What do you think?
Rate this book
Bismarck
1862 yılında Prusya Kralı I. Wilhelm tarafından başbakan olarak atanıp sol liberal ağırlıklı meclisin karşısına çıkan Otto von Bismarck (1815 - 1898), burada yaptığı konuşma doğrultusundaki icraatıyla tarihe geçmiştir: "Ülkemizin Viyana Antlaşmasıyla çizilmiş sınırları devletimizin varlığını sağlıkla sürdürmesi için elverişli değildir. Günümüzün büyük meseleleri müzakereler ve ekseriyet kararlarıyla değil, kan ve demirle çözülecektir." Bismarck, Harbiye Bakanı Roon'un ordu reorganizasyonu ve Genelkurmay Başkanı Moltke'nin savaş stratejisi üzerinde yükselen bu kan ve demir siyasetiyle, Alman birliğini sağlamıştır. Prusya önderliğinde bir araya getirdiği Alman dil ve kültür dairesine mensup küçük devletler, peşpeşe savaşlarla Danimarka'yı, Avusturya'yı ve Fransa'yı yenerek 1871 yılında Alman İmparatorluğu'nu kurmuştur. Bu gelişmenin ardından Avrupa siyaseti üzerinde Bismarck'ın artan etkisi, Ayastefanos Antlaşması'nın ağır hükümlerini yumuşatarak Osmanlı'ya hayat öpücüğü veren 1878 Berlin Kongresi'nde kendini bir kez daha hissettirmiştir.
656 pages, Hardcover
First published April 6, 2011
316 people are currently reading
4304 people want to read
About the author
Jonathan Steinberg
29 books42 followersJonathan Steinberg is the Walter H. Annenberg Professor of European History and former Chair of the Department of History at the University of Pennsylvania. He received his A. B. from Harvard University and his Ph.D. from Cambridge University.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 157 reviews
November 30, 2025
The Capricious Servant
Prince Otto von Bismarck was perhaps the most influential man of the nineteenth century. By sheer political will he forged the modern state of Germany. Without him, it would have most likely happened eventually, but in a different form. Over 30 years he build and maintained Imperial Germany, which would have huge implications on world history. Jonathan Steinberg has written a much needed English revisit to Bismarck. Bismarck: A Life is a warts and all interrogation of someone who Steinberg acknowledges was a political genius, but also heavily flawed.
The amazing things about Bismarck, are the guts, the foresight and the ability to predict his opponents. Without him the three wars of unification would not have happened. In creating a weak peace and taking no land from Austro-Hungry in 1866, he created a channel for reconciliation in the near future. He also managed to gain the international upper hand in creating a scenario where France attacked Germany in 1870. He recognised the importance of not being surrounded, constantly maintaining the League of Three Emperors, so a right wing block was maintained on Germany’s eastern and southern borders. However, he was moody, petulant and would not compromise. He also knew how to manipulate and bully William I, a kind old man. He was also extremely difficult to work with, he broke his oldest son Herbert, drive a wedge between William I and his wife Queen Augusta and between William and his son Crown Prince Frederick. He distrusted everyone and sought to destroy the central Democratic Party, who were for universal suffrage, constitutional monarchy, believed in free markets, free press, the abolition of the death penalty and that Catholics and Jews had rights.
A man of contradictions, the civilian always in uniform, who had power but sought and didn’t want it at the same time. He had popularity, but no votes. Protégés but no real friends. After his fall from power he was called a dictator or despot. He would call himself only the ‘faithful servant of William I’. Steinberg struggles to understand or explain what Bismarck actually stood for. The answer appears to be only that he wanted a united Germany under a semi-autocratic monarchy. One which he would control and dictate terms to. This system only worked with someone like Bismarck at the top, ready to pull an ace out of his back pocket, such as universal make suffrage to keep the socialists out, and a monarch like William I, who was thoughtful and well meaning. The constitution was rushed after 1848, which Bismarck retained, which would cause loop holes and problems leading to his own demise and then 30 years later a destructive war.
Steinberg is an admirer of the best of Bismarck and it’s hard not to be. He was full of energy, a great personality, often infectious to those around him (much like what people said of Julius Caesar) and probably the greatest political genius ever. However, the tragedy of Bismarck’s reign is William I lived too long, even if he died a couple of years earlier, Frederick III and his wife Victoria would have pushed in a more liberal system, which would have steered Germany away from its ultra conservative, military focused, limited democracy. German’s were told they needed a political genius at the top and as such after the collapse of the monarchy and the void it left, Germans voted in Paul von Hindenburg, a man of Bismarck’s background and class. But this also created a gateway to the next ‘genius’, the Führer, Adolf Hitler. So, as Steinberg writes there is a direct line between Bismarck and Hitler.
Reading about nineteenth century German politics was extremely investing and it’s a shame there aren’t many more books on the subject. Bismarck was a man of contradictions, he wore uniform but held no military office, he disliked Jews but was close friends with some and most interesting of all his party never held a majority. He had to glue together deals with other parties to keep the centralists out. The man was a genius, but in the end stood for not much else. He left no lasting legacy had no real other interests and suffered in health mentally and physically because of the job he gave himself. A engaging read of an interesting subject. I will read Bismarck: A Life again.
Prince Otto von Bismarck was perhaps the most influential man of the nineteenth century. By sheer political will he forged the modern state of Germany. Without him, it would have most likely happened eventually, but in a different form. Over 30 years he build and maintained Imperial Germany, which would have huge implications on world history. Jonathan Steinberg has written a much needed English revisit to Bismarck. Bismarck: A Life is a warts and all interrogation of someone who Steinberg acknowledges was a political genius, but also heavily flawed.
The amazing things about Bismarck, are the guts, the foresight and the ability to predict his opponents. Without him the three wars of unification would not have happened. In creating a weak peace and taking no land from Austro-Hungry in 1866, he created a channel for reconciliation in the near future. He also managed to gain the international upper hand in creating a scenario where France attacked Germany in 1870. He recognised the importance of not being surrounded, constantly maintaining the League of Three Emperors, so a right wing block was maintained on Germany’s eastern and southern borders. However, he was moody, petulant and would not compromise. He also knew how to manipulate and bully William I, a kind old man. He was also extremely difficult to work with, he broke his oldest son Herbert, drive a wedge between William I and his wife Queen Augusta and between William and his son Crown Prince Frederick. He distrusted everyone and sought to destroy the central Democratic Party, who were for universal suffrage, constitutional monarchy, believed in free markets, free press, the abolition of the death penalty and that Catholics and Jews had rights.
A man of contradictions, the civilian always in uniform, who had power but sought and didn’t want it at the same time. He had popularity, but no votes. Protégés but no real friends. After his fall from power he was called a dictator or despot. He would call himself only the ‘faithful servant of William I’. Steinberg struggles to understand or explain what Bismarck actually stood for. The answer appears to be only that he wanted a united Germany under a semi-autocratic monarchy. One which he would control and dictate terms to. This system only worked with someone like Bismarck at the top, ready to pull an ace out of his back pocket, such as universal make suffrage to keep the socialists out, and a monarch like William I, who was thoughtful and well meaning. The constitution was rushed after 1848, which Bismarck retained, which would cause loop holes and problems leading to his own demise and then 30 years later a destructive war.
Steinberg is an admirer of the best of Bismarck and it’s hard not to be. He was full of energy, a great personality, often infectious to those around him (much like what people said of Julius Caesar) and probably the greatest political genius ever. However, the tragedy of Bismarck’s reign is William I lived too long, even if he died a couple of years earlier, Frederick III and his wife Victoria would have pushed in a more liberal system, which would have steered Germany away from its ultra conservative, military focused, limited democracy. German’s were told they needed a political genius at the top and as such after the collapse of the monarchy and the void it left, Germans voted in Paul von Hindenburg, a man of Bismarck’s background and class. But this also created a gateway to the next ‘genius’, the Führer, Adolf Hitler. So, as Steinberg writes there is a direct line between Bismarck and Hitler.
Reading about nineteenth century German politics was extremely investing and it’s a shame there aren’t many more books on the subject. Bismarck was a man of contradictions, he wore uniform but held no military office, he disliked Jews but was close friends with some and most interesting of all his party never held a majority. He had to glue together deals with other parties to keep the centralists out. The man was a genius, but in the end stood for not much else. He left no lasting legacy had no real other interests and suffered in health mentally and physically because of the job he gave himself. A engaging read of an interesting subject. I will read Bismarck: A Life again.
April 26, 2011
The Juggler
Nineteenth century Europe was a game of two halves or, better, a game of two men: the Emperor Napoleon, who dominated the first, and Otto von Bismarck, who dominated the second. If anything Bismarck was the more important of the two, creating not just a new Germany but a new Europe, with a legacy that extended well into the twentieth century. He was the greater because he was the more cunning; the lesser because his vision was considerably more limited. In some ways Bismarck was the best statesman Germany ever had; in other ways the worst.
The paradox of the Iron Chancellor is superbly explored by Jonathan Steinberg in Bismarck: A Life, published earlier this year. Given his importance it’s remarkable how little attention he has achieved in the English-speaking world, obsessed, as it is, with Hitler. The only other study that I have read is Alan Palmer’s Bismarck, a dated and not terribly satisfactory biography. Steinberg makes up for so many deficiencies in our understanding, not just of Bismarck but of modern Germany, his legacy to the world.
There is one thing that’s important to understand about Bismarck – he was a juggler of consummate skill. Leo von Caprivi, who succeeded him as Chancellor in 1890, an unenviable task, said that while his predecessor was able to keep five balls in the air at any one time he could barely manage two. As the balls fell so did the Bismarck system, which maintained a precarious, personally-based, balance of power on the Continent, in succession to the old Concert of Europe, which followed from the defeat of Napoleon in 1815.
