What do you think?
Rate this book
Bismarck – O Homem e o Estadista
Otto von Bismarck (1815-1899) foi um dos mais importantes e influentes estadistas do século XIX, e fundador da moderna Alemanha. Bismarck foi primeiro-ministro do reino da Prússia, tornando-se posteriormente o primeiro político a exercer o cargo de chanceler do Império Alemão.
A sua influência nos destinos da Alemanha e da Europa foi enorme, devendo-se a ele a unificação da Alemanha e a transformação deste país em grande potência; quase todas as grandes movimentações políticas europeias da segunda metade do século XIX têm o seu dedo.
Numa narrativa fluida e cativante, mas profusamente documentada e pesquisada, A.J.P. Taylor traça-nos um retrato vívido deste grande estadista.
A sua influência nos destinos da Alemanha e da Europa foi enorme, devendo-se a ele a unificação da Alemanha e a transformação deste país em grande potência; quase todas as grandes movimentações políticas europeias da segunda metade do século XIX têm o seu dedo.
Numa narrativa fluida e cativante, mas profusamente documentada e pesquisada, A.J.P. Taylor traça-nos um retrato vívido deste grande estadista.
280 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1955
111 people are currently reading
1210 people want to read
About the author
A.J.P. Taylor
114 books195 followersAlan John Percivale Taylor was an English historian of the 20th century and renowned academic who became well known to millions through his popular television lectures.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 65 reviews
November 9, 2018
A.J.P. Taylor is a concise writer, and not without wit. I was so pleased with his The Hapsburg Monarchy: 1809-1918 that I wanted to read more. This Bismarck biography has been in my sights for some time. In it he compresses that Great White Male stateman’s eventful life to less than 300 pages. What you get mostly is the broad strokes. Did you know he sobbed a lot? It’s true. Born an impoverished Junker in Schönhausen, he cared nothing for the people, much less so-called great men. He was a family man, but beyond it he was a loner who believed that he was the greatest of men. He had no ideology only goals. He wrote beautifully. He disdained intellectuals in politics. He worked William I like a room. He did much to ensure long-term peace in the region, even if it bored him to tears. He created modern Germany almost by sheer force of will. He was without outside interests, friends, passions, unless we count Katherine Orlov, wife of the Russian ambassador, but their meetings at Biarritz were few and she died young. With William II’s accession to the throne—the same fellow who abdicated in 1918—Bismarck went out on a not surprising wave of hubris; this was 1890. He had cultivated relationships only within the context of power. When he was out of power he had no support base to fall back on. Nor could he let go. He criticized goverment from a Hamburg newspaper, further alienating the powers that be. That’s the gist. How nice it would be if more biographies could be so unstuffed and unstuffy. Now it’s on to the same author’s The Course of German History.
June 27, 2018
Biography and history both describe what has happened in the past, and how it happened. The best of each genre also illuminate the why. AJP Taylor’s “Bismarck: the Man and Statesman” does none of these effectively.
While reading this book, which was a struggle, I kept asking myself, who is this for? Taylor skins along through the parliamentary history of Prussia and later United Germany, casually dropping names and allusions, both literary and historical, with a frequency that suggests he is writing for an audience deeply familiar with this material. I’m a history enthusiast, but I have to admit that my knowledge of European history between 1850 and WWI is sketchy at best (I imagine most American readers are in a similar boat, distracted as we usually are by our own Civil War and the Indian wars that followed) so I resorted frequently to Wikipedia for background.
However, if Taylor is writing for a hardcore history nerd, how to explain the paucity of primary sources? And why write this particular book at all, since a specialist audience would surely already be familiar with most of the surface incidents of Bismarck’s time in power?
If we seek for a more biographical analysis of Bismarck and his actions, we’ll be equally disappointed. Taylor includes few anecdotes to illuminate characters or even situations, and skips through the first fifty years of his subject’s life with only a cursory (and very British) note on the Junker class into which Bismarck was born.
About halfway through I realized why the book was so maddening, yet familiar in tone. It was certainly not written to educate, nor to argue a specific point. Instead, it reads like a University final paper; designed to show to an inside audience that the author understands his subject, and deserves to be a part of the in-group.
While reading this book, which was a struggle, I kept asking myself, who is this for? Taylor skins along through the parliamentary history of Prussia and later United Germany, casually dropping names and allusions, both literary and historical, with a frequency that suggests he is writing for an audience deeply familiar with this material. I’m a history enthusiast, but I have to admit that my knowledge of European history between 1850 and WWI is sketchy at best (I imagine most American readers are in a similar boat, distracted as we usually are by our own Civil War and the Indian wars that followed) so I resorted frequently to Wikipedia for background.
However, if Taylor is writing for a hardcore history nerd, how to explain the paucity of primary sources? And why write this particular book at all, since a specialist audience would surely already be familiar with most of the surface incidents of Bismarck’s time in power?
If we seek for a more biographical analysis of Bismarck and his actions, we’ll be equally disappointed. Taylor includes few anecdotes to illuminate characters or even situations, and skips through the first fifty years of his subject’s life with only a cursory (and very British) note on the Junker class into which Bismarck was born.
About halfway through I realized why the book was so maddening, yet familiar in tone. It was certainly not written to educate, nor to argue a specific point. Instead, it reads like a University final paper; designed to show to an inside audience that the author understands his subject, and deserves to be a part of the in-group.
July 17, 2012
As good as it gets. This is a simpler companion to "The Struggle for Mastery in Europe," taking on the latter half of the 19th century from the perspective of the man who drove many of the events. Taylor is a rare historian in that he's absolutely fair; he puts his own feelings aside and asks "was it smart?" and "did it work?" Highest recommendation for this one.
February 8, 2021
an enjoyable if brief biography, focusing on bismarck's diplomatic maneuvers and (to a lesser extent) domestic policies as "iron chancellor." ajp taylor's a great writer, and there's not much to bismarck's life beyond his stubborn, succeed-at-all-costs desire to keep germany out of "bad" wars and secure within its borders, with either him or his family running the show.
if you want more, there are a million other places to get it, but this is something you can finish in a relatively short period of time. taylor's an interesting thinker in his own right, so his literary digressions here and there warrant attention, but he focuses in detail on pertinent parts of the copious record of bismarck's public and private writings.
if you want more, there are a million other places to get it, but this is something you can finish in a relatively short period of time. taylor's an interesting thinker in his own right, so his literary digressions here and there warrant attention, but he focuses in detail on pertinent parts of the copious record of bismarck's public and private writings.
July 24, 2022
Bismarck was an absolute legend in realism and person and this book explains his propensities accurately and contextually in masterful fashion. The unifier created Germany, social security, European peace, and surfed the events of history marvelously. He predicted Germany's fall under WWI and the later Bismarckians tried to oppose Hitler but failed.
