Bismarck: A Life [Hardcover]

Compared to Adolf Hitler, Otto von Bismarck has received little attention from English speaking popular historians since A.J.P. Taylor wrote a short but entertaining life (Bismarck, The Man and the Statesman (Hamish Hamilton, 1955). Yet Bismarck was, with Richelieu and Metternich, one of the greatest statesmen in the history of modern Europe and irrevocably set the parameters of European relations from 1870 until at least 1945. In an age of liberal revolutions, Bismarck, acting without party, class or personal power base unified Germany under an absolute monarch whilst presiding over a parliament elected by universal male suffrage. Counterintuitively sensing with Proudhon that 'universal suffrage is counter-revolution,' Bismarck created the servile state by being first to introduce a state system of accident, invalidity and old age insurance: he would, thereafter, have considered his work well done had he been able to put the genie of popular democracy back in the bottle by revoking the universal suffrage which he had unstoppered so as to dish the liberals. Yet for all his skill, Bismarck's legacy was a painful one. Once the monarchy which he had done so much to preserve fell into the unsafe hands of Wilhelm II, Germany was a dreadnought in risk of capsize, and the 30 years that followed 1914 can be seen as the working out at Europe's expense of the forces in German society that Bismarck had done so much to frustrate.

Whilst containing interesting information on Bismarck's character and temperament, A.J.P. Taylor's study did not seek to account for their psychological basis, nor did it seek to judge Bismarck in particularly personal or moral terms, emphasizing instead Bismarck's political and diplomatic astuteness and judiciously quoting the Reichschancellor so as to demonstrate the latter's extraordinary powers of perception and analysis. Contemporary readers of political biography are, it would seem, more interested in the psychological composition and moral stature of their leaders, and this is the area on which Jonathan Steinberg's biography concentrates. Steinberg's aim, as he says in the introductory chapter, is to present, analyse, and seek to account for `the sheer power of' Bismarck's personality' seeing in him `the greatness and misery of human individuality stretched to its limits'. The method is `to let those on whom the power was exercised... who experienced the power of Bismarck's personality close up and recorded the impact, tell the story.' This technique the book faithfully follows, and English readers will find here a vivid and stimulating selection of telling quotations, principally from German and English eye-witnesses.

The results cannot be said to be much to Bismarck's credit: Bismarck is portrayed as a demonic personality whose extraordinary gifts and personal drive were apparent from his early youth, but who stands condemned of nearly all the traditional sins - pride, vanity, anger, ingratitude, vindictiveness - even gluttony - and some newly defined ones, such as elitism, militarism, misogyny, anti-semitism, and contempt for human rights. At the heart of it, though, there seems to have been a kind of despair - after 30 years of life as a bored and frustrated country landowner, Bismarck took to politics as other men take to gambling - or to the bottle. There is the same addictive, compulsive obsession; the same love-hate relationship with its object; the same longing to be done with it all combined with an inability to let go: it is a portrait that may remind British readers of the personalities of the two leading conservative prime-ministers of the recently ended century. The contrast, if there is one, is with Disraeli, a man who Bismarck seems to have uniquely admired, and who appears to have been saved only by an incapacity to take himself seriously in any matter in which his personal vanity was not directly involved (such as his command of French). Disraeli said that Bismarck talked `like Montaigne', but Bismarck himself appears to have shared the philistinism of many of his co-professionals - his preferred reading was Dumas, he avoided the theatre and the concert-hall, and he once described Richard Wagner as `a monkey' - an underestimate surely - even of the latter's capacity for making mischief.

