I have honestly no idea how Bismarck ended up with a sometimes that bad reputation. It was Bismarck's system Alliances that kept peace in Europe for a tremendously long time, it also prevented, through complex, overlapping defensive agreements between all major European powers a war like WW1. Under Bismarck's system, basically any party starting such a war would be isolated without allies. Wilhelm II changed that, first kicking Bismarck out and then by re-negotiating those alliances in a way that created the blocks that would turn into the Central Powers and the Entente during WW1, the Axis and Allies, in Europe at least, largely formed along these lines as well.
Bismarck kind of saw that coming, to me it seems he did what he could to prevent it. That Bismarck was also a true Prussian conservative, and that wars still broke out during his time doesn't prove any of the above wrong.
I was really just making a comment about the disparity between Bismark and Hitler. Bismark was a giant, in every sense of the word, while Hitler was sort of average.
> a true Prussian conservative
That's the issue. Bismark wasn't a true conservative. Conservatives of his time and place were anti-nationalist. Bismark merged nationalism, authoritarianism, and cultural chauvinism to produce a kind of new form of conservatism, that later turned out to be spectacularly dangerous. I don't particularly have anything against Bismark himself (he seems pragmatic and capable) but his legacy was extremely unfortunate.
Well, he retired in 1890 and died in 1898. He did push for the formation of the German Reich, that's true. It was the first German nation state, one that was truly formed as more than a alliance of various fiefdoms and kingdoms after WW1 with the Weimar Republic. In a way, it turned to shit when Wilhelm II took over and pushed Bismarck out. And was less Bismarck that created the feeling of a German Nation, he more rode on a wave of nationalism. Nationalism, by the way, was pretty new back then. It was also way less negative then it modern nationalism is today.
> Nationalism, by the way, was pretty new back then. It was also way less negative then it modern nationalism is today.
That's what I'm saying. Bismark was (the? a? the most successful?) creator of modern-day nationalism. He proved that you could use nationalism to enhance state power, by transforming it from a movement of oppressed peoples for self-determination, to an homogenizing ideology.
Same word, different meaning. nationalism back then meant that people started to build a common understand of nation states, as opposed to kingdoms and the like before. In Germany that meant the first step in a long journey to actual democracy. Back then France and Great Britain were unified nations already, Germany wasn't. I'd say back then nationalism was an actually good thing, it also provided the theoretical basis, e.g., for the creation of independent Poland after WW1 among other things. That almost 40 years after Bismarck died dick heads like the Nazis and other reactionists turned that concept into something really dangerous can hardly be blamed on Bismarck.
Bismarck kind of saw that coming, to me it seems he did what he could to prevent it. That Bismarck was also a true Prussian conservative, and that wars still broke out during his time doesn't prove any of the above wrong.