February 1, 2022
I’ll begin with my most favourite portion of the book –
“The Bismarckians got their way. The republic was overthrown by Hitler in 1933. The shackles of Versailles were broken off: reparations ended, a great German army restored. Then the Bismarckians discovered to their horror that, while they had got everything they wanted, they had also lost everything that they prized. The Rechtstaat, the rule of law, had vanished. The Nazi barbarians ruled. The Bismarckians were helpless. They had never known how to oppose. Now they could not even protest….”
From 1871 to 1890, Bismarck was supreme in the affairs of the State.
The relations between Bismarck and William I were affable all through except on the question of an alliance between Germany and Austria in 1879.
Bismarck took pride in the fact that he was the most faithful servant of William I. After the death of William in March 1888, Emperor Frederick succeeded him.
However, his reign did not last for more than three months and he was succeeded by William II the same year. Soon after his accession to the throne, the conflict between the Emperor and the Iron Chancellor started and resulted ultimately in the resignation of Bismarck in March 1890.
Many reasons have been given for the resignation of Bismarck.
The new Emperor was a young one and was determined to do everything himself. He was not prepared to play second fiddle to anybody. Under the circumstances, he could not tolerate the complete control of Bismarck over the affairs of the State.
To quote him, “I discovered that my ministers regarded themselves as Bismarck’s officials.”
If this was the attitude of William II, Bismarck felt that he had the domination of power in the State and was not prepared to share the same with anybody. He considered himself the maker of Germany and felt insulted when William II tried to share the secrets of the State with the Chancellor.
Bismarck had trained his son, Herbert Bismarck, in the affairs of State and the latter was working as Foreign Secretary since 1886. Bismarck himself thought that he would be succeeded by his son. Herbert Bismarck had capacity and considerable power of work and he tried to prove that he was only a chip of the old block, but the old block itself. He tried to copy the brutality, coarseness id dictatorial insolence of his father. His manners were insufferable. People were prepared to put with Bismarck but not with his son who had yet nothing to his credit.
All that created resentment.
During 1888 and 1889, Bismarck was away from Berlin for most of the time. He spent his time K the country-house and most of the business of the State was transacted from there.
His absence from the capital was not due to his old age lone. His view was that his work could be carried on by us son as Foreign Secretary under his supervision and direction.
Bismarck failed to realize the fact that it was absolutely essential to be near the young Emperor and that there was every possibility of differences arising between them on account of his absence. Bismarck lost touch with the personalities, ministers and the forces of politics and thereby was put at the great disadvantage.
Criticism against the Chancellor began to grow and there was a demand for a change.
Alan John Percival, aka AJP Taylor has divided his book into ten chapters –
1. THE BOY AND THE MAN
2. THE DIPLOMAT
3. PRIME MINISTER OF PRUSSIA
4. THE DEFEAT OF AUSTRIA
5. THE NORTH GERMAN CONFEDERATION
6. THE GERMAN EMPIRE IN THE DAYS OF LIBERALISM
7. THE CHANCE OF COURSE
8. THE CONSERVATIVE CHANCELLOR
9. THE FALL FROM POWER
10. INTO THE GRAVE—AND BEYOND IT
Before William II, the German Emperors left everything into the hands of Bismarck and they were prepared to hear from him whatever he considered fit to communicate to them.
Beyond that, they and not bother themselves.
However, William II was determined to play a different role. Instead of ting lessons from the Iron Chancellor, he was determined to see and learn everything for himself and not only saw every part of Germany but also visited St. Petersburg, Vienna, London, Athens and Constantinople. His personal contact with foreign statesmen enabled him to think independently about the foreign policy of Germany.
Bismarck resented the journeys of William II and expressed condemnation of them. When William II came to know of it, he himself got bitter against him.
Bismarck had made many enemies during the tenure of his office. The Clericals, the Liberals, the Lu heran Conservatives, the industrialists, the anti-Semites and the soldiers “Demigods” were opposed to him.
Waldersee, Moltke‘s successor as Chief of the General Staff, intrigued against him in high places. No wonder, Bismarck’s opponents enjoyed his conflict with the young Emperor.
The real cause of the conflict between Bismarck and William II was that while the former was determined to maintain his control over the affairs of the State, the latter was determined to snatch away the same.
According to the Grand duke of Baden, “The real question was whether Bismarck or the Hohenzollern dynasty should reign.”
To quote William II himself, “There is only one master in this country and I am he. I shall suffer no other beside me.” Again, “I see in the people and the land which have descended to me a talent entrusted to me by God, which is my duty to increase. Those who will help me I heartily welcome; those who oppose me I shall dash to pieces.”
Bismarck was pressed again and again to resign and ultimately he submitted his resignation on 20 March 1890. William II accepted with profound regret the request of the Iron Chancellor to be relieved of his offices. He referred to his “imperishable services” and conferred upon him the title of Duke of Ladenburg and Colonel-General with the rank of Field-Marshal in the army.
The Punch summed up the matter in these words: “The Pilot who had steered the ship through so many storms and so many shoals was dropped.”
All in all, this book shows us that as a statesman, Bismarck is one of the greatest figures in German history.
Though imperious, he was yet prudent and he was accustomed to boast that he had opened up a new era in diplomacy by always telling the truth. He had great faults, however, being jealous towards rivals and vindictive and unscrupulous towards his foes.
He was not an orator in the sense usually understood, but when the occasion was great, he could wield the mother tongue with vigour. By establishing the independence of Germany, he brought to maturit the fruits of the wars of liberation.
The Chancellor wielded a personal power in Europe which was without precedent in the nineteenth century. In him was typified the Prussian race at its highest and strongest.
And in private life, he was a man of warm affection, his wife and children being always to him objects of tenderest devotion. His letters to his wife prove it....Without him, his country would have been a second-rate Power.”
A must read, if you’re a European history buff.
“The Bismarckians got their way. The republic was overthrown by Hitler in 1933. The shackles of Versailles were broken off: reparations ended, a great German army restored. Then the Bismarckians discovered to their horror that, while they had got everything they wanted, they had also lost everything that they prized. The Rechtstaat, the rule of law, had vanished. The Nazi barbarians ruled. The Bismarckians were helpless. They had never known how to oppose. Now they could not even protest….”
From 1871 to 1890, Bismarck was supreme in the affairs of the State.
The relations between Bismarck and William I were affable all through except on the question of an alliance between Germany and Austria in 1879.
Bismarck took pride in the fact that he was the most faithful servant of William I. After the death of William in March 1888, Emperor Frederick succeeded him.
However, his reign did not last for more than three months and he was succeeded by William II the same year. Soon after his accession to the throne, the conflict between the Emperor and the Iron Chancellor started and resulted ultimately in the resignation of Bismarck in March 1890.
Many reasons have been given for the resignation of Bismarck.
The new Emperor was a young one and was determined to do everything himself. He was not prepared to play second fiddle to anybody. Under the circumstances, he could not tolerate the complete control of Bismarck over the affairs of the State.
To quote him, “I discovered that my ministers regarded themselves as Bismarck’s officials.”
