Not true. Granted: too few do. But one recent example was General Milley rallying military leaders to prevent Trump from staging a coup saying this was a „Reichstag“ moment remembering Hitler‘s coup after the fire in the German House of Parliament, the „ Reichstag“. ua-cam.com/video/TVk0Fh_EGI8/v-deo.html
That’s actually a self defeating statement. But also, read “The Fate of Empires” by Sir John Glubb. You can find it online for free. It hits right to this topic.
If only he had heeded his own words making policy. After he had won the short war against France, it was predicted that Germany would be crushed between two fronts in an upcoming all European „war of the races“, if he annected Alsace-Lorraine. He did it. Wise guy?
*Re. each and every "Bismarck kept Germany safe"-narrative, or variations of that.* It is based on the confusion of terms and definitions of words. The terms or concepts confused and whose definitions are often loosely conflated: *geopolitics* (international politics) and *grand strategy* (military scenario). *These are entirely different concepts.* Bismarck did not "keep Germany safe". The reality was that Bismarck appeased St. Petersburg, hoping that this *"appeasement"* would "keep Germany safe". Ahem...any historical similarities? :-) The Reinsurance Treaty gave a lot, and received little in return. It gave Russia a "shield for expansion", while in return it only offered limp geopolitical protection *(not* protection in regards to "grand strategy", or a "2-front war"). The reality of geopolitics at the time was that the Russian Empire was "cacooned" into a safe barrier created by geography/size. There was only one real "opening", which was Germany and Austria-Hungary in her west. If one has problems visualizing this, then image a horseshoe, placed on a map of pre-WW1 Russia, with the opening facing towards western Europe. The "horseshoe" is geography, which protected the Russian core with a barrier of geographical bariers with very few, and very limited (infrastructure) openings. *For all practical reasons (in geopolitics and grand strategy) a deal with Germany, kept Russia 100 % safe, while Germany was (in return) only 50% "safe" (geopolitics).* For Germany, there remained a dire threat of a 2-front war, and that was determined by geography also (Germany in the Center of the continent), which could only be closed by continuous vigilance and re-armament (quality was preferred over quantity). A bad deal, since the decision to rescind or not renew the treaty obviously also lay in the hands of St. Petersburg. Re the "100% safe Russia": For Russia, there was the Artic in the north, followed by Siberia, the Gobi desert, Himalayas, Hindukush, and mountainous Persia. These "barriers" continued with the Caspian Sea (not accessible to foreign navies), and the Caucasus. In Russia's south-west, there was only the weak "sick man", the Ottoman Empire (incl. by extension the Black Sea). As long as the core remained strong, the periphery would remain easily defensible. The "shield" protecting her west, was provided by Germany and Austria-Hungary, who involuntarily or "by extension" of the Reinsurance Treaty, or any other deal, protected Russia's western border. In regards to grand strategy, or the choice where to strike next: the initiative for such a choice remained in the hands of St. Petersburg for as long as her "non-aggression pact" was being "appeased" by Berlin (aka Reinssurance Treaty) remained intact. *What was there not to like for St. Petersburg?* The Reinsurance Treaty did not sit well with the London lords, regardless of the "kind words"-narrative we are reading about in our history books. I wonder why...LOL... *Further details often demoted to "ancillary status" if mentioned at all, but are in fact important concerning "what really happened".* 1) Unlike the previous agreements with Russia (Three Kaiser League) the Reinsurance Treaty was "secret", as far a "secrecy" was possible in the world of diplomacy. *Why could that possibly have been deemed as a neccessity?* In the age of the "Glastnost and Perestroika" of the times (openness/honesty of the Concert of Europe), why should none of the other powers know about this deal between Berlin and St. Petersburg? 2) It was St Petersburg who came up with the suggestion to replace the unworkable Three Kaiser League, which (initially) did not include Austria-Hungary (obvious hoodwink...let's leave HINT, HINT Austria-Hungary out of "our little deal" aka "throw the third little Kaiser under the bus"). 3) It was Bismarck himself who revealed it shortly before he died (1896), in an obvious attempt of a domestic political smear directed at Wilhelm II. In other words, in an attempt to get back at Wilhelm II for be "fired" and to discredit him or his status, he openly embarassed his own country by revealing "secret scheming" in an age where (LOL again) "everyone was supposed to be "transparent as glass"... The reality is that it was Bismarck himself who largely "wrote that history" with regards to "his" Reinsurance Treaty, and how he (backpat, backpat) "kept Germany safe". And because this fit in perfectly with "finger pointers", it was simply largely taken over by our own historians, who seemingly never bothered to investigate the premise of such an assumption. Historians quoting historians. Appeals to authority, and other fallacies... Reality couldn't have been further from the truth. As a general truth. *Actions speak louder than words.* Actions "count more" than mere words. Just like today, we should weigh "words" especially those of politicians and other power people (also words spoken across the divide of time in our history books) with a grain of salt. *What they did (historical sense) and do today (our reality today) is what counts, not what they say or said.*
One day the great European war will come out of some damned foolish thing in the Balkans. I can't argue with his logic. But what I actually would want to know from him is that WW2 would come from WW1.