It’s almost impossible not to admire and dislike Bismarck at one and the same time. There is so much to admire. Here was a man with no military background and little in the way of experience in office before he became Minister President of Prussia in 1862. Here was a man who, bit by bit, removed every obstacle to German unification, unification, on his own terms, I might add, not the unification that was conceived by the liberals of the Frankfurt Parliament in the wild days of 1848, almost as if he was following a road map. Here was a man who thereafter managed a skilled balancing act that kept Russia and Austria, both with dangerously conflicting ambitions in the Balkans, on reasonably friendly terms, thus isolating an unhappy and vengeful France, smarting from the humiliating defeat it had suffered in the war of 1870.
Charming, sophisticated, highly intelligent and enormously driven, Bismarck, on the dark side, was callous, manipulative, paranoid to an astonishing degree, as well as being an amazing hypochondriac, which the author roots in his upbringing under a gentle but ineffectual father and a coldly indifferent mother. He was the kind of statesman that Machiavelli would have admired for his ruthlessness and yet, I would suggest, have found wanting for the lack of vision that I referred to at the outset.
The trouble is, you see, Bismarck never seemed to have thought much beyond himself, thought of a time when he would no longer be in command, thought of the future of Germany. With no power base in either the Reichstag or the army, his chancellorship depended on no more than the personal bond that he formed with King Wilhelm I of Prussia, subsequently the first Kaiser of the new German Reich. As Steinberg shows, everything Bismarck achieved was a result of this unique relationship between monarch and subject; that if he had been sacked after his belligerent Blood and Iron speech to the Prussian Landtag in September 1862 (actually it was Iron and Blood!), as many had wanted at the time, even within royal circles, then Germany may have entered the twentieth century as a collection of principalities. Wilhelm, however, remained loyal, though one has to sympathise with his lament that it was hard to be a king under Bismarck.
The bond worked well in helping Bismarck achieve his domestic as well as his foreign policy objectives, but it was a form of personal politics that created instability at the heart of government. To put it another way, Bismarck could unite Germany but not Germans; he could create a modern state without bequeathing a modern and stable polity. Some of his domestic policies, notably the Kulturkampf, his struggle with the Catholic Church in Prussia, were immensely counter-productive, not to say bizarrely unnecessary. His attempt to quash the Socialist Party, moreover, only served to increase its appeal.
Bismarck’s power was built on a quiescent Emperor. When Wilhelm’s grandson and namesake came to the throne in 1888 the bond was broken and the iron quickly rusted. It was after his dismissal in 1890 that the weakness of his system became immediately apparent, as Caprivi was the first to understand. It would be wrong to say that the road was opened to the Great War – there are two many other variables to be considered – but the temptation is a strong one.
Steinberg should be highly commended for producing a fine piece of work, readable without any sacrifices to scholarship, one of incisive psychology and wonderful attention to detail. I have one fairly important reservation, more of a quibble, I suppose – a lapse at the conclusion into the usual tiresome historical teleology with Hitler as the end result, a seamless progression from the Iron Chancellor to the Little Corporal. But Hitler, with his unrealistic dreams and limitless goals, was the antithesis of Bismarck, always careful, calculated and rational, always aware of the relationship between means and ends. Bismarck could create Germany; Hitler could only destroy it.
Nineteenth century Europe was a game of two halves or, better, a game of two men: the Emperor Napoleon, who dominated the first, and Otto von Bismarck, who dominated the second. If anything Bismarck was the more important of the two, creating not just a new Germany but a new Europe, with a legacy that extended well into the twentieth century. He was the greater because he was the more cunning; the lesser because his vision was considerably more limited. In some ways Bismarck was the best statesman Germany ever had; in other ways the worst.
The paradox of the Iron Chancellor is superbly explored by Jonathan Steinberg in Bismarck: A Life, published earlier this year. Given his importance it’s remarkable how little attention he has achieved in the English-speaking world, obsessed, as it is, with Hitler. The only other study that I have read is Alan Palmer’s Bismarck, a dated and not terribly satisfactory biography. Steinberg makes up for so many deficiencies in our understanding, not just of Bismarck but of modern Germany, his legacy to the world.
There is one thing that’s important to understand about Bismarck – he was a juggler of consummate skill. Leo von Caprivi, who succeeded him as Chancellor in 1890, an unenviable task, said that while his predecessor was able to keep five balls in the air at any one time he could barely manage two. As the balls fell so did the Bismarck system, which maintained a precarious, personally-based, balance of power on the Continent, in succession to the old Concert of Europe, which followed from the defeat of Napoleon in 1815.
It’s almost impossible not to admire and dislike Bismarck at one and the same time. There is so much to admire. Here was a man with no military background and little in the way of experience in office before he became Minister President of Prussia in 1862. Here was a man who, bit by bit, removed every obstacle to German unification, unification, on his own terms, I might add, not the unification that was conceived by the liberals of the Frankfurt Parliament in the wild days of 1848, almost as if he was following a road map. Here was a man who thereafter managed a skilled balancing act that kept Russia and Austria, both with dangerously conflicting ambitions in the Balkans, on reasonably friendly terms, thus isolating an unhappy and vengeful France, smarting from the humiliating defeat it had suffered in the war of 1870.
Charming, sophisticated, highly intelligent and enormously driven, Bismarck, on the dark side, was callous, manipulative, paranoid to an astonishing degree, as well as being an amazing hypochondriac, which the author roots in his upbringing under a gentle but ineffectual father and a coldly indifferent mother. He was the kind of statesman that Machiavelli would have admired for his ruthlessness and yet, I would suggest, have found wanting for the lack of vision that I referred to at the outset.
The trouble is, you see, Bismarck never seemed to have thought much beyond himself, thought of a time when he would no longer be in command, thought of the future of Germany. With no power base in either the Reichstag or the army, his chancellorship depended on no more than the personal bond that he formed with King Wilhelm I of Prussia, subsequently the first Kaiser of the new German Reich. As Steinberg shows, everything Bismarck achieved was a result of this unique relationship between monarch and subject; that if he had been sacked after his belligerent Blood and Iron speech to the Prussian Landtag in September 1862 (actually it was Iron and Blood!), as many had wanted at the time, even within royal circles, then Germany may have entered the twentieth century as a collection of principalities. Wilhelm, however, remained loyal, though one has to sympathise with his lament that it was hard to be a king under Bismarck.
The bond worked well in helping Bismarck achieve his domestic as well as his foreign policy objectives, but it was a form of personal politics that created instability at the heart of government. To put it another way, Bismarck could unite Germany but not Germans; he could create a modern state without bequeathing a modern and stable polity. Some of his domestic policies, notably the Kulturkampf, his struggle with the Catholic Church in Prussia, were immensely counter-productive, not to say bizarrely unnecessary. His attempt to quash the Socialist Party, moreover, only served to increase its appeal.
Bismarck’s power was built on a quiescent Emperor. When Wilhelm’s grandson and namesake came to the throne in 1888 the bond was broken and the iron quickly rusted. It was after his dismissal in 1890 that the weakness of his system became immediately apparent, as Caprivi was the first to understand. It would be wrong to say that the road was opened to the Great War – there are two many other variables to be considered – but the temptation is a strong one.
Steinberg should be highly commended for producing a fine piece of work, readable without any sacrifices to scholarship, one of incisive psychology and wonderful attention to detail. I have one fairly important reservation, more of a quibble, I suppose – a lapse at the conclusion into the usual tiresome historical teleology with Hitler as the end result, a seamless progression from the Iron Chancellor to the Little Corporal. But Hitler, with his unrealistic dreams and limitless goals, was the antithesis of Bismarck, always careful, calculated and rational, always aware of the relationship between means and ends. Bismarck could create Germany; Hitler could only destroy it.
August 10, 2012
The first ingredient in a successful biography is a good subject, and Steinberg couldn’t have asked for a better one. He perfectly sums us the enigma of Bismark in his opening chapter: The Iron Chancellor made Germany but never ruled it. He was not charismatic or a great speaker. He had no military credentials, led no political party, had no great wealth, and served at the whim of three different emperors- any of whom could have dismissed him with a word. And yet, he dominated Germany and Europe as few have before or since. He controlled his contemporaries so completely that most of them described him as a ‘tyrant’ or ‘dictator’. He was both a physical and a mental giant, towering above any other actor on the political stage.
Steinberg writes in his preface that he “has the illusion that he understands” Bismark. The reason for this is immediately clear- he has spent countless hours pouring through personal correspondence, diaries, articles, books, and memoirs. These are peppered throughout the book in endless block quotes, an avalanche of data that inundates you with both poignant and pointless facts. The problem is that all of these words aren’t terribly illuminating- and it becomes clear that Steinberg doesn’t particularly like his subject. The end result is a caricature. Instead of the usual ‘brilliant genius who could do no wrong’, we get the ‘hypochondriac, paranoid, emotionally stunted, manchild genius who could do little right’. At the end he casually tosses around incendiary comments- ‘modern Germany still unconsciously believes that a Jew cannot be a German’(p388)- and then tries his best to link Bismark to the Nazis. Bismark’s triumph over his liberal political enemies becomes ‘Bismark’s gift to Hitler’ (p399), and since Bismark and Hitler were both ‘genius-statesman Chancellors of Germany‘ there was a ‘linear and direct legacy between them’(p478).
His last chapter is titled ‘Blood and Irony’. Perhaps the irony here is that Steinberg was correct in his assessment. The picture he gives of Bismark is more illusion than understanding.