If this was the attitude of William II, Bismarck felt that he had the domination of power in the State and was not prepared to share the same with anybody. He considered himself the maker of Germany and felt insulted when William II tried to share the secrets of the State with the Chancellor.
Bismarck had trained his son, Herbert Bismarck, in the affairs of State and the latter was working as Foreign Secretary since 1886. Bismarck himself thought that he would be succeeded by his son. Herbert Bismarck had capacity and considerable power of work and he tried to prove that he was only a chip of the old block, but the old block itself. He tried to copy the brutality, coarseness id dictatorial insolence of his father. His manners were insufferable. People were prepared to put with Bismarck but not with his son who had yet nothing to his credit.
All that created resentment.
During 1888 and 1889, Bismarck was away from Berlin for most of the time. He spent his time K the country-house and most of the business of the State was transacted from there.
His absence from the capital was not due to his old age lone. His view was that his work could be carried on by us son as Foreign Secretary under his supervision and direction.
Bismarck failed to realize the fact that it was absolutely essential to be near the young Emperor and that there was every possibility of differences arising between them on account of his absence. Bismarck lost touch with the personalities, ministers and the forces of politics and thereby was put at the great disadvantage.
Criticism against the Chancellor began to grow and there was a demand for a change.
Alan John Percival, aka AJP Taylor has divided his book into ten chapters –
1. THE BOY AND THE MAN
2. THE DIPLOMAT
3. PRIME MINISTER OF PRUSSIA
4. THE DEFEAT OF AUSTRIA
5. THE NORTH GERMAN CONFEDERATION
6. THE GERMAN EMPIRE IN THE DAYS OF LIBERALISM
7. THE CHANCE OF COURSE
8. THE CONSERVATIVE CHANCELLOR
9. THE FALL FROM POWER
10. INTO THE GRAVE—AND BEYOND IT
Before William II, the German Emperors left everything into the hands of Bismarck and they were prepared to hear from him whatever he considered fit to communicate to them.
Beyond that, they and not bother themselves.
However, William II was determined to play a different role. Instead of ting lessons from the Iron Chancellor, he was determined to see and learn everything for himself and not only saw every part of Germany but also visited St. Petersburg, Vienna, London, Athens and Constantinople. His personal contact with foreign statesmen enabled him to think independently about the foreign policy of Germany.
Bismarck resented the journeys of William II and expressed condemnation of them. When William II came to know of it, he himself got bitter against him.
Bismarck had made many enemies during the tenure of his office. The Clericals, the Liberals, the Lu heran Conservatives, the industrialists, the anti-Semites and the soldiers “Demigods” were opposed to him.
Waldersee, Moltke‘s successor as Chief of the General Staff, intrigued against him in high places. No wonder, Bismarck’s opponents enjoyed his conflict with the young Emperor.
The real cause of the conflict between Bismarck and William II was that while the former was determined to maintain his control over the affairs of the State, the latter was determined to snatch away the same.
According to the Grand duke of Baden, “The real question was whether Bismarck or the Hohenzollern dynasty should reign.”
To quote William II himself, “There is only one master in this country and I am he. I shall suffer no other beside me.” Again, “I see in the people and the land which have descended to me a talent entrusted to me by God, which is my duty to increase. Those who will help me I heartily welcome; those who oppose me I shall dash to pieces.”
Bismarck was pressed again and again to resign and ultimately he submitted his resignation on 20 March 1890. William II accepted with profound regret the request of the Iron Chancellor to be relieved of his offices. He referred to his “imperishable services” and conferred upon him the title of Duke of Ladenburg and Colonel-General with the rank of Field-Marshal in the army.
The Punch summed up the matter in these words: “The Pilot who had steered the ship through so many storms and so many shoals was dropped.”
All in all, this book shows us that as a statesman, Bismarck is one of the greatest figures in German history.
Though imperious, he was yet prudent and he was accustomed to boast that he had opened up a new era in diplomacy by always telling the truth. He had great faults, however, being jealous towards rivals and vindictive and unscrupulous towards his foes.
He was not an orator in the sense usually understood, but when the occasion was great, he could wield the mother tongue with vigour. By establishing the independence of Germany, he brought to maturit the fruits of the wars of liberation.
The Chancellor wielded a personal power in Europe which was without precedent in the nineteenth century. In him was typified the Prussian race at its highest and strongest.
And in private life, he was a man of warm affection, his wife and children being always to him objects of tenderest devotion. His letters to his wife prove it....Without him, his country would have been a second-rate Power.”
A must read, if you’re a European history buff.
Currently reading
February 2, 2024Referring to this book last night on his podcast, Nicolas J. Fuentes stated that Taylor wrote, “when Bismarck became chancellor in the 1880s, Bismarck got himself a personal assistant and trainer who got him on a diet and a regimen of exercise.” It’s always fascinating for me to hear someone I admire comment in passing about some random passage in a book that they read. I always immediately go and add the book here and try to quote what they were saying in case a remember to go back and read it someday.
August 19, 2024
Summary
Bismarck was born to a simple, earthy, land-owning father and a clever, sophisticated mother. He took after his mother but spent his life masquerading as his father. Later in life, his popular image was gruff and militaristic, while in reality he disliked war and favored ruthless and aggressive diplomacy. His life was that of an unremarkable land-owner until, at age 36, a member of the German Diet became ill and Bismarck, a mere substitute at the time, filled the space and took his place in the course of history.
In his early years as a politician, Bismarck opposed German unification, believing that it would limit Prussian independence without significant benefit. He also worked as a statesman to establish and maintain ties with Prussia's most powerful neighborly monarchs; France's Napoleon III and Russia's Prince Alexander (Gorchacov). He served, reluctantly, as ambassador to Russia for 4 years until Prince Wilhelm became King of Prussia and recalled him, believing that he was the only statemen who could resolve a stalemate with the Landtag (~House of Lords) over military funding.
A series of wars occurred in a fractured Europe, resulting in the defeat of Denmark, Austria, and then France. Austria was seen as a weak and treated as a vassal state when German Unification became official in 1871.
Over the ensuing years, Bismarck continued his famous practice of *Realpolitik*, guiding his actions by their utility in achieving practical objectives rather than by their ideological purity.
He unified (little) Germany after the French defeat, not because **nationalism** (merely tribalism in his eyes) was seen as moral or desirable, but because he thought it inevitable and therefore something worth harnessing rather than opposing.
He enacted **universal suffrage** to ruin his opponents, the liberals of the 1860s, knowing that middle-class liberalism had little appeal to a mass electorate. And the dominance of Liberalism in German politics fell to pieces, as it had in every other country within a generation of the establishment of universal suffrage. Bismarck would later regret this victory, wishing for a political force that could counter the democratic urban lower middle classes, who were voting for expanded personal rights rather than voting in accordance with the interests of their landlords or employers.