Bismarck's angry pessimism was, as Mr.Steinberg notes, not untypical of his class or period - his was an honour-bound, feudal and agricultural class living at a time when its social status and very existence were being threatened by the rapid industrialization of Germany. The dynamic growth of the rail network depressed agricultural prices and threatened the viability of the old estates. Meanwhile huge fortunes were being made in commerce, banking and industry - many of them by `clever' Jews. From time to time an 'arriviste' would have the effrontery to purchase the estate of an impoverished landowner of noble family, but marrying into such entrepreneurial families, even where such an alliance was sought, would have brought social stigma. And whhat started in a mixture of snobbery and envy was rapidly harnessed to class and racial prejudice. Jews of a different stamp had seemed overly represented among the liberal voices in progressive politics and journalism: those liberals had come within an ace of overthrowing the monarchy in 1848, and Bismarck's contempt and viceral hatred for the '48ers', whom he saw as little better than guttersnipes and murderers, is vigorously demonstrated in these pages. Mr.Steinberg's analysis of the basis, development and expression of anti-semitism in Imperial Germany is an important aspect of the book and helps significantly to put later developments in their proper context.
.
Mr.Steinberg is equally concerned to deconstruct the `Bismarck myth' which so rapidly replaced the almost universal loathing in which the great man was held before he left office. A `genius' Bismarck may have been but he was also `lucky'. Distrusted even by the conservatives in 1848 - when Friedrich Wilhelm IV described him as `only to be employed when the bayonet governs unrestricted' (a compliment which Bismarck returned by describing the King as `an unsteady character... if one grabbed him, one came away with a handful of slime'), the Chancellor owed his extraordinary tenure of power solely to the fact that Wilhelm I came to the throne at the the age of 60, established a relationship of trust with Bismarck that survived the most extraordinary strains, and lived to the improbable age of 90. Indeed, Wilhelm I emerges from this study as a man whose combination of duty, humility and judgment elicits high praise: Machiavelli would have recognised in him the demonstration of his contention that that the wisdom of his principal adviser may, in truth, be attributed to the wisdom of the Prince in selecting him in the first place. When Wilhelm I died, Bismarck fell - and Mr.Steinberg is surely correct in asserting that if Wilhelm had died in 1863, German and world history would have been unrecognisably different. Vital too, it would seem, was the foresight of Albrecht von Roon in giving early and consistent backing to Bismarck, even if von Roon did not always understand the directions in which Bismarck's unconventional brand of conservatism was tending. Similarly, Bismarck was given more freedom of action than he might otherwise have enjoyed by the Russian defeat in the Crimean War, the turmoil associated with the liberation of the serfs, Austria's inept handling of a natural ally, France's complacenct vanity, and England's too-lately-abandoned posture of hand-wringing righteousness.

If I have reservations about Mr Steinberg's approach, they stem partly from the inverse of what is otherwise an excellent method. We hear less from Bismarck than we do from his contemporaries, and it seems to me that in what quotations there are, Bismarck does not always live up to the promises made for him, especially when those promises speak to Bismarck's literary or comic gifts. The intense focus on the individual perhaps serves to distract attention from the statesman, with his profound understanding of the Europe in which he lived, and it is in this respect at least, that general readers may find a useful corrective in A.J.P Taylor's more lightly handled and urbane study. So, writing of Bismarck's destruction of the Liberals, which Steinberg sees as a personal triumph, Taylor notes that the decline of European liberalism was a striking phenomenon of the period. It had ended in Italy in 1876, and in Austria in 1879 - and Taylor suggests that Gladstone's resignation in 1874 was a recognition of the phenomenon - just as Gladstone's subsequent re-emergence was triggered by liberal causes of a distinctly old-fashioned stamp. `Legal and administrative Reform was exhausted', comments Taylor, social improvement would take its place.' He then quotes Bismarck to the effect that: `Political parties and groups based on high policy and political programmes are finished. The parties will be compelled to concern themselves with economic questions and to follow a policy of interests... They will melt like ice and snow. Voters with the same interests will co-operate and will prefer to be represented by people of their own instead of believing that the best orators are also the most skilful and the most loyal representatives of their interests'. It is impossible for an educated European to read this prognosis without a smile of appreciation. Similarly, it is difficult not to smile for different reasons when Mr. Steinberg compares anti-catholic sentiment in the Germany to anti-communist sentiment in the Cold War, and when he writes that `Even democratic Switzerland banned Jesuits from Swiss territory in... Read more ›

After reading the glowing NYT review by Kissinger, I knew I had to read this book. However, after carefully reading it myself, I now wonder if Kissenger actually did because, while essential to understanding the 19C and German history, this is a perfectly awful reading experience: abstruse, rambling, lacking sufficient context, and stylistically leaden. I enjoyed what I was learning, but it was a chore, rarely a pleasure.