Steinberg writes in his preface that he “has the illusion that he understands” Bismark. The reason for this is immediately clear- he has spent countless hours pouring through personal correspondence, diaries, articles, books, and memoirs. These are peppered throughout the book in endless block quotes, an avalanche of data that inundates you with both poignant and pointless facts. The problem is that all of these words aren’t terribly illuminating- and it becomes clear that Steinberg doesn’t particularly like his subject. The end result is a caricature. Instead of the usual ‘brilliant genius who could do no wrong’, we get the ‘hypochondriac, paranoid, emotionally stunted, manchild genius who could do little right’. At the end he casually tosses around incendiary comments- ‘modern Germany still unconsciously believes that a Jew cannot be a German’(p388)- and then tries his best to link Bismark to the Nazis. Bismark’s triumph over his liberal political enemies becomes ‘Bismark’s gift to Hitler’ (p399), and since Bismark and Hitler were both ‘genius-statesman Chancellors of Germany‘ there was a ‘linear and direct legacy between them’(p478).
His last chapter is titled ‘Blood and Irony’. Perhaps the irony here is that Steinberg was correct in his assessment. The picture he gives of Bismark is more illusion than understanding.
August 7, 2013
My purpose in reading this book was to obtain background on German history in the 19th century and Mr. Steinberg is largely successful at this. We can clearly see that Bismarck was the catapult for the Germany of the 20th century.
The author paints a very complex portrait of Bismarck. He unified Germany and to some extent modernized it by increasing the electorate and introducing some social programs – by the end of the 19th century Germany had become a major industrial power. Even though he “played” with liberalism, Bismarck did little to make Germany democratic in the sense that France and England were. This was deliberate – the theme of Bismarck’s dominating personality runs throughout the book – whether it was to dominate Prussian royalty, the pseudo-parliament and cabinet which had no real power, or to control foreign affairs. One needed to sublimate to the “will” of Bismarck.
In many ways this process of “domination” continued with Kaiser William II who precipitated World War I and this was followed by Hitler’s war. Bismarck was very different than both; unlike the Kaiser he was careful in external affairs and Bismarck’s wars were more contained, he had none of the fanatical hatred of Jews, Slavs, Poles… that possessed Hitler’s thought processes (this is not to say that Bismarck was not an anti-Semite).
Mr. Steinberg describes well the successful struggle Bismarck waged against the rising tide of liberalism in Germany and the wars that led to Prussia’s unification with the rest of Germany. He also explains his struggle against the Church – both Protestant and Catholic.
I would have liked more on the war with France; little was said on the annexation of Alsace-Lorraine which led to a permanent cleavage between Germany and France – perhaps Bismarck’s greatest mistake in foreign relations. Bismarck usually strived to not make permanent enemies in Europe.
The author highlights often the intrigues that Bismarck created externally and within – which brings to mind the expression “Oh what a tangle web we weave”. We are presented with a man who could be both demonic and charming – often to the same person!
The author paints a very complex portrait of Bismarck. He unified Germany and to some extent modernized it by increasing the electorate and introducing some social programs – by the end of the 19th century Germany had become a major industrial power. Even though he “played” with liberalism, Bismarck did little to make Germany democratic in the sense that France and England were. This was deliberate – the theme of Bismarck’s dominating personality runs throughout the book – whether it was to dominate Prussian royalty, the pseudo-parliament and cabinet which had no real power, or to control foreign affairs. One needed to sublimate to the “will” of Bismarck.
In many ways this process of “domination” continued with Kaiser William II who precipitated World War I and this was followed by Hitler’s war. Bismarck was very different than both; unlike the Kaiser he was careful in external affairs and Bismarck’s wars were more contained, he had none of the fanatical hatred of Jews, Slavs, Poles… that possessed Hitler’s thought processes (this is not to say that Bismarck was not an anti-Semite).
Mr. Steinberg describes well the successful struggle Bismarck waged against the rising tide of liberalism in Germany and the wars that led to Prussia’s unification with the rest of Germany. He also explains his struggle against the Church – both Protestant and Catholic.
I would have liked more on the war with France; little was said on the annexation of Alsace-Lorraine which led to a permanent cleavage between Germany and France – perhaps Bismarck’s greatest mistake in foreign relations. Bismarck usually strived to not make permanent enemies in Europe.
The author highlights often the intrigues that Bismarck created externally and within – which brings to mind the expression “Oh what a tangle web we weave”. We are presented with a man who could be both demonic and charming – often to the same person!
January 16, 2023
"Admirable" is not a word I can apply to Bismarck, nor it is a word that Steinberg suggests. Otto von Bismarck was a vicious, vindictive, duplicitous, unprincipled "dictator" (yes, dictator is how most of his friends and enemies viewed him in life), and hoary anti-Semite who ruthlessly destroyed friends and foes alike. Bismarck was just as happy to establish a social security system for the workers as he was to massacre striking workers when it served his immediate political purpose. Bismarck was an uncultured country squire who cared nothing about art, literature, science, philosophy or architecture and contributed nothing at all to German culture. Except maybe one thing: the political passivity of the German masses and their blind obedience to the "genius statesman." Bismarck set the stage for both William II and Hitler, with the difference that Hitler at least liked art and architecture, vulgar though his tastes might have been.
The problem with previous Bismarck biographies is their hagiography, which reflects German popular memories of the "Iron and Blood" chancellor. Bismarck became even more popular, more mythic once he was forced out of office in disgrace, dying a miserable and lonely death. The Junker's portrait became a staple in most German homes, just as Franklin Roosevelt or John F. Kennedy or Martin Luther King, Jr.'s, photographs would become common in American homes. The difference being, of course, that the three Americans represented the best in their society while Bismarck represented the worst in his. Hitler at least managed to turn his photographs into money making propositions; every poster and German stamp that bore der Führer's mug was copyrighted with royalties going directly to Mr. Hitler himself.
Steinberg does not make the mistake of writing another hagiography of Bismarck. He includes diary passages and incendiary correspondence that official biographers and admirers conveniently censored from their own accounts of Bismarck. For this the author is to be greatly commended. Perhaps no greater crime was committed by the Junker than his refusal to allow the marriage between his own son and the great love of his son's life in order to exact political revenge on a matter that mattered only to the elder Bismarck and nobody else. Not surprisingly, the son became a drunk and a bitter cynic. Not since Ivan the Terrible murdered his own son over his daughter-in-law's dress has there been a more tragic and unforgivable crime committed by a father upon his own child.
Instead of "admirable," I would use the word "illustrative." Bismarck serves as perhaps the single best example of political realism, as the perspective is called in the field of International Relations. Neither Thucydides nor Machiavelli express the essential elements of realism as well as the career of Bismarck and neither, of course, had an opportunity to govern a great power according to its precepts. For Bismarck, German domestic politics were completely unlike diplomacy and great power politics, the latter governed solely by national interests defined in terms of power. Bismarck's Germany had no permanent allies or enemies; the chancellor was even willing to embrace France if necessary to counter Austria. His foreign policy was not moral or immoral, it was amoral. Personal or even national values never distracted him from the pursuit of Germany's national interests. Bismarck was the "rational actor," permitted to make foreign policy decisions with few if any restraints from domestic society (the German General Staff, however, was another matter).
The one realist concept that Bismarck violated to Germany and history's regret, however, was making peacetime and frequently secret treaties with other great powers in Europe. During the "classical balance of power" (1648-1800), treaties were temporary arrangements of convenience, established in reaction to a challenge to the European balance of power and then terminating once the threat had passed and the balance restored. Bismarck, on the other hand, committed Germany to various secret and frequently contradictory agreements that nobody--not even Bismarck--could keep them all straight! Those peacetime treaties, along with the counter-treaties made by Germany's enemies, led directly and ineluctably to the guns of August 1914.
The problem with previous Bismarck biographies is their hagiography, which reflects German popular memories of the "Iron and Blood" chancellor. Bismarck became even more popular, more mythic once he was forced out of office in disgrace, dying a miserable and lonely death. The Junker's portrait became a staple in most German homes, just as Franklin Roosevelt or John F. Kennedy or Martin Luther King, Jr.'s, photographs would become common in American homes. The difference being, of course, that the three Americans represented the best in their society while Bismarck represented the worst in his. Hitler at least managed to turn his photographs into money making propositions; every poster and German stamp that bore der Führer's mug was copyrighted with royalties going directly to Mr. Hitler himself.
Steinberg does not make the mistake of writing another hagiography of Bismarck. He includes diary passages and incendiary correspondence that official biographers and admirers conveniently censored from their own accounts of Bismarck. For this the author is to be greatly commended. Perhaps no greater crime was committed by the Junker than his refusal to allow the marriage between his own son and the great love of his son's life in order to exact political revenge on a matter that mattered only to the elder Bismarck and nobody else. Not surprisingly, the son became a drunk and a bitter cynic. Not since Ivan the Terrible murdered his own son over his daughter-in-law's dress has there been a more tragic and unforgivable crime committed by a father upon his own child.
Instead of "admirable," I would use the word "illustrative." Bismarck serves as perhaps the single best example of political realism, as the perspective is called in the field of International Relations. Neither Thucydides nor Machiavelli express the essential elements of realism as well as the career of Bismarck and neither, of course, had an opportunity to govern a great power according to its precepts. For Bismarck, German domestic politics were completely unlike diplomacy and great power politics, the latter governed solely by national interests defined in terms of power. Bismarck's Germany had no permanent allies or enemies; the chancellor was even willing to embrace France if necessary to counter Austria. His foreign policy was not moral or immoral, it was amoral. Personal or even national values never distracted him from the pursuit of Germany's national interests. Bismarck was the "rational actor," permitted to make foreign policy decisions with few if any restraints from domestic society (the German General Staff, however, was another matter).
The one realist concept that Bismarck violated to Germany and history's regret, however, was making peacetime and frequently secret treaties with other great powers in Europe. During the "classical balance of power" (1648-1800), treaties were temporary arrangements of convenience, established in reaction to a challenge to the European balance of power and then terminating once the threat had passed and the balance restored. Bismarck, on the other hand, committed Germany to various secret and frequently contradictory agreements that nobody--not even Bismarck--could keep them all straight! Those peacetime treaties, along with the counter-treaties made by Germany's enemies, led directly and ineluctably to the guns of August 1914.
