http://blog.oup.com/2011/05/bismarck/ Academic insights for the thinking world. Wed, 22 May 2013 15:58:47 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2 http://blog.oup.com/2011/05/bismarck/#comment-222750 Russel H. Olson Tue, 07 Jun 2011 19:31:54 +0000 http://blog.oup.com/?p=16349#comment-222750 I believe that Dr. Steinberg's conclusions about Bismarck's impact upon the 20th century--that he bequeathed an antiquated system of governance via the Hohenzollern monarchy to the latter 19th and early 20th century world--is essentially correct. The great tragedy therein is that Friedrich IV, who was only German Emperor and King of Prussia for about three months before his death, did not live to change (with help that would have come from his English wife Victoria) that which Bismarck had created. Friedrich wanted a united, liberal Germany, and very well might have been able to achieve this. Friedrich's son, Wilhelm II, was in no way up to the task. Had Friedrich lived, the history of the 20th century might well have been different; with a liberal Germany in the center of Europe, rather than the overbearing monarchy described by Dr. Steinberg, it is quite possible that all of the blessings Bismarck brought to a united Germany, might have been further expanded under the rule of an enlightened King (Friedrich). Germany, rather than becoming the bane of the 20th century Europe, might well have been its social, industrial, and political powerhouse--but as the servant of the forces of positive change, rather than a breeding ground for evil. I believe that Dr. Steinberg’s conclusions about Bismarck’s impact upon the 20th century–that he bequeathed an antiquated system of governance via the Hohenzollern monarchy to the latter 19th and early 20th century world–is essentially correct. The great tragedy therein is that Friedrich IV, who was only German Emperor and King of Prussia for about three months before his death, did not live to change (with help that would have come from his English wife Victoria) that which Bismarck had created. Friedrich wanted a united, liberal Germany, and very well might have been able to achieve this. Friedrich’s son, Wilhelm II, was in no way up to the task. Had Friedrich lived, the history of the 20th century might well have been different; with a liberal Germany in the center of Europe, rather than the overbearing monarchy described by Dr. Steinberg, it is quite possible that all of the blessings Bismarck brought to a united Germany, might have been further expanded under the rule of an enlightened King (Friedrich). Germany, rather than becoming the bane of the 20th century Europe, might well have been its social, industrial, and political powerhouse–but as the servant of the forces of positive change, rather than a breeding ground for evil.

]]>