Napoleon III

[Franconicus]

You must admit, however, that it worked quite well for Bismarck. That's hardly an example of bad politics.

You must admit that it did not work out quite well for Germany - in the end.
I know that many people think that Bismark was a kind of genius. I do not agree with them. He was a Machiavellian politician, that released a dragon, that only he was able to control and that ate almost all of Europe when Bismark was gone!

[Incongruous]

I believe that Bismark was attempting to achieve too much, with too little. He did instill among Germany's elite a kind of Machiavelian nature as Franc said. Such an ideal was not plausable in reality as Germany in the long run just did not have the capabilities economically to compete with the other Western powers whom had already snatched up the most economically viable areas of the world for their own uses. Perhaps if Prussia had united Germany after the Napoleonic wars it might have been different

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

You must admit that it did not work out quite well for Germany - in the end.
I know that many people think that Bismark was a kind of genius. I do not agree with them. He was a Machiavellian politician, that released a dragon, that only he was able to control and that ate almost all of Europe when Bismark was gone!

I believe that the reason it collapsed after Bismarck was dismissed was a lack of decent political...how should I say this...ability at the top. While he may not have been a genius, he certainly knew how to get the job done. There was a good chance that the war would've happened anyway. I don't believe it would have benefited Germany to back down either.

[Watchman]

"Bad politicians" ? I thought it was still very much the norm those days (and would be until the World Wars) that if you had an army and someone you thought you could beat up with it for fun and profit, you went and tried and could count on being cheered by your domestic peers and subjects if things went well.

Modern industrial mass war eventually kinda put a stopper on that line of thinking for the obvious reason major wars became, quite literally, too bloody expensive.

He was a Machiavellian politician, that released a dragon, that only he was able to control and that ate almost all of Europe when Bismark was gone!

...which by the mindset of the period amounts to "job well done" (except for, well, the "dragon" messing up the job) at least from the German perspective. I get the feeling you're not quite remembering to factor in the still essentially Medieval macho-jingoist line of reasoning that was the default logic in Europe (and the Americas as well when it comes to that) for the whole Long Nineteenth Century...?

[Franconicus]

Alright, let's talk about Bismarck.

He was not a German patriot, but a supporter of the Prussian monarch. He did not care a thing about Germany, he wanted to increase the power of the absolte Prussian sovereign.

He was more than willing to opress the rights of the individuals (religious rights, political rights, social rights, ethnic rights). He was more than willing to spoil blood. He could have achieved a German nation without spilling blood. He did it,because his goal was absolute power for the Prussian Kaiser.

He created German militarism as an idol for whole Germany. He mixed the ideals of nationalism and imperialism. He requested the unity and independency of all Germans (excepts those from Austria!) but he denied the rights of Danisgh, Polish or French, which lived in the countries he could get.

He established hostile relationship with France and England.

Summary: He prepared the road to WW1.

[AntiochusIII]

Summary: He prepared the road to WW1.

I always take the view that WWI is something inevitable. The old Europeans were notorious for continuous wars everywhere and anywhere. The French and the Spanish were engaging in yet another war right after the biggest, bloodiest European War of the 17th century, the Thirty Years' War, ended!

That mindset had not changed until WWI really did everyone in with the new realization that no nation can truly sustain the horrors of an Industrial War without horrendous losses...a lesson soon to be forgotten and repeated upon.

I find Napoleon III to be an intriguing figure. He is often painted as a weakling by the mishandling of the Franco-Prussian War, but I think that is rather unfair. Compare the qualities of monarchs throughout history, he actually ranks pretty high in terms of good intentions and decent, though not spectacular, abilities. Like someone said earlier, the name he bore was arguably the catalyst of both his rise and his downfall. His undoing also, I think, has something to do with his attempt to please too many factions at all times. The Catholics regarded the "Socialist on Horseback" with distrust, which he tried to alleviate by protecting the pope from the newly born Italians - probably a lost opportunity to build a permanent rapport with Cavour, or may be the latter had never really been interested in France as more than a tool to achieve unity. The socialists viewed the Emperor's control with distrust also - and the fact that he was, after all, an emperor; a monarch. The Republicans despised his authoritarian styles used early on. And the Bourbon monarchists would have nothing to do with a Bonaparte scum.

Sorta reminds me of Frederick II (Holy Roman Emperor) in terms of being an intriguing, controversial, even wild figure with not too many real achievements that truly last. Though his many foreign adventures sure impacted Europe in different ways.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Alright, let's talk about Bismarck.

He was not a German patriot, but a supporter of the Prussian monarch. He did not care a thing about Germany, he wanted to increase the power of the absolte Prussian sovereign.

Well, good for him. I don't recall ever saying he was a German patriot. He acted in the interests of the Empire, and he did a good job of it. Acting for the Empire, and not always the country, certainly doesn't make him a bad politician.

He was more than willing to opress the rights of the individuals (religious rights, political rights, social rights, ethnic rights). He was more than willing to spoil blood. He could have achieved a German nation without spilling blood. He did it,because his goal was absolute power for the Prussian Kaiser.

He didn't like socialists - and with the restrictions they were trying to impose upon him, I wouldn't have liked them either if I were in his shoes. I could make a long argument for the rest, especially in this case, but it'll have to wait, unfortunately.

He created German militarism as an idol for whole Germany. He mixed the ideals of nationalism and imperialism. He requested the unity and independency of all Germans (excepts those from Austria!) but he denied the rights of Danisgh, Polish or French, which lived in the countries he could get.

I fail to see how this was an uncommon, or even a bad idea for the time. It might be considered extremely unequal and outdated today, but that ideal of nationalism helped win the Franco-Prussian War.

He established hostile relationship with France and England.

The hostile relationship with France was already there. England was a side effect that he should have foreseen, agreed, but the consequences of that didn't appear until the First World War.

Summary: He prepared the road to WW1.

AntiochusIII has already posted my view of this.