May 8, 2022
How astonished are those who hear him for the first time. Instead of a powerful, sonorous voice, instead of the expected pathos, instead of a fiery tirade glowing with classical eloquence, the speech flows easily and softly in conversational tones across his lips, hesitates for a while and winds its way until he finds the right word or phrase, until precisely the right expression emerges. One almost feels at the beginning that the speaker suffers from embarrassment. His upper body moves from side to side, he pulls his handkerchief from his back pocket, wipes his brow, puts it back in the pocket and pulls it out again.
-Schwäbische Merkur, 1878 (cited on page 1)
How do we write on the Iron Chancellor now? Steinberg writes about Otto von Bismarck's "extraordinary, gigantic self" (4), and writes of his role in the unification of Germany and the defeat of both Austria and France as the "greatest diplomatic and political achievement by any leader in the past two centuries" (184), which is an extreme form of praise. Yet for all of the extreme rhetoric, I found much to learn about von Bismarck and his life.
Steinberg's approach is more on the personal, drawing from first-hand accounts and Bismarck's own letters and personal documents. The political scientist Max Weber wrote about the three kinds of authority: traditional, charismatic, and bureaucratic. Steinberg argues that Bismarck had all three of these to some capacity, and they were necessary in navigating both the complex web of aristocratic relationships that ruled the Kingdom of Prussia (and later the Empire of Germany) and Germany's own transformation into a modern state. Bismarck was "only" a chancellor or 'minister-president' in an absolute monarchy - he ruled at the behest of the King of Prussia or the Kaiser of Germany. And in the eventuality of a Kaiser wishing to be rid of him - as Wilhelm II inevitably did - then he was thrown out.
That said, Bismarck appears to be a mercurial, brilliant, violent, vindictive, temperamental, personality. In his early years he indulged in numerous stormy affairs. Steinberg even suggests Bismarck continued in an an unconsciousness need to set up relationships in antagonizing pairs, like his parents. When his greatest compatriots and allies died, Bismarck was incapable of eulogy or expressing gratitude. He refused to acknowledge mistakes. This approach on personal relationships does slightly de-emphasize the economic or societal changes that had transformed all of Germany or indeed Europe in the 19th century. The Franco-Prussian War is largely handled by Bismarck micromanaging his way through it, and there is barely any discussion of the expansion of the German colonial Empire. But a look at the personality does contribute to an understanding of how Bismarck remained in power for so long. Bismarck cultivated a close, difficult, relationship with Kaiser Wilhelm I, who then lived a comparatively stress-free life while Bismarck agonized over the tough questions.
There is a new angle that I had little knowledge of, and that Steinberg illustrates brilliantly. While Bismarck had cordial relationships with individual Jewish aristocrats and politicians, even those he opposed - Disraeli, Lassalle, and so on - he had no problem in tolerating open prejudice or hatred and using it for his political ends - clamping down on the Social Democrats, or tolerating the more virulent nationalism of figures like Heinrich von Treitschke. Antisemitism was not new in Europe, and it did not spring up out of nothing in 1933 when the Nazis came to power.
Steinberg's account is fascinating - it provides a serious look at how a figure without the backing of a major political party, without a major constituency, without the backing of a major faction of the military, was able to hold on for so long. Though the arrangement would start to crack once a new Kaiser was in and the web of diplomatic arrangements began to untangle.
-Schwäbische Merkur, 1878 (cited on page 1)
How do we write on the Iron Chancellor now? Steinberg writes about Otto von Bismarck's "extraordinary, gigantic self" (4), and writes of his role in the unification of Germany and the defeat of both Austria and France as the "greatest diplomatic and political achievement by any leader in the past two centuries" (184), which is an extreme form of praise. Yet for all of the extreme rhetoric, I found much to learn about von Bismarck and his life.
Steinberg's approach is more on the personal, drawing from first-hand accounts and Bismarck's own letters and personal documents. The political scientist Max Weber wrote about the three kinds of authority: traditional, charismatic, and bureaucratic. Steinberg argues that Bismarck had all three of these to some capacity, and they were necessary in navigating both the complex web of aristocratic relationships that ruled the Kingdom of Prussia (and later the Empire of Germany) and Germany's own transformation into a modern state. Bismarck was "only" a chancellor or 'minister-president' in an absolute monarchy - he ruled at the behest of the King of Prussia or the Kaiser of Germany. And in the eventuality of a Kaiser wishing to be rid of him - as Wilhelm II inevitably did - then he was thrown out.
That said, Bismarck appears to be a mercurial, brilliant, violent, vindictive, temperamental, personality. In his early years he indulged in numerous stormy affairs. Steinberg even suggests Bismarck continued in an an unconsciousness need to set up relationships in antagonizing pairs, like his parents. When his greatest compatriots and allies died, Bismarck was incapable of eulogy or expressing gratitude. He refused to acknowledge mistakes. This approach on personal relationships does slightly de-emphasize the economic or societal changes that had transformed all of Germany or indeed Europe in the 19th century. The Franco-Prussian War is largely handled by Bismarck micromanaging his way through it, and there is barely any discussion of the expansion of the German colonial Empire. But a look at the personality does contribute to an understanding of how Bismarck remained in power for so long. Bismarck cultivated a close, difficult, relationship with Kaiser Wilhelm I, who then lived a comparatively stress-free life while Bismarck agonized over the tough questions.
There is a new angle that I had little knowledge of, and that Steinberg illustrates brilliantly. While Bismarck had cordial relationships with individual Jewish aristocrats and politicians, even those he opposed - Disraeli, Lassalle, and so on - he had no problem in tolerating open prejudice or hatred and using it for his political ends - clamping down on the Social Democrats, or tolerating the more virulent nationalism of figures like Heinrich von Treitschke. Antisemitism was not new in Europe, and it did not spring up out of nothing in 1933 when the Nazis came to power.
Steinberg's account is fascinating - it provides a serious look at how a figure without the backing of a major political party, without a major constituency, without the backing of a major faction of the military, was able to hold on for so long. Though the arrangement would start to crack once a new Kaiser was in and the web of diplomatic arrangements began to untangle.
July 16, 2015
“The Iron Chancellor” Otto von Bismarck is regarded as the greatest statesman of the 19th Century due to his great accomplishments while running Prussia from 1861 to 1898. His first great accomplishment was unifying all the German people into one country. The last unification of Germany was in the 10th Century by Henry the Fowler and his son Otto the Great.
He started the reunification policy in 1864 when he authorized the Prussian Army to attack and consequently defeat Denmark to gain back the German speaking province of Schleswig-Holstein. His second step was to gain French border provinces of Alsace and Lorraine. He accomplished this by editing a letter containing peaceful relation language to the French by King William. Bismarck instead made it sound insulting. It was insulting enough for the French to declare war on Prussia. A swift Prussian victory not only gained Alsace and Lorraine it also set off a sense of pride by the other independent German states which consisted of 4 kingdoms, 6 grand duchies, 6 duchies, 7 principalities, 3 free hanseatic cities, and 1 imperial territory. This fact along with fear of Prussia helped the other German states combine with Prussia. This accomplishment Germany knows as its 2cnd Reich.
Bismarck was a very intelligent and complicated man. He did not like capitalism. He also disliked Catholics and Jews. He considered anyone who opposed him as an enemy that needed to be destroyed. On the other hand, he was said to be charming and engaging with individuals who visited him at home. He was known as “The Iron Chancellor” yet he spent weeks at a time being sick. The pressure of his job wreaked havoc on his body. In one episode, Bismarck was sick in bed. His wife found a great doctor who did nothing more than visit Bismarck and hold his hand until he fell asleep. The doctor was also there when Bismarck woke up. Bismarck miraculously recovered. The author believes that Bismarck lacked the feeling of being loved and that contributed to making him sick.
Bismarck also instituted National Health Insurance, old age pensions and accident insurance. He in addition authored Europe’s colonial dissection of Africa gaining Cameroon, Togoland and East and Southwest Africa for Germany.
These acts enabled Germany to become the most productive Country in the world.
In the German Reich’s, 47 years of existence under Bismarck’s reign , it was as an industrial, technological, and scientific behemoth, it won more Nobel Prizes in science than Britain, France, Russia, and the United States combined. The country was lined with rail road tracks, it had the best Army in the World and second largest Navy. It also was the leading European steel maker.
Bismarck died 30 July 1898. At his own request he was given a humble burial however he lives in history as one of the World’s greatest statesman and one of Germany’s best administers.
He started the reunification policy in 1864 when he authorized the Prussian Army to attack and consequently defeat Denmark to gain back the German speaking province of Schleswig-Holstein. His second step was to gain French border provinces of Alsace and Lorraine. He accomplished this by editing a letter containing peaceful relation language to the French by King William. Bismarck instead made it sound insulting. It was insulting enough for the French to declare war on Prussia. A swift Prussian victory not only gained Alsace and Lorraine it also set off a sense of pride by the other independent German states which consisted of 4 kingdoms, 6 grand duchies, 6 duchies, 7 principalities, 3 free hanseatic cities, and 1 imperial territory. This fact along with fear of Prussia helped the other German states combine with Prussia. This accomplishment Germany knows as its 2cnd Reich.
Bismarck was a very intelligent and complicated man. He did not like capitalism. He also disliked Catholics and Jews. He considered anyone who opposed him as an enemy that needed to be destroyed. On the other hand, he was said to be charming and engaging with individuals who visited him at home. He was known as “The Iron Chancellor” yet he spent weeks at a time being sick. The pressure of his job wreaked havoc on his body. In one episode, Bismarck was sick in bed. His wife found a great doctor who did nothing more than visit Bismarck and hold his hand until he fell asleep. The doctor was also there when Bismarck woke up. Bismarck miraculously recovered. The author believes that Bismarck lacked the feeling of being loved and that contributed to making him sick.