Bismark came from Prussia's Junker aristocracy, which was notorious for its cheapness, conservatism, narrow views, and near-fanatical devotion to a semi-autocratic state. Hating industrialization and the free trade mentality of capitalism, they developed a virulent hatred of Jews, whom they regarded as the principal beneficiaries of their loss of feudal privilege. Bismark grew up when the economic position of the Junkers was in precipitous decline, though they still held a strangle hold on top bureaucratic and military positions that depended on courtier maneuverings to ingratiate themselves with the King. For a long time, he lived as a country squire, getting in duels and the machinations you would expect of courtiers. Educated and evidently brilliant, he married a woman from his class who turned out to be dull, self-absorbed, and vindictive.

Then, at about 30, he suddenly decided to go into politics. Through family connections, he secured a position as Ambassador to the 40-something German states in the loose federation that survived the Napoleonic upheavals. There, he got to know everyone of importance and knew that he had found his true vocation. When a new king, Wilhelm I, took over he was appointed to what is similar to Prime Minister. While parliamentary institutions were growing in importance, his position depended entirely on his relationship to the king, whom he manipulated for nearly 30 years to stay at the pinnacle of power, though the queen despised what he stood for and distrusted him her entire life.

In that position, Bismark was able to impose the domination of Prussia on all the German states, with the exception of Austria. This was accomplished on occasion by force, but usually by guile and threat. From a small kingdom, Prussia became one of the greatest powers in Europe, indeed it became a Reich, or EMpire, in central europe. This wiped away the balance of power system that Metternich had imposed after Napoleon's defeat, creating the conditions for WWI.

Internally, to consolidate the state and eliminate regional feudal differences and privilege, Bismark involved himself in a web of political intrigue of an intimidating complexity. He fought the aristocracy, the liberals and socialists, the industrial class and Jews, and Catholics. The nub of this is minute detail, far too much of which was included in the book. Unfortunately, the larger context was consistently neglected, so the meaning of these incidents and why they were important is rarely explained, and if it is, the author does not recapitulate it when needed. The same goes for international politics; at one point, he goes into the politics that went on during the Berlin Conference, but never mentions why the 3 Emperors were meeting and what their accord meant. Either he assumed readers would know all this, which I didn't, or it is just really bad writing. As such, it is most appropriate for graduate students in Germany history, not the general reader, and it reads like a much-labored-upon academic text.

An obscenely large portion of the book describes Bismark's long periods of illness: he was a neurotic invalid much of the time. While it needs to be mentioned, I got very tired of the endless descriptions of his intestinal problems and the like. He was also paranoid, vengeful, and full of rage and personal hatreds in which he indulged even at the expense of sate and family. He even ruined the life of his own son, who fell for a woman whose family had been designated "enemies" of Bismark, forcing him to cancel their engagement; the resulting dishonor ruined the son's career, but also precipitated the alcoholism that eventually killed him at 50. Regarding the state, once fired, he leaked information in the hopes of creating an international crisis, which would demonstrate was indispensable.

The writer's style does not help the book. I found the number and length of quotes he inserts in the text increasingly irritating. Not only did they often support minor points however much flavor they lent, but they were full of allusions and nuance that were either oblique or too subtle for me. As a result, I had to slow down to read the quotes for fear that I would miss some important point. It was frustrating and boring and eventually infuriating.