He built the prototype of the modern welfare state; including sickness, accident, and disability insurance and a retirement pension; to promote economic growth and to bind workers to the state, noting that civil servants with a pension were much more submissive than industrial workers who lacked one. His aim was to strengthen the state, to maintain traditional power structures, and to counter the forces of liberalism and socialism.
Bismarck fell from power with the death of Kaiser Wilhelm I and was forced to retire from his position as a statesman. As his power was based on personal charisma and a talent for adapting to specific circumstances, Bismarck was unable to serve as a political advisor or teacher. He spent the last few years of his life dictating his memoirs.
Concluding Remarks
A radical, open-minded, industrious, and rebellious ... conservative ... he skillfully balanced the powers in Europe to establish a unified Germany that became a dominant power in Europe and then to maintain the peace in a fractured work. His greatest gift was in 'stacking the deck, not in playing the hand.' Bismarck himself pointed to several contemporaries who were more talented than he, but who did have the army and State behind them.
He was always emphatic that he could not make events. Politics are not a science based on logic. They are the capacity of always choosing at each instant in constantly changing situations, the least harmful, the most useful. ... A statesman cannot create anything himself. He must wait and listen until he hears the steps of God sounding through events, then leap up and grasp the hem of his garment.
Bismarck was born to a simple, earthy, land-owning father and a clever, sophisticated mother. He took after his mother but spent his life masquerading as his father. Later in life, his popular image was gruff and militaristic, while in reality he disliked war and favored ruthless and aggressive diplomacy. His life was that of an unremarkable land-owner until, at age 36, a member of the German Diet became ill and Bismarck, a mere substitute at the time, filled the space and took his place in the course of history.
In his early years as a politician, Bismarck opposed German unification, believing that it would limit Prussian independence without significant benefit. He also worked as a statesman to establish and maintain ties with Prussia's most powerful neighborly monarchs; France's Napoleon III and Russia's Prince Alexander (Gorchacov). He served, reluctantly, as ambassador to Russia for 4 years until Prince Wilhelm became King of Prussia and recalled him, believing that he was the only statemen who could resolve a stalemate with the Landtag (~House of Lords) over military funding.
A series of wars occurred in a fractured Europe, resulting in the defeat of Denmark, Austria, and then France. Austria was seen as a weak and treated as a vassal state when German Unification became official in 1871.
Over the ensuing years, Bismarck continued his famous practice of *Realpolitik*, guiding his actions by their utility in achieving practical objectives rather than by their ideological purity.
He unified (little) Germany after the French defeat, not because **nationalism** (merely tribalism in his eyes) was seen as moral or desirable, but because he thought it inevitable and therefore something worth harnessing rather than opposing.
He enacted **universal suffrage** to ruin his opponents, the liberals of the 1860s, knowing that middle-class liberalism had little appeal to a mass electorate. And the dominance of Liberalism in German politics fell to pieces, as it had in every other country within a generation of the establishment of universal suffrage. Bismarck would later regret this victory, wishing for a political force that could counter the democratic urban lower middle classes, who were voting for expanded personal rights rather than voting in accordance with the interests of their landlords or employers.
He built the prototype of the modern welfare state; including sickness, accident, and disability insurance and a retirement pension; to promote economic growth and to bind workers to the state, noting that civil servants with a pension were much more submissive than industrial workers who lacked one. His aim was to strengthen the state, to maintain traditional power structures, and to counter the forces of liberalism and socialism.
Bismarck fell from power with the death of Kaiser Wilhelm I and was forced to retire from his position as a statesman. As his power was based on personal charisma and a talent for adapting to specific circumstances, Bismarck was unable to serve as a political advisor or teacher. He spent the last few years of his life dictating his memoirs.
Concluding Remarks
A radical, open-minded, industrious, and rebellious ... conservative ... he skillfully balanced the powers in Europe to establish a unified Germany that became a dominant power in Europe and then to maintain the peace in a fractured work. His greatest gift was in 'stacking the deck, not in playing the hand.' Bismarck himself pointed to several contemporaries who were more talented than he, but who did have the army and State behind them.
He was always emphatic that he could not make events. Politics are not a science based on logic. They are the capacity of always choosing at each instant in constantly changing situations, the least harmful, the most useful. ... A statesman cannot create anything himself. He must wait and listen until he hears the steps of God sounding through events, then leap up and grasp the hem of his garment.
October 9, 2021
Taylor's view of history is one of accidents. As he points out, Bismarck says this is in his own words 'Man cannot create the current of events, he can only float with it and steer'. It is shocking to read of how such a political legend and diplomatic force was catapulted to his station by chance.
It is even more shocking to dive into Bismarck's world of cognitive dissonance, where he both cares deeply for his country and his people, but is also spiteful, opportunistic, with scruples and policies being decided by the events and culture of the day, and much of his time spent away in solitude even as the most powerful man in Germany. This portrait would be an anathema to today's society, where politics and war is said to be governed by moral values, rather than calculated decisions.
My only complaint is that Taylor expects a better reader. He has no time for the lacklustre student of history, like this reviewer, that does not know the context behind characters, or who they are before dropping in their name. I would have greatly appreciated a little more patience, and more explanation on his part.
It is even more shocking to dive into Bismarck's world of cognitive dissonance, where he both cares deeply for his country and his people, but is also spiteful, opportunistic, with scruples and policies being decided by the events and culture of the day, and much of his time spent away in solitude even as the most powerful man in Germany. This portrait would be an anathema to today's society, where politics and war is said to be governed by moral values, rather than calculated decisions.
My only complaint is that Taylor expects a better reader. He has no time for the lacklustre student of history, like this reviewer, that does not know the context behind characters, or who they are before dropping in their name. I would have greatly appreciated a little more patience, and more explanation on his part.
October 15, 2022
A very well written biographical essay on Bismarck and his career. For the lay person, it’s best on Bismarck’s character and personality (that he believed really in nothing except himself) since the complexities of great power politics let alone the intricacies of the Army Bill are difficult to follow for the non expert. Bismarck could cry on demand and liked to break things when he didn’t get his way and he must hold the world record for threatening to resign, his trump card until William II called his bluff.
May 23, 2024
Book from 1955 and it sounds so fresh.
Really cool story how to adapt in life and never look back. Even if main character is absolutely not my cup of tea.... Different times need different types of people thats for sure.
Really cool story how to adapt in life and never look back. Even if main character is absolutely not my cup of tea.... Different times need different types of people thats for sure.
December 25, 2024
I found this book very informative. I’ve always found Bismarck to be interesting especially since he was the German faction leader in Civilization Revolution when I was a boy haha.
He’s a complicated figure and I admire him all the more for it.
The book at times is surface level but it’s a requirement for a biography of this type without being close to or over a thousand pages. The fact it accomplishes quite a bit while being so small is an achievement. I do wish it included book recommendations for the larger events it mentions but that’s a minor compliant.
An easy 8/10 and it has my recommendation for those interested in the topic
He’s a complicated figure and I admire him all the more for it.