Bismarck also instituted National Health Insurance, old age pensions and accident insurance. He in addition authored Europe’s colonial dissection of Africa gaining Cameroon, Togoland and East and Southwest Africa for Germany.
These acts enabled Germany to become the most productive Country in the world.
In the German Reich’s, 47 years of existence under Bismarck’s reign , it was as an industrial, technological, and scientific behemoth, it won more Nobel Prizes in science than Britain, France, Russia, and the United States combined. The country was lined with rail road tracks, it had the best Army in the World and second largest Navy. It also was the leading European steel maker.
Bismarck died 30 July 1898. At his own request he was given a humble burial however he lives in history as one of the World’s greatest statesman and one of Germany’s best administers.
July 22, 2011
This was a detailed treatment of The Mad Junker with lots of primary sources. It was a tough, tough read, though; very dense at times, and demanding that I recall my previous coursework in 19th century German history more than I thought it would. Those were OK. I will say I had two problems:
1. Author's insertion into narrative -- The author was WAY too visible in this book. Lots of first person pronouns and asides that would have been better off in the footnotes, or left out entirely.
2. Needed a more assertive editor -- Frequently, I would have to read sentences two or three times to get at exactly what the author was trying to say. A lot of these, I found myself rewriting in my head to be clearer. I'm not a good or great writer, but technically speaking, a lot of the prose could have been cleaned up.
Otherwise, a worthwhile treatment of Bismarck, if a bit more negative than I would have expected. I especially liked his conclusion.
Addendum on the Kindle edition: I'm not sure if this is a common feature of all books on the Kindle, but the blockquotes of other passages were really hard to pick out visually. The Kindle should indent them on the left, like actual printed books do; it was hard to tell, at times, when Steinberg's analysis ended and when some 19th century figure's analysis began.
1. Author's insertion into narrative -- The author was WAY too visible in this book. Lots of first person pronouns and asides that would have been better off in the footnotes, or left out entirely.
2. Needed a more assertive editor -- Frequently, I would have to read sentences two or three times to get at exactly what the author was trying to say. A lot of these, I found myself rewriting in my head to be clearer. I'm not a good or great writer, but technically speaking, a lot of the prose could have been cleaned up.
Otherwise, a worthwhile treatment of Bismarck, if a bit more negative than I would have expected. I especially liked his conclusion.
Addendum on the Kindle edition: I'm not sure if this is a common feature of all books on the Kindle, but the blockquotes of other passages were really hard to pick out visually. The Kindle should indent them on the left, like actual printed books do; it was hard to tell, at times, when Steinberg's analysis ended and when some 19th century figure's analysis began.
February 26, 2025
Otto Von Bismarck (1815-1898) was an appalling human being: arrogant, anti-Semitic, misogynistic, vengeful, dishonest, given to temper tantrums, and a hypochondriac to boot. Yet, this giant of a man - in every sense - was 19th century Europe's most effective politician and diplomat and was a major force in the formation of the German state. Bismarck was the leading geo-stratagist of the German wars of unification, that saw the rise of Prussia to dominate the German Reich. He also oversaw the division of Africa into mostly European-owned colonies at the Berlin Conference of 1884, and his diplomatic artistry managed to square the circle of the new Germany's strategic dilemma: having enemies on both their Eastern and Western borders. Such thundering contradictions and a firm grip of the historical context are grist for Professor Steinberg's thorough mill in this excellent and comprehensive biography. Since it is literally impossible to understand modern European history without an, at least nodding familiarity with the "Iron Chancellor's" works and deeds, this book is highly recommended for those who wish to try. Well-written and even gripping, this is biography at it's best.
August 3, 2021
I’m not overly fond of JS biography of Bismarck and I’ll list here my reasons:
1 Poor presentation – This seems minor, but it is annoying. JS frequently recounts discussions in the form: “.. and then the Count said X with the Prince responding Y”. What is wrong with this you say? The problem is, there are 15 people in the room, and 10 of them have the titles Count or Prince. Worse still, many of the participants have multiple titles. Needlessly confusing.
2 OK. It’s a biography, so you expect personal details. That is fine and we get a lot of them. Over and over, JS rants about Bismarck’s personal defects and, I agree, he was a real stinker. That is good to know. But in the meantime, Germany is transforming itself from a motley mess of states varying in size by two orders of magnitude to the leading technological, industrial, and educational power in Europe. How did that happen? If you are going to report on the life of someone, especially a political actor, you need to provide the context. That is missing here.
3 Despite the considerable effort going into displaying Bismarck, the man, at the end of 500* pages I still can’t bring him into focus. Was he the creative force, without which Germany might never have been unified? Was he a crass manipulator? A chronic hypochondriac? A spoilt, raging child seeking momma’s love? A Hochstapler (impostor)? An irascible old coot? His dealings with colleagues remind me of no one more than Stalin but, as JS is fond of using chess analogies, perhaps Bismarck was an early version of Bobby Fisher, whose career followed much the same arc.
I think my mistake may have been to choose a book written by an American professor, getting a picture “from the outside”. To see Bismarck as his contemporaries and followers saw him, I would have done to rely on German scholarship.
1 Poor presentation – This seems minor, but it is annoying. JS frequently recounts discussions in the form: “.. and then the Count said X with the Prince responding Y”. What is wrong with this you say? The problem is, there are 15 people in the room, and 10 of them have the titles Count or Prince. Worse still, many of the participants have multiple titles. Needlessly confusing.
2 OK. It’s a biography, so you expect personal details. That is fine and we get a lot of them. Over and over, JS rants about Bismarck’s personal defects and, I agree, he was a real stinker. That is good to know. But in the meantime, Germany is transforming itself from a motley mess of states varying in size by two orders of magnitude to the leading technological, industrial, and educational power in Europe. How did that happen? If you are going to report on the life of someone, especially a political actor, you need to provide the context. That is missing here.
3 Despite the considerable effort going into displaying Bismarck, the man, at the end of 500* pages I still can’t bring him into focus. Was he the creative force, without which Germany might never have been unified? Was he a crass manipulator? A chronic hypochondriac? A spoilt, raging child seeking momma’s love? A Hochstapler (impostor)? An irascible old coot? His dealings with colleagues remind me of no one more than Stalin but, as JS is fond of using chess analogies, perhaps Bismarck was an early version of Bobby Fisher, whose career followed much the same arc.
I think my mistake may have been to choose a book written by an American professor, getting a picture “from the outside”. To see Bismarck as his contemporaries and followers saw him, I would have done to rely on German scholarship.
April 15, 2016
Not a terribly perceptive nor compelling read...but adequate. Useful for the novice Germanophile but nothing that hasn't been covered elsewhere and in some cases much better. Still, a mildly interesting read.
If you've access to nothing else on Bismarck this is worth a go.
If you've access to nothing else on Bismarck this is worth a go.
December 28, 2015
What a complex character Bismarck was. Kudos to the author of this book as the subject material must have been very challenging to write. I loved it.
February 22, 2012
An impressive and shocking portrait of a political genius and a damaged individual. Steinberg manages to depict the grand course of German history over the entirety of the nineteenth century through that era's most dominant personality, Otto von Bismarck.
On the whole, Steinberg aims at a psychological investigation, one achieved through heavy use of Bismarck's own writings and the writings of others who came in contact with him, both often supplied in large block quotes, sometimes three or four to a page. Though this often breaks the flow of the narrative and leads to excessive sourcing discussions, as well as some tedious minutiae (Bismarck's innumerable illnesses occupy a large portion of the book), the end result is unparalleled.
Like FDR or Lincoln, Bismarck inspired continual fascination in all who came in contact with him. His subtle intelligence coupled with his hair-trigger temper and his surprisingly diplomatic habits lead many to wonder what made him tick. For instance, one friend described his eyes as "mistrustful/friendly, lurking/bright, cold/flashing, determined not to reveal what goes on behind them unless he intends it." There are innumerable other, almost mystical descriptions from his companions and competitors. Steinberg shows, though, that much of what went on behind Bismarck's was an unquenchable rage, at everyone and everything, one that infected those around him. His soft-spoken Christian wife Johanna eventually learned to keep a card catalog of his enemies, in order to refuse social invitations and create fresh snubs. His son turned into a cynical and embittered adult when in a rage Bismarck refused to let him marry the daughter of a political "enemy" (they were everywhere) who had already divorced a leading aristocrat to be with him. In this rage, as was typical, Bismarck threatened his son with his potential suicide, complete abandonment, and even his own death from a stroke. He used similar tactics, of petulant hypochondria, rage, and neediness, with everyone from his own ministers to King William I. In some ways his constant illnesses and fits, resulting in countless resignation letters, were the source of his power, forcing others to accommodate to his wants. But it was never an act. Many, many times visitors questioned whether he was on the border of insanity. In the end, though, Steinberg makes a convincing case that he desperately needed approval, especially from King William I, as much as William and others needed him to lead the country to greatness.
An odd bunch of traits then for the man known as the "Iron Chancellor." His accomplishments belied his faults, however. After being appointed Minister-President in 1862, it took him just eight years to turn Prussia from one state among many to the head of the most powerful country in Europe, and William from a mere King to a "German Emperor." This without any parliamentary majority or any strong personal faction to support him. From 1862 until 1890, when a new King came to power and forced Bismarck out, he had to govern by constant and shifting allegiances, with multiple persons and parties, all of whom became enthralled by his perception and power.
I can't do justice to the work here, but I have to say this is one of the best political biographies ever and one of the best illustrations of Germany in the nineteenth century. Without berating the subject, it shows how Bismarck's singular personality prepared the nation for the rule of another unstable despot.
On the whole, Steinberg aims at a psychological investigation, one achieved through heavy use of Bismarck's own writings and the writings of others who came in contact with him, both often supplied in large block quotes, sometimes three or four to a page. Though this often breaks the flow of the narrative and leads to excessive sourcing discussions, as well as some tedious minutiae (Bismarck's innumerable illnesses occupy a large portion of the book), the end result is unparalleled.
