problem could be solved by severe measures and, if the worst came to the worst, by means of soldiers; not by following principles of general love for mankind or "humanitarian nonsense" which, he believed, he would have to adopt in conforming to my views.

Italus (talk) 01:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Legacy

This article seems to be lacking some coherent evaluation of Bismarck. He seems one of the very few people that defy being pinned down by history as a either "good guy" or "bad guy." But then there should be at least more information to the controversy created by his legacy.--192.138.214.100 (talk) 23:19, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Broken link on the source for important quotation

A source is needed for the important quote beginning "The actual complaint of the worker." The link in the footnote goes nowhere and I've been unable to find a source otherwise. The quote is all over the web, but with no attribution. I presume those were all copied from here. Mccaskey (talk) 19:30, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I found the source in Google Books. I've altered the link, added the German source text, and tweaked the translation to make it a little more literal and better matched to the beginning and ending boundaries of the German. Mccaskey (talk) 22:58, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Only a C-class article?

The article is currently rated 'C'. I've seen a lot worse B-rated articles. I'm not comfortable changing the assessment myself since I'm not familiar with the subject. But, now I've read it all, if anyone who has worked hard on the article thinks it now justifies at least a B then I'd encourage them to upgrade it. --bodnotbod (talk) 14:22, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

B-class and below mean little, they are just part of a system for a wikiproject to keep track of the articles in its scope and which ones are in more need of improvement than others. A main flaw is that they easily get outdated: the article is a stub, an introductory explanation or a very broad summary, and it is tagged as stub, start or C class. Someone comes later (on his own, or even working for the project), expands the article as needed, but forgots to update the tags. As a result, the tags reflect a status that is not the one of the current version of the article MBelgrano (talk) 14:21, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Didn't he speak Polish too?

According perhaps to Mark Mazower. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.85.148.202 (talk) 18:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Pictures

Under the section "Chancellor of the German Empire" there is a picture from 1871 where he undeniably looks alot older than the previous picture from 1873. How is this possible???--Hodeken (talk) 17:50, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Paternalistic welfare state

I have a question in regards to the section, "Paternalistic welfare state". My question stems to why the 1880's and 1890's Anti-Socialist Laws to State Socialism are not included as a small entry to these important laws that he helped establish. Why social welfare is added it does not describe in full detail to his own laws to why he enacted them. I will give a few days for a response of approval or critism before I go forth and write the sub article for Bismark's page. --Rocketman116 (talk) 20:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Devastating legacy of distrust and fragmentation

I'm sorry, but I don't see the extremely strong evaluative statement "His anti-Catholic and anti-Socialist programs in the 1870s and 1880s left a devastating legacy of distrust and fragmentation in German political culture" supported by the citation given. Yes, the DNVP may have tried to draw (illegitimate) parallels between the Law for the Protection of the Republic and Bismarck's " illiberal and ideologically motivated legislation", and, naturally, Socialists and Catholics would remember Bismarck's programmes. But this is, in my opinion, not a sufficient basis to present as a consensus view (let alone as a fact) that there was a devastating legacy of distrust and fragmentation and that this was caused by Bismarck's anti-Catholic and anti-Socialist programmes. It is, of course, entirely possible that I have missed something in the cited source.--Boson (talk) 17:43, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Bismarck recordings found in Edison's lab

http://www.thelocal.de/sci-tech/20120131-40449.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/31/science/bismarcks-voice-among-restored-edison-recordings.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pimientared (talk • contribs) 11:45, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The recording is now on YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czko31-6O8I). Is it all rigth to link to it from here? Maybe in the infobox? --Teodor 11:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teodor605 (talk • contribs)

Bibliography organisation

I am not comfortable with the bibliography organisation. What exactly should go under Survey and what under Historiography? — 189.61.24.117 (talk) 22:38, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

perhaps "survey" means a broad field (eg German history) in which Bismarck was a main player; "historiography" means articles about how historians have studied and interpreted him. Rjensen (talk) 23:03, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion, but I am not yet comfortable with only a ‘perhaps’. Anyway, please check titles are not referred to in the article before removing them, I had to revert quite a few useful edits. Also, please add references instead of just replacing them, unless they are plainly wrong. — 189.61.24.117 (talk) 23:32, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I removed some popular books & general textbooks from the footnotes and am replacing them all with better RS--it will upgrade the scholarly tone. Rjensen (talk) 23:50, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Revolutionary Conservatism

Who except Hull refers to Bismarck's politics as "revolutionary conservatism"? As far as I know the term is generally reserved for the conservative revolutionary movement which sought to overthrow the Weimar Republic 20 years after Bismarck's death. Teh hackz0r (talk) 21:47, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

see A Mighty Fortress: A New History of the German People by Harvard professor Steven Ozment (2005) (a standard textbook) chapter 8 "REVOLUTIONARY CONSERVATISM The Age of Bismarck" Rjensen (talk) 22:09, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, thanks Teh hackz0r (talk) 16:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