A generatiom that has taken a beating is always followed by a generation that deals one. I hope so, but its not True, the dude shud stick to war tactics... U can see the man was a little biach...
@@luciuscorneliussulla5182 Christianity is not a century old, and! Since religious diversity existed during his time as it does now, makes him an ignorant man and I don't care what religion he mentioned. Your argument is a mess.
Pretty sure nations that were historically Christian are the most sought after for immigration, and often well off than most. Enjoy far more liberties (culturally as well) than most, along with a prioritized perspective of human rights and egalitarianism
@@cuprince8569 I beg to differ although I'd be foolish to accuse as a generalization. While we on this subject, I'd like to clear that my comment was specific to the author's claim and not an attack on Christianity alone but rather to religions in general. All religions are guilty if disunity and dogmatic extremism. As a result we can observe avarice and wars and and and.
You completely missed the point. A fool makes them, a wise man watches others make them and not repeat them. What if you were a fool 10,000 BC and decided that the cave that looked so beckoning was the place to be but your companion told you not to go in there because that is the domain of the 3,000 lb man-eating cave bear. You call him a "conspiracy theorist". Wives tales you say. You go in regardless. You look around in the dark and there is even some light because there are multiple openings above you. You scoff at "the stories." Then you see a pile of bones, ohhhhh....... and human skulls ....... oops ...... okay, now fear setting in and when you turn a massive figure is running towards you at lightning speed, knocks you down and one crunch lights out but you do manage to get a scream off. Your companion hears it outside and runs back to the village alone. You can't become a wise man when you made a fatal mistake.
@@pyramidhead138 some would call ignoring a warning a mistake. some mistakes you can do more than once. some you can't. but you can watch others make them and learn from them. that's how those warnings came into being in the first place. You don't need a parachute to go skydiving. you need a parachute to go skydiving TWICE.
Follow me on instagram:
instagram.com/great.m1nds/
"What we learn from History is that no one learns from History." True
That hit hard
useful history is often called science, maths, and so on, though they all take time to compile.
Not true. Granted: too few do. But one recent example was General Milley rallying military leaders to prevent Trump from staging a coup saying this was a „Reichstag“ moment remembering Hitler‘s coup after the fire in the German House of Parliament, the „ Reichstag“. ua-cam.com/video/TVk0Fh_EGI8/v-deo.html
This quote originates from Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel.
That’s actually a self defeating statement. But also, read “The Fate of Empires” by Sir John Glubb. You can find it online for free. It hits right to this topic.
I like these and find them fascinating. They show the man's ambivalence about politics and war, subjects about which he was very familiar.
HERES a quote for ya......"Somehow I doubt those who START wars have ever fought in one themselves."
Hitler was a ww1 veteran
@@grishjarta yeah....in HIS country
@@pyramidhead138 what you mean?
@@pyramidhead138 i don't understand
The American is a lucky people...
It's interesting quote... 👍
Because America doesn't experience wars on their soil.
@@Askhat08 ...There is a time for everything!!
@@formerk.g.b.2408 i agree but that time isn't here yet
@@Askhat08American Civil War?
5:23 the quote in the thumbnail
Ty
He was really terrified of sausages it seems
if you knew what they are made of and how you would be too. lol
If only he had heeded his own words making policy. After he had won the short war against France, it was predicted that Germany would be crushed between two fronts in an upcoming all European „war of the races“, if he annected Alsace-Lorraine. He did it. Wise guy?