Like FDR or Lincoln, Bismarck inspired continual fascination in all who came in contact with him. His subtle intelligence coupled with his hair-trigger temper and his surprisingly diplomatic habits lead many to wonder what made him tick. For instance, one friend described his eyes as "mistrustful/friendly, lurking/bright, cold/flashing, determined not to reveal what goes on behind them unless he intends it." There are innumerable other, almost mystical descriptions from his companions and competitors. Steinberg shows, though, that much of what went on behind Bismarck's was an unquenchable rage, at everyone and everything, one that infected those around him. His soft-spoken Christian wife Johanna eventually learned to keep a card catalog of his enemies, in order to refuse social invitations and create fresh snubs. His son turned into a cynical and embittered adult when in a rage Bismarck refused to let him marry the daughter of a political "enemy" (they were everywhere) who had already divorced a leading aristocrat to be with him. In this rage, as was typical, Bismarck threatened his son with his potential suicide, complete abandonment, and even his own death from a stroke. He used similar tactics, of petulant hypochondria, rage, and neediness, with everyone from his own ministers to King William I. In some ways his constant illnesses and fits, resulting in countless resignation letters, were the source of his power, forcing others to accommodate to his wants. But it was never an act. Many, many times visitors questioned whether he was on the border of insanity. In the end, though, Steinberg makes a convincing case that he desperately needed approval, especially from King William I, as much as William and others needed him to lead the country to greatness.
An odd bunch of traits then for the man known as the "Iron Chancellor." His accomplishments belied his faults, however. After being appointed Minister-President in 1862, it took him just eight years to turn Prussia from one state among many to the head of the most powerful country in Europe, and William from a mere King to a "German Emperor." This without any parliamentary majority or any strong personal faction to support him. From 1862 until 1890, when a new King came to power and forced Bismarck out, he had to govern by constant and shifting allegiances, with multiple persons and parties, all of whom became enthralled by his perception and power.
I can't do justice to the work here, but I have to say this is one of the best political biographies ever and one of the best illustrations of Germany in the nineteenth century. Without berating the subject, it shows how Bismarck's singular personality prepared the nation for the rule of another unstable despot.
March 5, 2018
No person was more responsible for the creation of Germany in 1871 than Otto von Bismarck. First as minister-president of Prussia, then as chancellor of the German Empire he shaped and guided the creation and development of the country for over a quarter of a century. Yet as Jonathan Steinberg points out in the introduction to his biography of the man, he was a ruler without any sort of sovereignty or popular support, a fact that in our more democratic age makes his achievements all the more remarkable. How Bismarck came to occupy this role and stamp he placed on Germany is detailed in this perceptive book, which provides an understanding of his achievements within the context of his life and times.
Little about Bismarck's early years indicated the outsize role he would play in history. Born to a Prussian landowning family, he benefited from the opportunities open to him as a member of the Junker class. Drawn to politics in his early thirties, he soon made a name for himself as a staunch supporter of the Prussian king, Frederick William IV and in 1851 was named the Prussian representative to the Diet of the German Confederation. It was here that he developed his famous pragmatism as a politician, as well as fostering an image of recklessness he felt would serve him well in his political dealings. Yet he desired to be at the heart of power, and he succeeded in winning appointment as Prussia' minister-president in 1862 thanks to the active support of Albrecht von Roon and other members of a conservative camarilla.
Once in power Bismarck began a remarkable transformation of European politics. The key to his power, as Steinberg notes, lay not with party support or military backing but from his ability to dominate Frederick William's brother and successor, William I. With the king's backing, Bismarck was able to remake the map of Europe, forging the nation of Germany from the disparate states that survived the Napoleonic era. Yet the governing system he constructed was one designed to maximize his authority as chancellor, thwarting the demands of liberal politicians for a greater voice for parliamentary democracy. This system proved to be a double-edged sword, however, as Bismarck found out when William's grandson William II took the throne. Lacking the hold that he had on the new emperor's grandfather, Bismarck's resignation was finally accepted in 1890, leaving the governing power of the advanced industrial state in the hands of a mercurial young monarch and his independent and assertive military.
Steinberg's book is an excellent account of Bismarck's life and times. He offers a fascinating portrait of a dramatic politician who dominated the politics of his nation as few have before or since. By setting Bismarck's life into the context of its times, he demonstrates well the impact Bismarck's policies had — for better and for worse — on the development of Germany as a nation. Unfortunately this does come at a cost, as Bismarck's private life is generally given short shrift outside of its impact upon his temperament, but such a sacrifice is understandable given the challenge of summarizing such a long career within the confines of a single volume. Steinberg succeeds in providing readers with what is likely to be the best single-volume biography of the "Iron Chancellor" for decades to come, one that should be read by anyone seeking to understand this fascinating and important figure.
Little about Bismarck's early years indicated the outsize role he would play in history. Born to a Prussian landowning family, he benefited from the opportunities open to him as a member of the Junker class. Drawn to politics in his early thirties, he soon made a name for himself as a staunch supporter of the Prussian king, Frederick William IV and in 1851 was named the Prussian representative to the Diet of the German Confederation. It was here that he developed his famous pragmatism as a politician, as well as fostering an image of recklessness he felt would serve him well in his political dealings. Yet he desired to be at the heart of power, and he succeeded in winning appointment as Prussia' minister-president in 1862 thanks to the active support of Albrecht von Roon and other members of a conservative camarilla.
Once in power Bismarck began a remarkable transformation of European politics. The key to his power, as Steinberg notes, lay not with party support or military backing but from his ability to dominate Frederick William's brother and successor, William I. With the king's backing, Bismarck was able to remake the map of Europe, forging the nation of Germany from the disparate states that survived the Napoleonic era. Yet the governing system he constructed was one designed to maximize his authority as chancellor, thwarting the demands of liberal politicians for a greater voice for parliamentary democracy. This system proved to be a double-edged sword, however, as Bismarck found out when William's grandson William II took the throne. Lacking the hold that he had on the new emperor's grandfather, Bismarck's resignation was finally accepted in 1890, leaving the governing power of the advanced industrial state in the hands of a mercurial young monarch and his independent and assertive military.
Steinberg's book is an excellent account of Bismarck's life and times. He offers a fascinating portrait of a dramatic politician who dominated the politics of his nation as few have before or since. By setting Bismarck's life into the context of its times, he demonstrates well the impact Bismarck's policies had — for better and for worse — on the development of Germany as a nation. Unfortunately this does come at a cost, as Bismarck's private life is generally given short shrift outside of its impact upon his temperament, but such a sacrifice is understandable given the challenge of summarizing such a long career within the confines of a single volume. Steinberg succeeds in providing readers with what is likely to be the best single-volume biography of the "Iron Chancellor" for decades to come, one that should be read by anyone seeking to understand this fascinating and important figure.
March 8, 2013
I was very disappointed in this book.
Biographies generally need two additives, a good subject and a good narrative. Otto von Bismarck is a fantastic subject and led an extremely interesting life - he was essentially the Hitler of the 1800s.
I found the problem here though was the writer has taken an interesting subject and added dull narrative. I found it extremely difficult to 'get into' this book and it just seemed to ramble on and on. I found it resembled a textbook more than a non-fiction book designed for pleasurable reading.
If you are interested in Bismarck's correspondence and motivations there's plenty of copies reproduced in this book and some analysis of circumstances but overall it makes the life of an extremely interesting man during an extremely interesting period of time utterly boring.
Biographies generally need two additives, a good subject and a good narrative. Otto von Bismarck is a fantastic subject and led an extremely interesting life - he was essentially the Hitler of the 1800s.
I found the problem here though was the writer has taken an interesting subject and added dull narrative. I found it extremely difficult to 'get into' this book and it just seemed to ramble on and on. I found it resembled a textbook more than a non-fiction book designed for pleasurable reading.
If you are interested in Bismarck's correspondence and motivations there's plenty of copies reproduced in this book and some analysis of circumstances but overall it makes the life of an extremely interesting man during an extremely interesting period of time utterly boring.
not-gonna-read
April 6, 2015(Well-reviewed in the New York Times by Henry Kissinger: Otto von Bismarck, Master Statesman.)
Abandoned. I'd still like to read on this topic, but this was the wrong biography to start with. Steinberg set out to illuminate the inner Bismarck, and I've still got to catch up on the politics of the era, not the personal demons and neuroses of its key player.
Abandoned. I'd still like to read on this topic, but this was the wrong biography to start with. Steinberg set out to illuminate the inner Bismarck, and I've still got to catch up on the politics of the era, not the personal demons and neuroses of its key player.
March 20, 2015
This had such potential, but unfortunately the author's style turn what ought to be a fascinating read into a deadly dull and confusing slog. The introduction is wonderful, but things go downhill rather fast.
First, and this is admittedly a pet peeve of mine, the author proceeds in only vaguely chronological fashion, with frequent tangents to relate backstory of important figures in Bismarck's life or remind readers what is to come. Then there is the psychoanalysis which crops up again and again- the author contends that Bismarck's subsequent relationships both personal and political all relate back to his parents. Given how thin the author's evidence is for his assertions, one could just as easily choose a Jane Austen interpretation of Bismarck's behavior toward his wife - that like Mr. Bennet, having married imprudently, he made the best of his situation by finding amusement where he could. Or one might ascribe the motivation of wishing to protect his wife's feelings by hiding how apparently ill-suited he was for the domestic life she preferred. But in any case, if one is going to make sweeping Freudian statements, one ought to base it on something more substantial than a letter or two and one's own fanciful speculation. There is interpretation, and then there is reading into something what you yourself wish to see.