The book at times is surface level but it’s a requirement for a biography of this type without being close to or over a thousand pages. The fact it accomplishes quite a bit while being so small is an achievement. I do wish it included book recommendations for the larger events it mentions but that’s a minor compliant.
An easy 8/10 and it has my recommendation for those interested in the topic
September 14, 2014
Curiosamente católicos, sociais-democratas e comunistas, que Bismarck considerava Reichsfeinde, Inimigos do Império, governaram a Alemanha após a derrota de 1945, reunificaram-na em 1990, transformaram-na na economia dominante na Europa e adoptaram a política de amizade com a Rússia por ele defendida.
Seriam, serão bismarckianos? Veremos se são moderados…
Mas sendo ou não bismarckianos tenho poucas dúvidas de que todos os chanceleres alemães do pós-guerra subscreveriam a declaração de Bismarck ao Reichstag, em 1881:
Seriam, serão bismarckianos? Veremos se são moderados…
Mas sendo ou não bismarckianos tenho poucas dúvidas de que todos os chanceleres alemães do pós-guerra subscreveriam a declaração de Bismarck ao Reichstag, em 1881:
«Agi muitas vezes precipitadamente e sem reflectir, mas quando tive tempo para pensar interroguei-me sempre: o que é útil, efectivo, bom para a minha pátria, para a minha dinastia – quando eu ainda pertencia à Prússia – e para a nação alemã? Nunca fui um doutrinário. […] Liberal, reaccionário, conservador – confesso que me parecem luxos. […] Primeiro, dai-me um estado alemão poderoso, depois perguntai-me se deve ser mais ou menos liberal e vereis a minha resposta: Sim, não tenho opiniões fixas, apresentai propostas, não encontrareis da minha parte quaisquer objecções por princípio. Muitos caminhos vão dar a Roma. Por vezes, devemos governar liberalmente, outras ditatorialmente, não existem regras eternas […] o meu objectivo, desde o primeiro momento da minha actividade pública, tem sido a criação e consolidação da Alemanha e se conseguirdes apontar uma única ocasião em que desviei desta agulha magnética talvez possais provar que agi mal, mas nunca que perdi de vista, nem por um instante, o objectivo nacional.»¡¡¡ A LER !!!
January 17, 2014
A fine diplomatic biography.
Things Taylor does right:
-persistent focus on Bismarck's diplomatic career. He assumes we know the historical, military, social and geopolitical context.
-consistent engagement with secondary sources. Besides obviously mastering the primary materials, Taylor takes care to develop his analyses by balancing them against those of others.
There are some fun passages. For example,
Yes, minister. Or the darkness of
Recommended for those already studying the 19th-century.
Things Taylor does right:
-persistent focus on Bismarck's diplomatic career. He assumes we know the historical, military, social and geopolitical context.
-consistent engagement with secondary sources. Besides obviously mastering the primary materials, Taylor takes care to develop his analyses by balancing them against those of others.
There are some fun passages. For example,
The second empire in France was slithering into decay (location 1492, Kindle)
It was the last and greatest attempt to unite Germany by consent - the consent of princes who owed their sovereign existence solely to the fact that Germany was not united. (location 914, Kindle)
[then-king William] refused to withdraw when under fire... Finally Bismarck gave William's horse a sharp, unperceived kick in the flank, and William obeyed this protest. It was a perfect parable of relations between king and minister - outward obedience, secret kicks. (location 1161, Kindle)
Yes, minister. Or the darkness of
All the great questions of our own day, from the defeat of Hitler to the checking of Soviet expansion, have been determined by blood and iron. It is the task of the idealist to put moral clothing on the victor. (location 755, Kindle)
Recommended for those already studying the 19th-century.
December 21, 2010
Very interesting portrait of Bismarck. A reasonably short read, but thick with information. Helps to have some previous amount of knowledge of German politics/history in the early-mid 1800s. This book probably would be best read as addendum reading after other non-fiction about Germany in the lead up to the Great War, as it is so narrowly focused on Bismarck that you are left with an incomplete picture.
December 8, 2014
This is a very solid book about the man who significantly expanded the size of the German state and who instituted the first welfare state in Europe. It might be worth more than three stars but I know very little about the historiography of nineteenth century Germany. It is possible that other better biographies of Bismarck may exist.
July 16, 2017
I've read it for my history class, but I really enjoyed it!
June 3, 2024
Bismarck: The Man and Statesman provides a swift recounting of the German leader who united a patchwork of lands into one nation. It does not go into painstaking detail or chase a lot of ancillary topics, but it will create a good understanding of this important figure in the history of Germania.
Taylor-who is a British historian-goes out of his way to not present Bismarck as simply a warmonger. He explains how the Chancellor rose up from association with the German Junkers and came to move beyond the narrow provincialism often represented in the views of this wealthy Prussian landholding class.
Bismarck (born in Prussia in 1815) is forced to navigate challenges ranging from the 1848 democratic uprisings to the Kulturkampf of the 1870s. This latter struggle, centered around Pope Pius IV and disagreements between Prussia and the Catholic Church, proved to be one of the more interesting topics-alongside Germany's 1871 unification-in the book.
The Franco-Prussian War is of course talked about as it inevitably would be around any discussion of Germany's unification, but Taylor does not go into much depth on it. He does however, expend a good bit of paragraph space looking at how Bismarck, as Chancellor, interacted with Emperors William I and II.
To hear the author tell it, Bismarck was not as successful at manipulating the second Kaiser as he was William (Wilhelm) I. Empress Augusta, the latter's wife, often appeared to be no fan of the German chancellor. As with other elements of the book, including precursors to an onslaught of anti-Semitism, this complicated interplay between chancellor/figurehead governance provided a hint at what was to come in the 1930s.
His establishment of pro-worker legislation, such as the groundbreaking social insurance Germany introduced in the late 1800s, was shown to be more of a political move than strictly a progressive one on Bismarck's part. Taylor paints this as an almost New Deal sort of attempt to cut off further demands from socialist groups by trying to remedying a problem with limited intervention.
Bismarck: The Man and Statesman is worth taking the time to read. Most copies will not exceed 300 pages, so it is particularly well-suited for those looking for a brisk telling of Bismarck's life and time in power.
The book analyzes a lot of the balance-of-power schemes in the latter part of the nineteenth century, and readers interested in this will find a lot to like. This is, overall, an admirable work and will help with a stronger understanding of Germany's early days as a nation-state.
-Andrew Canfield Denver, Colorado
Taylor-who is a British historian-goes out of his way to not present Bismarck as simply a warmonger. He explains how the Chancellor rose up from association with the German Junkers and came to move beyond the narrow provincialism often represented in the views of this wealthy Prussian landholding class.
Bismarck (born in Prussia in 1815) is forced to navigate challenges ranging from the 1848 democratic uprisings to the Kulturkampf of the 1870s. This latter struggle, centered around Pope Pius IV and disagreements between Prussia and the Catholic Church, proved to be one of the more interesting topics-alongside Germany's 1871 unification-in the book.