War would have happened anyway
@@septentrionalisimperator8799 War doesn‘t happen. It‘s prepared, planned and executed for a reason.
I shall remember... IRON AND BLOOD
*Re. each and every "Bismarck kept Germany safe"-narrative, or variations of that.*
It is based on the confusion of terms and definitions of words.
The terms or concepts confused and whose definitions are often loosely conflated: *geopolitics* (international politics) and *grand strategy* (military scenario).
*These are entirely different concepts.*
Bismarck did not "keep Germany safe".
The reality was that Bismarck appeased St. Petersburg, hoping that this *"appeasement"* would "keep Germany safe".
Ahem...any historical similarities? :-)
The Reinsurance Treaty gave a lot, and received little in return.
It gave Russia a "shield for expansion", while in return it only offered limp geopolitical protection *(not* protection in regards to "grand strategy", or a "2-front war").
The reality of geopolitics at the time was that the Russian Empire was "cacooned" into a safe barrier created by geography/size. There was only one real "opening", which was Germany and Austria-Hungary in her west. If one has problems visualizing this, then image a horseshoe, placed on a map of pre-WW1 Russia, with the opening facing towards western Europe. The "horseshoe" is geography, which protected the Russian core with a barrier of geographical bariers with very few, and very limited (infrastructure) openings.
*For all practical reasons (in geopolitics and grand strategy) a deal with Germany, kept Russia 100 % safe, while Germany was (in return) only 50% "safe" (geopolitics).*
For Germany, there remained a dire threat of a 2-front war, and that was determined by geography also (Germany in the Center of the continent), which could only be closed by continuous vigilance and re-armament (quality was preferred over quantity).
A bad deal, since the decision to rescind or not renew the treaty obviously also lay in the hands of St. Petersburg.
Re the "100% safe Russia": For Russia, there was the Artic in the north, followed by Siberia, the Gobi desert, Himalayas, Hindukush, and mountainous Persia. These "barriers" continued with the Caspian Sea (not accessible to foreign navies), and the Caucasus. In Russia's south-west, there was only the weak "sick man", the Ottoman Empire (incl. by extension the Black Sea).
As long as the core remained strong, the periphery would remain easily defensible. The "shield" protecting her west, was provided by Germany and Austria-Hungary, who involuntarily or "by extension" of the Reinsurance Treaty, or any other deal, protected Russia's western border.
In regards to grand strategy, or the choice where to strike next: the initiative for such a choice remained in the hands of St. Petersburg for as long as her "non-aggression pact" was being "appeased" by Berlin (aka Reinssurance Treaty) remained intact.
*What was there not to like for St. Petersburg?*
The Reinsurance Treaty did not sit well with the London lords, regardless of the "kind words"-narrative we are reading about in our history books.
I wonder why...LOL...
*Further details often demoted to "ancillary status" if mentioned at all, but are in fact important concerning "what really happened".*
1) Unlike the previous agreements with Russia (Three Kaiser League) the Reinsurance Treaty was "secret", as far a "secrecy" was possible in the world of diplomacy.
*Why could that possibly have been deemed as a neccessity?*
In the age of the "Glastnost and Perestroika" of the times (openness/honesty of the Concert of Europe), why should none of the other powers know about this deal between Berlin and St. Petersburg?
2) It was St Petersburg who came up with the suggestion to replace the unworkable Three Kaiser League, which (initially) did not include Austria-Hungary (obvious hoodwink...let's leave HINT, HINT Austria-Hungary out of "our little deal" aka "throw the third little Kaiser under the bus").
3) It was Bismarck himself who revealed it shortly before he died (1896), in an obvious attempt of a domestic political smear directed at Wilhelm II. In other words, in an attempt to get back at Wilhelm II for be "fired" and to discredit him or his status, he openly embarassed his own country by revealing "secret scheming" in an age where (LOL again) "everyone was supposed to be "transparent as glass"...
The reality is that it was Bismarck himself who largely "wrote that history" with regards to "his" Reinsurance Treaty, and how he (backpat, backpat) "kept Germany safe". And because this fit in perfectly with "finger pointers", it was simply largely taken over by our own historians, who seemingly never bothered to investigate the premise of such an assumption.
Historians quoting historians.
Appeals to authority, and other fallacies...
Reality couldn't have been further from the truth.
As a general truth.
*Actions speak louder than words.*
Actions "count more" than mere words.