Finally, there was the problem of how confusing the narrative became. Despite having established early on that many Junkers were related to each other and that more than one prominent man in the same family was far from unusual, the author has a deplorable tendency to use last names only - hardly fair when for example several pages have been spent describing one von Manteuffel and then abruptly introducing his cousin, before proceeding to refer to 'Manteuffel' without the slightest hint which one is meant. All but a reader highly conversant with the subject could be forgiven their confusion.
I am not ashamed to say I quit early. I give the book two stars, because clearly a lot of effort went into it- I reserve one star for the absolute awful- but I can't say I will look for any further works by this author.
First, and this is admittedly a pet peeve of mine, the author proceeds in only vaguely chronological fashion, with frequent tangents to relate backstory of important figures in Bismarck's life or remind readers what is to come. Then there is the psychoanalysis which crops up again and again- the author contends that Bismarck's subsequent relationships both personal and political all relate back to his parents. Given how thin the author's evidence is for his assertions, one could just as easily choose a Jane Austen interpretation of Bismarck's behavior toward his wife - that like Mr. Bennet, having married imprudently, he made the best of his situation by finding amusement where he could. Or one might ascribe the motivation of wishing to protect his wife's feelings by hiding how apparently ill-suited he was for the domestic life she preferred. But in any case, if one is going to make sweeping Freudian statements, one ought to base it on something more substantial than a letter or two and one's own fanciful speculation. There is interpretation, and then there is reading into something what you yourself wish to see.
Finally, there was the problem of how confusing the narrative became. Despite having established early on that many Junkers were related to each other and that more than one prominent man in the same family was far from unusual, the author has a deplorable tendency to use last names only - hardly fair when for example several pages have been spent describing one von Manteuffel and then abruptly introducing his cousin, before proceeding to refer to 'Manteuffel' without the slightest hint which one is meant. All but a reader highly conversant with the subject could be forgiven their confusion.
I am not ashamed to say I quit early. I give the book two stars, because clearly a lot of effort went into it- I reserve one star for the absolute awful- but I can't say I will look for any further works by this author.
January 22, 2012
This book suffers for its lack of context. Anybody who picks up a book like this will surely have some knowledge of European history, but to be appropriate for a broad audience, this book would have had to better explain the major events of 19th century German history that Bismarck was involved in. Steinberg glosses over events like the Crimean War, assuming his readers know all the details. I spent much of my time with this book referencing other works in order to provide the necessary information to make Steinberg's narrative accessible.
That being said, there are few figures more important to European history than Otto Von Bismarck. His story is central to not only the 19th century but the conflicts of the 20th as well. Steinberg does a great job revealing this man's character and motivations. Had I a degree in European history, I imagine I'd have given this a higher rating.
That being said, there are few figures more important to European history than Otto Von Bismarck. His story is central to not only the 19th century but the conflicts of the 20th as well. Steinberg does a great job revealing this man's character and motivations. Had I a degree in European history, I imagine I'd have given this a higher rating.
October 15, 2023
This is a very good and reasonable biography of Bismark but I expected more than the merely adequate from all the praise heaped upon this book. It just isn't that interesting or ground breaking or anything. From the publicity I was expecting something ground breaking and illuminating new aspects of Bismark's life in the way Fritz Stern's 'Gold and Iron: Bismarck, Bleichröder, and the Building of the German Empire' did. This biography is not bad it is just not great. There are plenty of other biographies and histories of Bismark and of the creation of a united Germany that are better reads.
January 22, 2023
It must be a strange experience, writing a biography of someone you dislike. Every day you must again confront facts, events and a personality that are distasteful to you, and in this case it must have taken a very long time, for while this is book is almost five hundred pages, every page is filled with small print quotations, which if normal-sized would probably make it half again as long.
I suppose the main intention was reportorial. Bismarck has been mythologized greatly and this historian of the period wanted to hack at that a bit, to show the details of the other side. So we get this portrait of the Bismarck with no principle save power, who was had few friends because he was nasty to most people, and who competed with, dominated and bullied everyone. There are even some odd side attacks, such as on gluttony. But this book is Bismarckian in the sense that the author makes little attempt to understand either. That part of Bismarck's character stemmed from the way his mother raised him deserves our sympathy. That the new Germany became an abosolutist state because in those conditions there was little other choice. No, the book wants to tell you that here was a bad guy and that's the end of the story.
All great leaders have flaws. We should not be surprised that Bismarck had them as well. A lack of empathy for others is not exactly a pretty one, but it's not the only one. In the ways of ruling that Machiavelli was only able to recommend, Bismarck actually engineered. The prospect of uniting Germany had been in the air for centuries, but during all that time no one had the size of ambition, audacity and finesse to actually accomplish it, until Bismarck. In addition, and the book omits considering this, during Bismarck's thirty-plus year reign, Germany went from a minor power (Prussia) to an economic and industrial powerhouse that dominated Europe. That the nation was governed in a secure and stable way must certainly have enabled and contributed to this. There were a lot of accomplishments along the way as well, such as universal suffrage, a working parliament, secularizing the state, some early forms of social security, considerable prosperity, and so on. The book claims Bismarck was a virtual dictator, but at the same time tries to deny him credit for any of it. Difficult to reconcile.
What makes the book okay is that it goes into sufficient detail that a critical reader can gain enough information to reach their own conclusions. On the other hand, I have some concern about what in this idiosyncratic retelling may have been omitted. Probably reading at least one other source would be a good check on this.
Three smaller points:
Bismarck, even while being a bad guy, would cheerfully admit when he had done wrong and what he had done, in private. In public he would deny all blame. He was also willing to talk to anyone and of any social class, though he preferred intelligent people, even his enemies.
His real genius was in diplomacy. Reading situations, finding opportunities and somehow keeping in his head all the possible paths every other side could take and having a plan for each of them - that's what made him a world class politician. This is what got him control, but on the domestic side he was much less happy and capable. By the way, it's odd that the author never repeats Bismarck's famous and very wise quote that in a world dominated by five great powers, it's better to be in the group of three than the group of two.
This book has many idiosyncratic asides that can get pretty far afield. I never expected to find mention of a cell phone in such a book, for example, or of comparisons to the US House of Representatives.
Notes while reading:
The idea some have that he was charismatic is greatly in error. In fact, until his retirement he never spoke to crowds. For his continuance as Chancellor for 29 years, he depended on only one person: the Kaiser.
His "blood and iron" speech was a fiasco, denounced by all the royals and most educated people, but he was kept on because the Kaiser valued him.
He manipulated the Kaiser via temper tantrums, hysteria, tears and threats.
He sprang the idea of popular suffrage in 1863 in order to prevent the Kaiser from attending a congress of princes called by Austria, and it worked. Later on he would regret it when a sullen working class emerged.
He never led a party in the sense of the British parliament.
Much of his time and energy went into the nuts-and-bolts of administration. He was better at foreign affairs than domestic policy.
He once dictated a letter to the Kaiser for two and a half hours straight, taking up 32 pages.
He wore a military uniform every day, but in fact had only served as a reservist for a short time, and that unwillingly, having unsuccessfully avoided conscription. Thus he was resented by most military men and they felt that they, not he, had unified Germany.
Commanded those around him by sheer force of personality.
His writing has charm, flexibility, seductiveness.
A hypochondriac who had the constitution of an ox. Always complained of having no appetite, but would take second helpings of every dish at dinner.
If Kaiser Frederick had lived, he would have appointed all liberal ministers to make it like the British parliament, that he knew from his wife Vicky, daughter of Queen Victoria. Bismarck would have exited the government at that point.
I suppose the main intention was reportorial. Bismarck has been mythologized greatly and this historian of the period wanted to hack at that a bit, to show the details of the other side. So we get this portrait of the Bismarck with no principle save power, who was had few friends because he was nasty to most people, and who competed with, dominated and bullied everyone. There are even some odd side attacks, such as on gluttony. But this book is Bismarckian in the sense that the author makes little attempt to understand either. That part of Bismarck's character stemmed from the way his mother raised him deserves our sympathy. That the new Germany became an abosolutist state because in those conditions there was little other choice. No, the book wants to tell you that here was a bad guy and that's the end of the story.
All great leaders have flaws. We should not be surprised that Bismarck had them as well. A lack of empathy for others is not exactly a pretty one, but it's not the only one. In the ways of ruling that Machiavelli was only able to recommend, Bismarck actually engineered. The prospect of uniting Germany had been in the air for centuries, but during all that time no one had the size of ambition, audacity and finesse to actually accomplish it, until Bismarck. In addition, and the book omits considering this, during Bismarck's thirty-plus year reign, Germany went from a minor power (Prussia) to an economic and industrial powerhouse that dominated Europe. That the nation was governed in a secure and stable way must certainly have enabled and contributed to this. There were a lot of accomplishments along the way as well, such as universal suffrage, a working parliament, secularizing the state, some early forms of social security, considerable prosperity, and so on. The book claims Bismarck was a virtual dictator, but at the same time tries to deny him credit for any of it. Difficult to reconcile.
What makes the book okay is that it goes into sufficient detail that a critical reader can gain enough information to reach their own conclusions. On the other hand, I have some concern about what in this idiosyncratic retelling may have been omitted. Probably reading at least one other source would be a good check on this.
Three smaller points:
Bismarck, even while being a bad guy, would cheerfully admit when he had done wrong and what he had done, in private. In public he would deny all blame. He was also willing to talk to anyone and of any social class, though he preferred intelligent people, even his enemies.
His real genius was in diplomacy. Reading situations, finding opportunities and somehow keeping in his head all the possible paths every other side could take and having a plan for each of them - that's what made him a world class politician. This is what got him control, but on the domestic side he was much less happy and capable. By the way, it's odd that the author never repeats Bismarck's famous and very wise quote that in a world dominated by five great powers, it's better to be in the group of three than the group of two.
This book has many idiosyncratic asides that can get pretty far afield. I never expected to find mention of a cell phone in such a book, for example, or of comparisons to the US House of Representatives.