The Franco-Prussian War is of course talked about as it inevitably would be around any discussion of Germany's unification, but Taylor does not go into much depth on it. He does however, expend a good bit of paragraph space looking at how Bismarck, as Chancellor, interacted with Emperors William I and II.
To hear the author tell it, Bismarck was not as successful at manipulating the second Kaiser as he was William (Wilhelm) I. Empress Augusta, the latter's wife, often appeared to be no fan of the German chancellor. As with other elements of the book, including precursors to an onslaught of anti-Semitism, this complicated interplay between chancellor/figurehead governance provided a hint at what was to come in the 1930s.
His establishment of pro-worker legislation, such as the groundbreaking social insurance Germany introduced in the late 1800s, was shown to be more of a political move than strictly a progressive one on Bismarck's part. Taylor paints this as an almost New Deal sort of attempt to cut off further demands from socialist groups by trying to remedying a problem with limited intervention.
Bismarck: The Man and Statesman is worth taking the time to read. Most copies will not exceed 300 pages, so it is particularly well-suited for those looking for a brisk telling of Bismarck's life and time in power.
The book analyzes a lot of the balance-of-power schemes in the latter part of the nineteenth century, and readers interested in this will find a lot to like. This is, overall, an admirable work and will help with a stronger understanding of Germany's early days as a nation-state.
-Andrew Canfield Denver, Colorado
September 18, 2024
É absolutamente imperceptivel para mim como é que Bismarck não é mais falado nos dias que correm, é quase esquecido na história, a sua importância diminuida e, o pior, associado diretamente às guerras mundiais quando foi ele, que sempre advogou para o equilibrio de poder e a paz na europa, só entrando em guerras realmente necessárias. Inclusive, segundo o autor ao qual eu concordo, foi a sua insistência durante toda a sua carreira política numa aproximação e manutenção das relações com a Rússia (contra a esmagadora maioria da opinião pública Alemã) que evitou um grande conflito europeu entre a Guerra da Crimeia e a Primeira Guerra, e permitiu a paz durar na zona dos Balcãs que era de constante conflito entre as potências. Isto foi possível com a Liga dos Três Imperadores proposta e implementada por si, que certamente se não fosse criada causaria um conflito entre a Áustria e a Rússia e que mais que certamente iria arrastar as restantes potências, só foi possível ter sido executada por este génio estadista e diplomático que de alguma forma uniu a Rússia e a Austria-Hungria cujos interesses nos Balcãs estavam em constante divergência. Para finalizar a jogada de génio, concluiu a Tripla Aliança, acrescentando a Itália à parceria Austro-Alemã, e com isto, garantir a neutralidade da mesma numa guerra com a Rússia, enquanto que ao mesmo tempo, apoiava a Itália numa guerra com a França, Bismarck usou a aliança com a Itália para impedir uma guerra contra a França, tal como usara a da Áustria-Hungria para impedir uma guerra com a Rússia, estas alianças deixaram a Inglaterra isolada, e assim estava concluido o equilibrio na Europa e a Paz teoricamente garantida, mesmo que tenha sido mais uma paz para garantir as suas preferências de retiro em paz do que propriamente preocupações humanitárias.
Bismarck tentou também uma reconciliação com a França que foi quase bem-sucedida não fossem os seus sucessores e que teria evitado os óbvios males no século XX, a imponência Alemã causada pelos seus incompetentes sucessores abriram caminho à aliança Russo-Francesa.
Foi justamente por causa destes tempos tranquilos e de progressão pacífica que criaram uma geração pós-Bismarck imponente, arrogante e ansiosa por novas glórias e conquistas, cansados da contenção e moderação Bismarckiana, e com isto, já sabemos ao caminho que leva, mas dá muito que pensar no destino da Europa do século xx se as suas filosofias e políticas tivessem continuado, e neste sentido Bismarck teve estreita visão futura.
O grande mediador, estadista e diplomata da história.
Pessoa mais underrated ever so far.
Bismarck tentou também uma reconciliação com a França que foi quase bem-sucedida não fossem os seus sucessores e que teria evitado os óbvios males no século XX, a imponência Alemã causada pelos seus incompetentes sucessores abriram caminho à aliança Russo-Francesa.
Foi justamente por causa destes tempos tranquilos e de progressão pacífica que criaram uma geração pós-Bismarck imponente, arrogante e ansiosa por novas glórias e conquistas, cansados da contenção e moderação Bismarckiana, e com isto, já sabemos ao caminho que leva, mas dá muito que pensar no destino da Europa do século xx se as suas filosofias e políticas tivessem continuado, e neste sentido Bismarck teve estreita visão futura.
O grande mediador, estadista e diplomata da história.
Pessoa mais underrated ever so far.
February 5, 2022
This is an interesting and illuminating biography of a great statesman. The perspective is that of someone observing the behavior of a man, and then looks to explain the thinking behind them but is not a deep character study, it's more an analysis of the role of a particular statesman in a series of epochal events. Through this it gets at the character of the man, rather than starting with the character of the man and then illustrating how this character drove events. This is a refreshing perspective though, at the same time, this means that there is quite a bit of the opinion of the author in the work. With many authors, this would be a negative but in the hands of AJP Taylor, this is actually a useful method for addressing the subject.
What comes across is that rather than being a long term planner, Bismarck's main genius was in reacting to events steadily rather than provoking them. His main strength was a versatility of mind, he turned on a dime and had almost no fixed ideology or agenda other than the aggrandizement of his own power and, by extension through his personal identification with them, the Hohenzollern monarchy and the Empire of Germany. Watching him serially balance domestic and international factions to produce significant results in both spheres, one could say profound and epochal: Bismarck is more or less singlehandedly responsible for both the creation of Germany and the welfare state as we know them today.
The main lesson of the book however, is not that one should dream grand dreams and construct grand designs and then pursue them through time but that one should follow his maxim: politics is the art of the possible, the science of the relative. You have to wait for your moment, and then see what is possible, not dream your dreams and hope for your moment.
What comes across is that rather than being a long term planner, Bismarck's main genius was in reacting to events steadily rather than provoking them. His main strength was a versatility of mind, he turned on a dime and had almost no fixed ideology or agenda other than the aggrandizement of his own power and, by extension through his personal identification with them, the Hohenzollern monarchy and the Empire of Germany. Watching him serially balance domestic and international factions to produce significant results in both spheres, one could say profound and epochal: Bismarck is more or less singlehandedly responsible for both the creation of Germany and the welfare state as we know them today.
The main lesson of the book however, is not that one should dream grand dreams and construct grand designs and then pursue them through time but that one should follow his maxim: politics is the art of the possible, the science of the relative. You have to wait for your moment, and then see what is possible, not dream your dreams and hope for your moment.
