We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
High quality history on the BBC On Tuesday August 22nd BBC Radio Four’s ‘PM’ programme had a piece on what would have happened if Otto Von Bismark had drowned (which he almost did) off Biarritz (a French resort that I have long wanted to visit) in 1862. The historian Nicolas Davies was interviewed and explained that Bismark was not a very important person in 1862 – just a representative of Prussia in France… but in fact Bismark was already the most important minister of Prussia and had convinced the King to collect extra tax money in order to expand the army without the approval of the Prussian Parliament, thus cutting the control of the purse strings by the legislature and undermining hopes of constitutional government in Prussia (and setting it off on its lawless road to expansion).
We were also told that the death of Bismark might have had an effect on the ‘French Republic’. I am sure that his Imperial Majesty Napoleon III would have been interested to learn that he was living in a ‘Republic’.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
Three cheers for lawless roads to expansion.
If the BBC is providing such excellent programming why does it need me to contribute to its income just because I want to use my TV to watch live Premiership football on Sky? I and my fellow Sky subscribers can fund the broadcasts which interest us. Why can’t those who are interested in the BBC’s output do the same?
Excellent products are easy to sell at a proper market price. The BBC tells us it makes excellent products.
I am surprised the BEEB didn’t say the old codger was actually drowned and merely revised reality to fit. Shame about the facts though.
Perhaps, they were so taken by the idea that Bismark had a ship sunk after his name, they just missed out on the truth altogether. Strange they didn’t mention that novel fact?
Surely “Bismarck” (spelling)
Paul,
I find “what if” histories quite fun, but cant usually participate as I dont have the facts at my fingertips. However, on this one, I have just re, re, re read Gordon Craig’s excellent book “Germany 1866 – 1945”. I have also just returned from what was Prussia on holiday to get the local feel – as it were – which makes me an instant expert.
I know Otto isnt flavour of the liberal or, even, libertarian month but he is subject to much retrospective history. The tendency is for viewing him through Nazi lenses – and, as we know, retrospective history is NAUGHTY.
You could, in fact, argue quite persuasively that if it had not been for Bismarck the army would have seized power much earlier, as the Prussian worship of the military pre dates Bismarck (understandably, if you are a relatively small state in the middle of Europe wedged in between the behemoths of Russia and Austro Hungary). You could also argue that Bismarck was partly (admittedly unenthusiastically) responsible for the continuation of democratic politics in Prussia. He stopped the army hierarchy from just doing a putsch when they could not get their money from Parliament, and was also a moderating influence on the German desire for overseas colonies, so as not to fatally upset the British – saying to one person who wanted acres of Africa that a still disunited Germany was his Africa. The old man was a subtle beast who weaved what historians believe to be a masterful web of alliances for German security purposes. It was only when the uniform loving Kaiser William II came to power and sacked Bismarck, not appreciating the subtleties of his policies, that Germany behaved like some parvenu nation that wanted to throw its weight about, managing to hack off everyone in Europe that mattered. The result was that they rubbed the British up the wrong way, in their hectoring demands for strips of Africa, and managed to lose Russian support or, at least, neutrality. (The French were always going to be a dead loss in any case.)
It is also true that Bismarck had a very large effect on Napoleon III. This was by the simple, and some would say satisfying, act of capturing him at Sedan (1870 version – not 1940) and, in the process, stopping the ambitions of France to nab southern German states, thus putting them in the zone of influence of the Grande Nation.
So three cheers (OK, one and a half) for Otto!
I doubt Napolean III would have been that suprised Paul as he was (in the begging at least) elected into power.
So was Hitler, Alex. It’s what came next that mattered, so I think Paul has a valid point.
On spelling, I have not got a clue how N. Davies spells his name (a problem with radio), I believe he wrote a general history of Europe (I have a dim memory of reading it).
On Napoeon III – I would quite agree that he was not all bad (for example he generally liked the idea of free trade).
However, he was an Emperor – although I suppose one could say “in Latin Republic is Res Publica [or something like that] – public affairs or the public business”.
So one can talk about a “Republic” with a Emperor – after all the Romans did for centuries.
But I think that is a bit of a twist.
On Bismark.
He was not as bad as those who came after him.
However, the clash of 1860-61 was not as onesided as is often thought.
The forces of Consitutional government at least looked quite strong the King (or Regent as some people would insist) considered giving in and he also considered abdication.
It was Bismark who was the key voice is saying – just collect the tax increase without the vote of Parliament, the Liberals (old style meaning) will not fight.
Of course the Liberals told themselves that “history was on their side” so they did not have to fight and die just now (people are good at making up reasons about why they do not need to risk death in a gutter).
And much of Prussian liberalism was already rotten – they liked the idea of “National Unity” and were quite happy to see a tax increase to expand the military (as long as the government accepted Parliamentary rule).
Bismark understood that whilst the masses might fight over a simple issue like “no tax increase”, the issue of “Parliamentary control of the ministers” was a little bit abstract for most people (especially as the three chamber Prussian Parliament was not under the control of the common people anyway – of course Bismark [under cover] supported socialists groups in order to threaten the Liberals, only to understand [too late] that he had helped create a monster).
As for Bismark later wars against Denmark (where Radicals played into his hands by trying to incorporate the Dutchies into Denmark proper rather than just having them under the Danish Crown but their own insitutions) and against Austria and other states of the old German world, and against France.
And then the back stap of the National Liberals (Prince Smith and the others – not that I have much sypathy for people who allowed themselves to be seduced) on trade taxes in 1878, or the creation of the Welfare programs in the 1880’s, or the acceptance (against his better judgement) of things like the Navy to threaten Britian or the absurd seeking after colonies.
Well it was all bad (I wrote about Bismark many years ago for the Libertarian Alliance).
How anyone can defend such things as the annexation of the Kingdom of Hanover (with higher taxes and the private revenues of the King being used as Bismark’s personal slush fund) I do not know – and, no, the Prussian army would not have done such things without Bismark.
Yes (again) he was replaced by worse people than himself – but he had created their power.
By the way the “liberal” Italian unification was bad as well.
It led to higher taxes in most of the areas Piedmont took over (Tuscany and other states) – and to conscription in Sicily.
The war against taxes and conscription in Sicily cost vastly more lives than the fighting that joined the Sicily and Naples to Italy (but has gone down the memory hole).
Thankyou, Paul. I’m enjoying your commentary.