Notes while reading:
The idea some have that he was charismatic is greatly in error. In fact, until his retirement he never spoke to crowds. For his continuance as Chancellor for 29 years, he depended on only one person: the Kaiser.
His "blood and iron" speech was a fiasco, denounced by all the royals and most educated people, but he was kept on because the Kaiser valued him.
He manipulated the Kaiser via temper tantrums, hysteria, tears and threats.
He sprang the idea of popular suffrage in 1863 in order to prevent the Kaiser from attending a congress of princes called by Austria, and it worked. Later on he would regret it when a sullen working class emerged.
He never led a party in the sense of the British parliament.
Much of his time and energy went into the nuts-and-bolts of administration. He was better at foreign affairs than domestic policy.
He once dictated a letter to the Kaiser for two and a half hours straight, taking up 32 pages.
He wore a military uniform every day, but in fact had only served as a reservist for a short time, and that unwillingly, having unsuccessfully avoided conscription. Thus he was resented by most military men and they felt that they, not he, had unified Germany.
Commanded those around him by sheer force of personality.
His writing has charm, flexibility, seductiveness.
A hypochondriac who had the constitution of an ox. Always complained of having no appetite, but would take second helpings of every dish at dinner.
If Kaiser Frederick had lived, he would have appointed all liberal ministers to make it like the British parliament, that he knew from his wife Vicky, daughter of Queen Victoria. Bismarck would have exited the government at that point.
October 3, 2024
A riveting paradox of a statesman who, for better or worse, helped shape 20th century Germany and all its consequences. Highly recommended for the lovers of both European history and biographies.
September 27, 2020
This is, truly, THE BOOK about Otto von Bismarck. Such a great personality deserved a great book, and Steinberg has accomplished it. It's an essay and it does work to explain economic-political-social situation in the XIX century.
Blut und Eisen.
Blut und Eisen.
April 12, 2012
This is a very detailed biography of Otto von Bismarck. Who was he? The individual who made possible the formation of the German Empire in 1871 - and by doing so completely altered the course of European and world history since then. Without Bismarck, you do not have the chain of events that led to World War I. Without World War I, you don't have World War II, etc. I am not a believer in a "Great Man" school of history, but if you had to pick someone in the past two centuries who did exercise a critical role, Bismarck would be a good candidate. The story is far too complex to hint at here but the key is that Bismarck was brilliant, well-placed, and without many scruples. This gave him a flexibility that enabled him to literally run circles around his opponents. The book covers several historical periods, all of which are interesting. Particularly noteworthy are the period of the wars of unification that led to the creation of the German Empire in 1871 and the period until his dismissal by the new Kaiser in 1890 when he worked to build the German state and craft new political institutions. The period after his fall from power is also important. Bismarck comes across as an odd but interesting character who must have been very hard to live with. This is especially clear as the book shows how he accomplished all he did while lacking a strong institutional, social, or political power base. He had the support of the King and a dominating personality. It is hard to think of a comparable individual.
The book is tightly crafted and required focus to make progress. The diplomacy and political machinations are at times very complex and one ends up double checking a lot. The book was long and slow going at times but very worth the effort.
The book is tightly crafted and required focus to make progress. The diplomacy and political machinations are at times very complex and one ends up double checking a lot. The book was long and slow going at times but very worth the effort.
April 3, 2023
I had high hopes for this book, unfortunately those hopes were squashed from start to finish. The author takes too many side trips and elaborates too much on secondary characters which causes loss of focus on the true subject of the book. He is way too liberal with his quotes from letters and diaries, including Bismarcks weight, dinner menu’s and such.
I get the feeling that the author really wanted to position himself against earlier biographies about the ‘genius statesman’ Bismarck. However he went overboard here by emphasizing at every moment Bismarcks ‘demonic’ personality traits and by dehumanizing him. It is important in biographies to show just how human the subject is and liable to good decisions, bad decisions and morally questionable or even reprehensible acts. Politics is something pursued by humans of all types and can lead to all sorts of acts. Bismarck was a human just like us and we could in theory also be capable of such strategies and acts as his. By emphasizing how demonic a character he had one takes away from this insight.
The author focuses very much on his own morals and convictions about religion and parliamentary democracy and projects them unto Bismarck and indeed all other characters mentioned in the book. His way of writing even causes some characters to become one dimensional caricatures of themselves. One example of this is emperor Wilhelm I being reduced to an almost powerless kindly old man.
In short I do not recommend this biography. By trying to debunk the myth of the genius statesman the author has veered too much into a myth of a demonic chancellor. I hoped to get a more nuanced story. I do appreciate the attempt to delve into Bismarcks psyche, he was without a doubt a very complex personality.
I get the feeling that the author really wanted to position himself against earlier biographies about the ‘genius statesman’ Bismarck. However he went overboard here by emphasizing at every moment Bismarcks ‘demonic’ personality traits and by dehumanizing him. It is important in biographies to show just how human the subject is and liable to good decisions, bad decisions and morally questionable or even reprehensible acts. Politics is something pursued by humans of all types and can lead to all sorts of acts. Bismarck was a human just like us and we could in theory also be capable of such strategies and acts as his. By emphasizing how demonic a character he had one takes away from this insight.
The author focuses very much on his own morals and convictions about religion and parliamentary democracy and projects them unto Bismarck and indeed all other characters mentioned in the book. His way of writing even causes some characters to become one dimensional caricatures of themselves. One example of this is emperor Wilhelm I being reduced to an almost powerless kindly old man.
In short I do not recommend this biography. By trying to debunk the myth of the genius statesman the author has veered too much into a myth of a demonic chancellor. I hoped to get a more nuanced story. I do appreciate the attempt to delve into Bismarcks psyche, he was without a doubt a very complex personality.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
September 13, 2014
Old geezer on old geezer. Bismarck is the defining figure of German history in the 19th century, so I came to this biography with certain expectations. It soon became obvious, however, that the author lacked the freshness or empathy to make this biography come alive, and only cares about demonstrating a central thesis. Sentences are repeated, German names are mangled, and there are odd interjections like a grumpy uncle would make, especially concerning the European Union. So what's the central thesis then? Easy: Bismarck = Hitler's John the Baptist, paving the way for national socialism, dictatorship and the Holocaust. Bismarck's anti-Semitic comments, though obviously deplorable, were not that uncommon for his age or country. When reported by the author (whose father, according to Wikipedia, was "the noted rabbi and author Milton Steinberg"), they constitute a straight line leading to the extermination camps. My main peeve, however, is the lack of understanding of Bismarck's psychology. This biography describes his life like a medieval saint's story, with wondrous twists and turns that defy explanation. It is never made quite clear why exactly Bismarck was offered the chancellorship, nor why he took the political positions that he did.
March 25, 2017
I like reading biographies and I asked my friend Hakan to purchase this book for me, so I had to read it to the end. One of the claims, from another book, is that Hitler came into power because people believed in Bismarckian type strong leaders, so I wanted learn more about him. This book heavily relies on excerpts from memoirs and letters of the people from that era. But I don't think that this serves the purpose. The author could have given us the interpretation instead. I really didn't understand why Bismarck, whether evil or not, was a genius politician. Wars between 1864-70 were they of his design? What happened afterwards? I only found him interesting because of his secular standing, something you wouldn't expect from a Junker.
October 22, 2011
If only Steinberg could write. To say his prose is turgid is an understatement. Also persists in using the first person ("I discovered" "in my opinion" "as I delved further into the matter"), which I found utterly inappropriate in a biography. Presumes familiarity with persons and events in mid 19th century Prussia that I doubt many of his readers will have. His gross shortcomings as a writer are quite unfortunate because the content in much of the book is quite strong, particularly once the narrative arrives at the late 1860's, at which point many of his readers may in fact have enough basic familiarity with the events to be able better to follow the narrative. Discussion of the "Kulturkampf" (essentially, a civil offensive against Catholics), and the role played in it by the Pope's recent declaration of the doctrine of infallibility, especially good.
All in all a slog but worth the effort if one has an interest in European history.
All in all a slog but worth the effort if one has an interest in European history.
October 6, 2011
Bismarck changed the history of Europe -- this is one of those statements written in a high school term paper that makes the teacher roll his or her eyes. So tell me something I don't know. This biography explains how his personality, intelligence, and shear force of will allowed him to do this. It is a very dense history of necessity, but poorly edited and typeset. Being the pedant I am, I found it annoying that lines ran together with no spaces. Obviously the publisher didn't want to re-run the lines. Grumble.
The author insinuates himself into the book, which I also found annoying. He has comments about what other historians think and why he doesn't agree with them. I prefer my historians in footnotes. And yes, we all know Bismarck didn't have cell phones so communication was more difficult in those days.
I prefer my non-fiction authors off stage. Having said that, this is an impressive work.
The author insinuates himself into the book, which I also found annoying. He has comments about what other historians think and why he doesn't agree with them. I prefer my historians in footnotes. And yes, we all know Bismarck didn't have cell phones so communication was more difficult in those days.
I prefer my non-fiction authors off stage. Having said that, this is an impressive work.
May 25, 2011
I didn't finish this. Steinberg's premise was a good one. How did Bismark, who was not rich or well connected or a military man or even elected to any office, end up first unifying and then ruling Germany for thirty years? And he does a fairly good of explaining this up to a point. I think the point was reached when my eyes glazed over. I thought it was very boring. The most interesting revelation was that Bismark was six four and towered over everyone. It's a revelation because in all drawings of the time he is presented as shorter than the emperor.
October 4, 2011
I could not think of a better description of the "Prussian" personality than this book. Bismarck was ruthless, single minded, prejudiced and unquestioning of his personal belief system. A true machiavellian. A sad tale. Especially when you realize that the government he devised was defunct for only 14 years when it was resurrected by the Nazi's. As Steinberg points out it did not have to be so. To our sorrow it was. I had been looking for a good biography of this important historical figure for a long time. I was very satisfied by this book.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 157 reviews