December 16, 2022
This feels like a very balanced biography of a larger-than-life statesman. More than any other individual, Otto von Bismarck was responsible for the unification of the German states into the nation of Germany. After unification, he ruled as German's chancellor and foreign minister for some 30 years. Throughout his "reign", he had no fixed principle other than security for Germany and maintaining power for himself. He continually manufactured crises, both foreign and domestic, in order to play the Reichstag off of emperor William I and vice verse, keeping himself as the essential element. He freely swung between radical, liberal, and conservative policies as suited the needs of the moment.
Bismarck was a man of many flaws - power-hungry, conceited, petulant, emotional. But he also had some qualities that are too often lacking in other politicians. First and foremost, he was no warmonger. To him, war was an evil that was occasionally necessary but was not to be sought out, and was to be ended as rapidly as possible. And in war, he was content with moderation, to achieve the aims of the war and then stop.
In Prussia's war against Austria-Hungary in 1866, Prussia won some quick victories that were able to force AH to the bargaining table. Bismarck ended to war as soon as this was achieved, which enabled him to establish the confederation of northern German states.
Similarly with the Franco-Prussian war of 1870-71, the German army defeated France essentially within a month, followed by a siege of Paris to bring the French to the table. Other than extracting some territorial concessions that were necessary to satisfy German public option, Bismarck did not seek to enact excessive penalties on France. The national spirit aroused by the war enabled the unification of Germany.
Bismarck was a man of many flaws - power-hungry, conceited, petulant, emotional. But he also had some qualities that are too often lacking in other politicians. First and foremost, he was no warmonger. To him, war was an evil that was occasionally necessary but was not to be sought out, and was to be ended as rapidly as possible. And in war, he was content with moderation, to achieve the aims of the war and then stop.
In Prussia's war against Austria-Hungary in 1866, Prussia won some quick victories that were able to force AH to the bargaining table. Bismarck ended to war as soon as this was achieved, which enabled him to establish the confederation of northern German states.
Similarly with the Franco-Prussian war of 1870-71, the German army defeated France essentially within a month, followed by a siege of Paris to bring the French to the table. Other than extracting some territorial concessions that were necessary to satisfy German public option, Bismarck did not seek to enact excessive penalties on France. The national spirit aroused by the war enabled the unification of Germany.
September 14, 2023
Bismarck's own autobiography has gone under significant revisionism as the German Reich sought to redefine itself under Hitler. The "Reflections and Recollections" therefore suffer from more than the narrator bias, that all auto-biographies suffer from.
This book fills up that gap. To understand the man, it is equally important to understand the times he lived in. But the man who brought all German Principalities together under Kaiser William I, also shaped the times he lived in. This book does a good job of putting the horse in front of the cart.
The inadequacy of my knowledge of history puts me at a disadvantage to judge whether the sequence and interpretation of events is accurate. But the narrative built in the book ties together.
Otto von Bismarck, diplomat, politician, statesman and cultivator (and not an orator) was a Junker, the landed aristocracy. He started his career as a reactionary to French radicalism. The liberal phase of his outlook started in his tenure as ambassador at Frankfurt. And the final shift came in the 1870s towards "constructive conservatism" when he introduced a social insurance programme. His fall from grace came with the death of William I and ascension of William II. And that fall wasn't graceful.
The book is full of his rhetoricals and witticisms. It gives a glimpse into his literary prowess, a work of genius definitely. That apart, his political advocacy of Realpolitik, and of moderation are his enduring legacy. As APJ Taylor says "He had been as ruthless & unscrupulous as any other politician. What had distinguished him had been his moderation".
This book fills up that gap. To understand the man, it is equally important to understand the times he lived in. But the man who brought all German Principalities together under Kaiser William I, also shaped the times he lived in. This book does a good job of putting the horse in front of the cart.
The inadequacy of my knowledge of history puts me at a disadvantage to judge whether the sequence and interpretation of events is accurate. But the narrative built in the book ties together.
Otto von Bismarck, diplomat, politician, statesman and cultivator (and not an orator) was a Junker, the landed aristocracy. He started his career as a reactionary to French radicalism. The liberal phase of his outlook started in his tenure as ambassador at Frankfurt. And the final shift came in the 1870s towards "constructive conservatism" when he introduced a social insurance programme. His fall from grace came with the death of William I and ascension of William II. And that fall wasn't graceful.
The book is full of his rhetoricals and witticisms. It gives a glimpse into his literary prowess, a work of genius definitely. That apart, his political advocacy of Realpolitik, and of moderation are his enduring legacy. As APJ Taylor says "He had been as ruthless & unscrupulous as any other politician. What had distinguished him had been his moderation".
November 2, 2025
As a German, I’m surprised about how little we learn about Bismarck in school… and how revered he is abroad.
Obviously I knew the name, but it was Robert Greene’s writing that brought up Bismarck time and again as one of the greatest statesmen in recent history.
The author does a good job outlining the rise of Bismarck and the circumstances he operated in.
Bismarck was a master at reading the tides of history and found ways to exploit them. To his enemies, it looked like he engineered these circumstances. To him, it felt like he held onto the coattails of god.
One accomplishment which particularly stood out to me was the creation of the German welfare state (accident insurance and state pension for workers) that were copied across the world.
In Germany, Bismarck is often lauded as the benevolent father of the nation. However, it seems like this move was sparked by the desire to thrash the rise of communism. And to bind the worker to the state.
These were tumultuous times. Bismarck was always afraid of a revolution that could have broken the newly formed German state.
What better way to silence the laborers than to make their future dependent on a state pension?
He expertly understood that only those who have a stake in the success of the state will uphold its existence.
Obviously I knew the name, but it was Robert Greene’s writing that brought up Bismarck time and again as one of the greatest statesmen in recent history.
The author does a good job outlining the rise of Bismarck and the circumstances he operated in.
Bismarck was a master at reading the tides of history and found ways to exploit them. To his enemies, it looked like he engineered these circumstances. To him, it felt like he held onto the coattails of god.
One accomplishment which particularly stood out to me was the creation of the German welfare state (accident insurance and state pension for workers) that were copied across the world.
In Germany, Bismarck is often lauded as the benevolent father of the nation. However, it seems like this move was sparked by the desire to thrash the rise of communism. And to bind the worker to the state.
These were tumultuous times. Bismarck was always afraid of a revolution that could have broken the newly formed German state.
What better way to silence the laborers than to make their future dependent on a state pension?
He expertly understood that only those who have a stake in the success of the state will uphold its existence.
May 15, 2021
(Audiobook) This work looks primarily at the political and public life of one of the key political figures in late 19th century European history. While he did not come from high noble stock, Bismarck used his political skills to maneuver himself into power and the driving force behind German politics from it unification to the defeat of France in the Franco-Prussian War. Bismarck can come across as a tough, powerful figure that sought a forever militant, strong Germany. However, Bismarck was more political than that, as he altered his stances and actions to serve his interests and Germany’s. His sway over Wilhelm I did much to enhance his reputation, but with his death, Bismarck’s time was numbered. He was a prescient leader and saw much, it he couldn’t survive another Kaiser and all that would entail.