Just like today, we should weigh "words" especially those of politicians and other power people (also words spoken across the divide of time in our history books) with a grain of salt.
*What they did (historical sense) and do today (our reality today) is what counts, not what they say or said.*
1:23 😂
Bismarck was chad
Cool!. Thank you so much x.
This guy really didn't like sausage.
Some quotes good, some crap.
➕GOTT MIT UNS➕🇩🇪
Apparently Bismarck was a big admirer of The US
Facing the most hatred
in the world
Truth tellers have to
Good stuff 👏 👍
Brilliant statesman. Germany would be a superpower today if Bismarck stayed in power a few more decades
Oh!!!easy money!!!
a great man
One day the great European war will come out of some damned foolish thing in the Balkans.
I can't argue with his logic.
But what I actually would want to know from him is that WW2 would come from WW1.
A generatiom that has taken a beating is always followed by a generation that deals one. I hope so, but its not True, the dude shud stick to war tactics... U can see the man was a little biach...
Thanks u tube
You can’t tell someone that’s one religion is better than another but that’s his opine to him his religion to mine mine.
A good German Man💕🇺🇲
1:17
Great men have great Dogs
One of the best episodes I watched so far.
02:07 is he talking about SJW's
And they would agree it's a good thing.
YES hahaha.
SJW need more mental health medication
"A rich society must care for the poor." This is what a German 'autocrat' says. Everyone says that, but what politicians deliver more than a pittance?
Poltictions play the autocrat game Bismark played the good man game
Seriously? You think Bismarck is an autocrat?
@@cursed-hm2jn If you were able to understand simple English, you'd see I was criticizing other people for thinking that he's an autocrat.
Not bad to read again
Our iron chancellor.
Amen Amen Amen
The moment it got to "No civilization is worth seeking other than Christian" I knew the man was ignorant.
No, he's not. He's a product of his times. You're showing your ignorance.
@@luciuscorneliussulla5182 Christianity is not a century old, and! Since religious diversity existed during his time as it does now, makes him an ignorant man and I don't care what religion he mentioned. Your argument is a mess.
Pretty sure nations that were historically Christian are the most sought after for immigration, and often well off than most. Enjoy far more liberties (culturally as well) than most, along with a prioritized perspective of human rights and egalitarianism
@@cuprince8569 I beg to differ although I'd be foolish to accuse as a generalization. While we on this subject, I'd like to clear that my comment was specific to the author's claim and not an attack on Christianity alone but rather to religions in general. All religions are guilty if disunity and dogmatic extremism. As a result we can observe avarice and wars and and and.
Hoping for educated comments here about these intelligent words. Or I suppose I can just look at Bismarck's actions. Heavinesses and softnesses.
Nice...🌿
That is a woman.
"Only a fool learns from his own mistakes..." how are you a fool when you learn from your own mistakes? thats how you learn NOT to repeat them!
jajaja.....
You completely missed the point. A fool makes them, a wise man watches others make them and not repeat them. What if you were a fool 10,000 BC and decided that the cave that looked so beckoning was the place to be but your companion told you not to go in there because that is the domain of the 3,000 lb man-eating cave bear. You call him a "conspiracy theorist". Wives tales you say. You go in regardless. You look around in the dark and there is even some light because there are multiple openings above you. You scoff at "the stories." Then you see a pile of bones, ohhhhh....... and human skulls ....... oops ...... okay, now fear setting in and when you turn a massive figure is running towards you at lightning speed, knocks you down and one crunch lights out but you do manage to get a scream off. Your companion hears it outside and runs back to the village alone. You can't become a wise man when you made a fatal mistake.
@@luciuscorneliussulla5182 your talking more about a person who ignores warnings
@@pyramidhead138 some would call ignoring a warning a mistake. some mistakes you can do more than once. some you can't. but you can watch others make them and learn from them. that's how those warnings came into being in the first place.
You don't need a parachute to go skydiving. you need a parachute to go skydiving TWICE.
@@luciuscorneliussulla5182 overkill
Now a video about Margaret Thatcher, the Bismarck of the XX century
Margaret Thacher and Otto von Bismarck don't belong in the same Universe.
@@JSB103 maybe not in yours, but in mine they are side by side
@@JSB103 LOL, they literally are from the same continent.
@@msinvincible2000, they have NOTHING in common.