IIRC he was sometimes called "The White Revolutionary", possibly by Henry Kissinger (who originally intended his career-making study of Metternich to be a prequel to a study of Bismarck) and more recently by Lothar Gall. He did, to at least some extent, employ public opinion in the pursuit of conservative aims and the thwarting of liberalism.Paulturtle (talk) 17:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

"Temperley 1902"

Clicking on the reference that includes a link of that name leads to nowhere.--Britannicus (talk) 00:37, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Balance of Power

I am baffled by the introduction claiming that Bismarck created the Balance of Power. This had been a theme in European statecraft since the days of Richelieu and practiced by the British in the late 17th to mid 19th century. Bismarck began the process that DESTROYED the Balance of Power as it resulted in a system of rigid alliances that was a primary cause of World War I. ludahai 魯大海 (talk) 11:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

As Disraeli said in 1871 after the defeat of France, the European balance of power had been destroyed. Bismark agreed and set up a new balance. see discussion here Rjensen (talk) 01:09, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

the "system of rigid alliances that was a primary cause of World War" were more the once created after Bismarck was sacked by the incompance [myPOV] of Kaiser Willi the Wacki - during the time of Bismarck chancellorship there was a complex system of alliances that created a balance but that system was broken by his successors and the rigid imperialist quest of copying his Grandma's Empire (Queen Victoria of England) by William II 78.42.252.102 (talk) 17:59, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

remember, Bismarck's chancellorship ended in 1890 WWI started 1914 - 24 years later 78.42.252.102 (talk) 18:02, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Landtag membership

"Bismarck was not yet a member of the Landtag—the lower house of the new Prussian legislature." This contradicts the start of this section that says he was appointed to it a year earlier. --Eamonnca1 ^TALK 23:08, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Poland

Someone has now readded a large chunk of material on Poland, but we already have a paragraph on that - and a whole article on the Germanisation of Poland, which is pointed to in the preceding paragraph. If the new material is kept, it will need to be copy-edited. However, it strikes me as undue weight and not, as the re-adding edit summary says, as necessary to inform the reader of Bismarck's attitudes toward Poles. I believe the article already covered that adequately. Other thoughts, please? Yngvadottir (talk) 04:12, 9 June 2013 (UTC) - Ah, I see someone else has removed it already. But I'll leave this here since the IP clearly disagrees that the article covers it adequately. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:14, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, the topic is already covered here. There is a large scholarly literature and we do not want to rely on an old Polish school book with a very heavy anti-German bias. Rjensen (talk) 04:24, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Anti-semitism

Article lacks information about Bismarck anti-semitism regarding Jewish minority in his state.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:50, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Antisemitism was quite popular in Europe and in Germany during his era, however, I couldn't find much on Bismarck's personal attitude towards the Jews. He seemed to have been, perhaps, supportive or at least not an opponent of the antisemitc movements in Germany in 1880s. [1] [2] It was during his reign that Jews were prohibited from taking public positions? [3] Robert S. Wistrich says that Bismarck called the Catholics and Social Democrats (who were especially known for their antisemitism) "enemies of the Reich" [4] He is claimed to be responsible for expelling Rusisan Jewish immigrants (along with Poles) [5]. --Երևանցի ^talk 00:44, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Attitude toward minorities

Related to the two sections above, but this time involving the lede section. User:MyMoloboaccount has twice inserted language in the lede that has been reverted as insufficiently neutral by another editor and by me: on September 24 he changed the section on Germanization, then added to the lede "as well as ruthless discrimination and Germanization of non-German minorities within German Empire" ... disliked colonialism "outside of Europe". The change to the lede was reverted as POV. On October 2 he re-added part of the material to the lede: "as well as ruthless discrimination and Germanization of non-German minorities within German Empire" and was reverted by me. I've urged him to start a discussion here about what he regards as the need to cover Bismarck's treatment of minorities within the Empire in the lede. I don't believe it merits mentioning in the lede, or I'd have simply toned down that language. (On my talk page he suggests "Bismarck led a campaign of ethnic discrimination, cleansing and eradication of culture against non-Germans in his state." which is no better.) He hasn't started the section, so I'm doing so; here's where it ought to be discussed. Should something about his bias against minorities be in the lede? Yngvadottir (talk) 15:15, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Source for his mother's death date

here: Berlin, 1 January 1839, credited to Dr. Walther Gräbner, in Deutscher Herold, Vol. 31, No. 5, May 1900, p. 93. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:16, 29 December 2013 (UTC)