NationStates Jolt Archive

Who would you vote for in the next election?

Vladimir Lenin (after implementing the New Economic Policy), or Otto von Bismarck, the uniter of Germany?

Well, start voting!!!

Well, I'm biased, so I support Bismarck all the way. A much more sensible politician than Lenin.

Well, I'm biased, so I support Bismarck all the way. A much more sensible politician than Lenin.

Ah, but who needs a sensible politician when you have a brilliant speaker?

To quote one Bolshevik, "When Trotsky speaks, we listen. When Lenin speaks, we march!"

Number III

Ah, but who needs a sensible politician when you have a brilliant speaker?
Because speeches tend to lead you straight to a bad place that I won't mention here.

I read "Gedanken und Erinnerungen", and he is a more sensible man than Lenin could ever have hoped to be. Plus Lenin had the bad tendency to surround himself with morons, like Stalin.

Vote Bismarck for a stronger Germany!
http://www.historyplace.com/specials/calendar/docs-pix/otto-bismarck.jpg

Vote Bismarck for a stronger Germany!
Or for a Germany in the first place...

Damn I miss those hats. Why aren't they wearing them anymore...:(

Or for a Germany in the first place...

Damn I miss those hats. Why aren't they wearing them anymore...:(
He beats the crap out of Merkel.

Because speeches tend to lead you straight to a bad place that I won't mention here.

I read "Gedanken und Erinnerungen", and he is a more sensible man than Lenin could ever have hoped to be. Plus Lenin had the bad tendency to surround himself with morons, like Stalin.

You seem to be forgetting the fact that Lenin thought Stalin was a madman who would pervert the ideals of communism to obtain personal power. The politician whom Lenin supported for his own succession was Trotsky.

You seem to be forgetting the fact that Lenin thought Stalin was a madman who would pervert the ideals of communism to obtain personal power. The politician whom Lenin supported for his own succession was Trotsky.
Who was also a madman in a different sense.

But he still allowed him into his political circle instead of shunning him.

Who was also a madman in a different sense.

Well, he was rather more liberal than Stalin, to say the least. And he probably wouldn't have sacrificed 10 million of his own people to industrialize the country and [Stalin's voice on] "stop the Jewish doctors from trying to kill him,"[/Stalin's voice off] as opposed to Stalin.

Number III

I think Mr. Lenin looks cuts a rather dashing figure in his tweeds. I'll vote for the waxier of the two moustaches.

Well, he was rather more liberal than Stalin, to say the least. And he probably wouldn't have sacrificed 10 million of his own people to industrialize the country and [Stalin's voice on] "stop the Jewish doctors from trying to kill him,"[/Stalin's voice off] as opposed to Stalin.
But I would imagine he would've sent 10 million (probably more) people into their death while bringing the light to the rest of the world (a world with bigger and better guns than the 1920s USSR).

But I would imagine he would've sent 10 million (probably more) people into their death while bringing the light to the rest of the world (a world with bigger and better guns than the 1920s USSR).

Oh, how I do love lively argument in the spirit of debate.

Now, forgive me for mentioning this, but wasn't it Bismarck who gave a speech to the effect of "Germany shall be united by blood and iron"? That hardly sounds peaceable to me, old chap.

Number III

This is true but Bismarck worked through his clever and deceptive nature and took his time developing an effective plan. Lenin, however, was very blunt and outwright in his actions and did things with great haste rather than planning them out. This ultimatly resulted in the deaths of millions.

I'm going to have to give it to Bismarck for having the awesomest hat ever. Where ever he should go, he has a paper spike within arms reach and ready to deploy should he feel the need. A man who is that loyal to his stationary prodcuts would surely be a great leader.

Now, forgive me for mentioning this, but wasn't it Bismarck who gave a speech to the effect of "Germany shall be united by blood and iron"? That hardly sounds peaceable to me, old chap.
http://h-net.org/~german/gtext/kaiserreich/speech.html
It's about having a strong army in order to lend weight to your policies - not about using it.
I cannot say that I was misunderstood at the time. I spoke clearly about these matters, perhaps more clearly than was good, in the now-famous but imperfectly understood "blood and iron" speech.[3] It dealt with military questions, and I said then: Put the strongest possible military forces, in other words, as much "blood and iron" as possible, in the hands of the king of Prussia. Then he will be able to make the policy you want. Policy is not made with speeches and shooting-matches and songs. It is made solely with "blood and iron." (Bravo!) I would perhaps have been understood if I had not had too many rivals in this area--the creation of Germany. (Hilarity.)

I would go and look at the actual policy of his government after 1871. And that was one of peace (not for the sake of peace, but a sensible policy nonetheless).