Towards the end of his career, Bismark made so many secret alliances and political arrangements that no one but him knew them all, and his failing mental powers meant that he was losing the ability to juggle them successfully. When the erratic and ambitious Wilhelm II finally fired him, it opened his Empire to mediocre intrigues and drift. If anything, Bismark was a courtier and diplomat of genius, even though his legacy was to create the conditions for WWI to occur 25 years after his fall from power. Unfortunately, the epilogue does very little to tie all of this together, so I am left feeling an obligation (as opposed to a desire) to read more elsewhere to complete the picture.

To his credit, he was also the first leader in Europe to create a social safety net. He also allowed the creation of a putative parliament, which slipped from his control when political conditions changed. But he remained the creature of autocratic control, never subject to the rule of law and utterly ruthless in his exercise of power. In the end, power was all that meant anything to him.

I give this 3 stars because of its academic competence, but do not recommend it as a reading experience. This is not the kind of biography that transports the reader to a different time and place, but an academic exercise that must be studied rather than read for pleasure.

This is an intriguing study of a leader - part "charismatic" charmer, part ruthless monster. Bismarck is brought to life through hundreds of quotations from a wide variety of politicians and socialites who knew him. Their names alone make fascinating reading: Johann Bernard Graf von Reckburg und Rothenlöwen, for instance. Bismarck's own memoirs are quite revealing. In his youth he wrote in a witty and self-deprecating style - his account of a train journey with young children and a wife too embarrassed to breastfeed her howling baby could have been written yesterday.

Bismarck achieved the unification of the German States, and broke free from the dominance of the old Austrian Empire. He introduced a state-funded social security system a quarter of a century before Lloyd George managed it in Britain. Personally brave, yet aggressive and a bully, he was prepared to destroy those who challenged him, even old friends. An arch-manipulator who conducted domestic and foreign policy - realpolitik- like a chess or poker game which he had to win, he seemed to have a low boredom threshold and could not help experimenting with ideas - often quite visionary- to pass the time.

A man of contradictions, he persecuted the catholics when it suited him politically, and was often crudely anti-semitic - but he employed a Jewish banker to manage his investments, and remembered with nostalgia his late-night political discussions with the Jewish socialist Lasselle.

Despite his apparently despotic power and undeniable influence, he remained totally dependent on the support of the Prussian King whom he made into an Emperor, with whom he maintained a complex emotional relationship spanning several decades. When William 1 thwarted him, Bismarck often threatened to resign, relying on the knowledge that the Emperor needed him: the strain triggered frequent bouts of debilitating - probably largely psychosomatic - illness, aggravated by monumental gluttony. Eventually, the young "Kaiser Bill" sacked him. Would Bismarck have become a Stalin if not constrained by the role of servant to a succession of royal masters?

Branded from youth "the mad Junker", he lost his sense of proportion under the weight of work he assumed, a classic example of the costs of an inability to delegate, and with age he became ever more vindictive and in need of anger management training.

Although I would give this five stars for - slightly repetitive- analysis of a complex personality, a few points frustrated me. The index is largely based on the names of the key characters, so it is impossible to look up quickly a specific event or topic of which you may need to remind yourself. Even the list of names seems incomplete. I could not find Lasselle in the index, although he has a short but important section in the text. Another anomaly is that William 1, who ruled for decades, gets a much shorter list of entries than his son, Frederick III who only actually ruled for a few months in 1888. Some minor characters are described in such detail that they distract you from the overall chain of events being covered. I found the details of some of the diplomatic activities and important pieces of domestic legislation similarly hard to grasp, and wondered how thoroughly some of this has been edited.

However, for the overall portrayal of Bismarck's character and an explanation of the "unintended consequences" which led to the First World War and the rise of Hitler, I recommend this book, perhaps supported by a more basic history of the period, such as Modern Europe, 1789-1989 (Koenigsberger and Briggs History of Europe) by Asa Briggs and Patricia Clavin, 1996.