This work answered much about the man, it can leave you wanting more. A good starter work, but I sure other.ms can give you a greater sense of the man. The rating is the same for audiobook or hard/e-copy.
This work answered much about the man, it can leave you wanting more. A good starter work, but I sure other.ms can give you a greater sense of the man. The rating is the same for audiobook or hard/e-copy.
December 29, 2023
This was an enjoyable read. A. J. P. Taylor portrays Bismarck as a power-hungry, self-interested man whose self-interest led Germany into unification in 1871. Taylor was a gifted writer, and there's nothing wrong with the prose. However, the difficulty in reading this book lies in Taylor's scholarly approach to the book. Taylor does not give any background to Bismarck's 19th century European world. This means that if the reader has no familiarity with the European affairs of Bismarck's day, then they will have a hard time following along. The worst part comes when Germany has already unified, and Taylor is explaining the conflict between Bismarck and the German political parties of the day without reference to who the parties are or what they even want. In sum, if you're not familiar with 19th century European history, it may be better to read a different biography of Bismarck or to brush up on 19th century European politics before reading Taylor's work.
May 25, 2021
I learned something valuable: never read a 300-page biography.
The best criticism I've seen of this work: it reads like a senior term paper, designed to signal that the author knows the appropriate information and deserves inclusion to a social group. Taylor writes reasonably well, but frequently makes allusions and references to things he does not bother to discuss or unpack. Often his statements don't even make sense, try as I might to glean their meaning and purpose.
The author does not include any references to substantiate the claims he makes. He presents Bismarck adequately as a mastermind of political intrigue, but generally speaking Taylor would rather simply makes mention of historical events rather than elucidate them or make them come alive.
Though I have acquired some new information here and there, I honestly feel stupider for having read the book.
The best criticism I've seen of this work: it reads like a senior term paper, designed to signal that the author knows the appropriate information and deserves inclusion to a social group. Taylor writes reasonably well, but frequently makes allusions and references to things he does not bother to discuss or unpack. Often his statements don't even make sense, try as I might to glean their meaning and purpose.
The author does not include any references to substantiate the claims he makes. He presents Bismarck adequately as a mastermind of political intrigue, but generally speaking Taylor would rather simply makes mention of historical events rather than elucidate them or make them come alive.
Though I have acquired some new information here and there, I honestly feel stupider for having read the book.
February 17, 2022
Quotes:
"German Reich, it seems, had been brought into existence solely to save Bismarck from boredom"
"People were always more important to Bismarck than books"
"It is the task of the idealist to put moral clothing on the victor."
"Certainly the development of history has its own logical laws. But these laws resemble rather those by which flood-water flows into hitherto unseen channels and forces itself finally to an unpredictable sea."
"kings are concerned with titles or orders just as a writer is offended by bad grammar"
"But even the greatest men cannot foresee the future; they can only expect it to repeat the pattern of the past"
"Great disasters are caused by trying to learn from history and to correct past mistakes. Men being what they are, it is probably better to think about the present, not about the past—or the future"
"German Reich, it seems, had been brought into existence solely to save Bismarck from boredom"
"People were always more important to Bismarck than books"
"It is the task of the idealist to put moral clothing on the victor."
"Certainly the development of history has its own logical laws. But these laws resemble rather those by which flood-water flows into hitherto unseen channels and forces itself finally to an unpredictable sea."
"kings are concerned with titles or orders just as a writer is offended by bad grammar"
"But even the greatest men cannot foresee the future; they can only expect it to repeat the pattern of the past"
"Great disasters are caused by trying to learn from history and to correct past mistakes. Men being what they are, it is probably better to think about the present, not about the past—or the future"
April 18, 2018
Underrated
I found this interesting, lucid, well-paced, and generally balanced.
He describes Bismarck's obvious weaknesses as well as his strengths, and, at the end of the book, explores Bismarck's downfall, and the disintegration of Bismarckian policies in Germany up until circa 1950 (when the book was published).
I wasn't really left wondering about many important details, although I will continue to do my research. Obviously, a nine-hour audiobook can only cover so much, but, aside from a few names which I essentially thought of as "that Austrian Ambassador Guy" or "the Tsar", I understood what was being explained and the historical and political developments which lead to Bismarck's strategic flip-flops during his long, 29 year career in a position of unrivaled power.
I found this interesting, lucid, well-paced, and generally balanced.
He describes Bismarck's obvious weaknesses as well as his strengths, and, at the end of the book, explores Bismarck's downfall, and the disintegration of Bismarckian policies in Germany up until circa 1950 (when the book was published).
I wasn't really left wondering about many important details, although I will continue to do my research. Obviously, a nine-hour audiobook can only cover so much, but, aside from a few names which I essentially thought of as "that Austrian Ambassador Guy" or "the Tsar", I understood what was being explained and the historical and political developments which lead to Bismarck's strategic flip-flops during his long, 29 year career in a position of unrivaled power.
December 24, 2021
This perceptive biography exposes the subject’s idiosyncrasies as well as the ironies and contradictions that characterised his life. Fearfully independent, excitable, impulsive, and distrustful, Bismarck zig-zagged, stumbled, and U-turned in order to stay in power. He was maddened by equals. He thrived on crisis and sought to quash any sign of independence among his colleagues and subordinates. Always right in his arguments, he could easily change his mind. He made great speeches but was a very poor communicator. He sobbed easily and carried a lorgnette. He had to juggle between remaining indispensable to his emperor, William I (to whom he frequently had to threaten to abdicate in order to get his way), and conservatives and liberals in the Reichstag. His focus remained on preserving peace and security in the tinderbox that existed in and around the German states in an age of progress without limits. He achieved the unification of Germany in the face of common enemies. He is also remembered for founding social welfare, although his motivation was more for creating dependency on the state rather than consideration for its populace. He kept well away from real life, rarely making visits, and disappearing for weeks or months on end at his properties well away from Berlin.
March 3, 2022
There're biographies that not only give you a good picture of the subject but also serve as standalone history of the period. There're biographies that just cover the subject in detail but somehow detached from the greater world. And there're just bad biographies. This small tome doesn't belong to any of the above categories. I've mixed feelings. I wanted to give it 2 stars and at the same time 4 stars, so ended up averaging.
This is too short a book to be a detailed biography. So if you're not familiar with the history of the period, you'd probably don't get a lot of details. This book kind of assumes background knowledge, that's why the authors mostly focusses on high level geopolitics. It's interesting if you already know enough about the 19th century European history.
This is too short a book to be a detailed biography. So if you're not familiar with the history of the period, you'd probably don't get a lot of details. This book kind of assumes background knowledge, that's why the authors mostly focusses on high level geopolitics. It's interesting if you already know enough about the 19th century European history.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 65 reviews