Compare with Trotsky and his world revolution (and not tomorrow, but NOW!), and I think we can safely say that Bismarck is the more peaceful choice.

I'm going to have to give it to Bismarck for having the awesomest hat ever.
He's got nothing.
http://www.china1900.info/menschen/imagesmenschen/wilhelm.jpg

He's got nothing.
*sigh*.... they don't make them like they used to.

As for the poll, Bismark all the way. He was a man who united a group of small principalities into one of the most economically and militarily powerul countries in the world. And of course there's the hats. Lenin lead a regime that went on to cause the deaths of millions of people.

I respect dictators over monarchists, so Lenin.

It's not even a contest.

I'd much rather live under a country run by Bismarck than a country run by a cynical mass-murderer.

We have to get rid of this idealised idea that somehow Stalin perverted the Leninist dream. Whatever Lenin might have thought about Stalin, Stalinism could never have existed without Lenin.

Lenin's doctrine of revolution had nothing to do with liberty and equality, and everything to do with violence and death in the service of guaranteeing the Party's power. The New Economic Policy is itself a classic example of Lenin's deeply cynical pragmatism - it wasn't a sign of Lenin 'liberalising' the revolution, but merely an opportunistic temporary relaxing of restrictions in order to consolidate the economic base of his party's power structure.

I suggest reading Dmitri Volkogonov's biography of Lenin.

I may disagree with him, but Bismarck was one hell of a statesman! At least with him at the helm, I know that no stupid endless wars would start.

It's not even a contest.

I'd much rather live under a country run by Bismarck than a country run by a cynical mass-murderer.

We have to get rid of this idealised idea that somehow Stalin perverted the Leninist dream. Whatever Lenin might have thought about Stalin, Stalinism could never have existed without Lenin.

Lenin's doctrine of revolution had nothing to do with liberty and equality, and everything to do with violence and death in the service of guaranteeing the Party's power. The New Economic Policy is itself a classic example of Lenin's deeply cynical pragmatism - it wasn't a sign of Lenin 'liberalising' the revolution, but merely an opportunistic temporary relaxing of restrictions in order to consolidate the economic base of his party's power structure.

I suggest reading Dmitri Volkogonov's biography of Lenin.

To your first point: and Leninism could never have existed without Marxism, and Marxism could never have existed without capitalism, and capitalism/liberalism could never have existed except as a reaction against aboslute monarchies...How far do you want to take this? Please not that my argument, which is equally as valid as yours, blames the monarchists and the monarchs for Stalin. Oh, shoot, and Bismarck was a monarchist too.

As to your second point, I fail to see what this popular bias against cynicism and pragmatism has to support it...In case you have forgotten, pragmatism was a tool that wasn't ignored by monarchs either, when they could use it to further their ends.

Thirdly, it is not unreasonable to blame Bismarck for WWI. Officially (according to the Treaty of Versailles), this war was Germany's fault, to put it bluntly. However, if a united Germany had not existed, it could not have caused the war. Therefore, since Bismarck united Germany, Bismarck caused WWI.

Finally, I fail to see why people continue to perpetrate this lie about Lenin being a mass murderer. The fact that many people died because of his actions does not make him a mass murderer. Churchill, for example, could be blamed for millions of German and Italian deaths in WWII, but nobody goes around calling him a mass murderer. Similarly, Kaiser Wilhelm II (who was only able to assume this title because of your vaunted Bismarck's actions) could be blamed for many British, French, and American losses. And yet I have never heard anyone call him a mass murderer. And Geroge W., who, during the American invasion of Iraq, has allowed between 20 000 - 30 000 Iraqi civilians to be killed, has never been referred to as a mass murderer before either.

Sorry about the long post.

Sincerely,

Number III

At least with [Bismarck] at the helm, I know that now stupid endless wars would start.
Care to name an example?

I'd go for Bismarck, since for one, I'm biased on his behalf and Lenin's idea of a professional revolutionary that knows better doesn't really appeal to me.

Cue really poor Beatles joke.

I voted for Lenin, but having seen Bismarck's sweet as a nut hat, I wish to amend my ballot paper.

Care to name an example?

Typo- I meant "no stupid, endless wars." While Bismarck led Prussia into a few wars, they were all very short, fast affairs with clear goals in mind- pound Denmark and grab Sleiswig, pound Austria and grab Holstein and Northern Germany, pound Paris and grab Alsace-Lorraine and Southern Germany.

By contrast, when he was releaved from the chancellorship by Wilhelm II in the 1890s (probably the stupidest in Germany's short history up to that time), Wilhelm set the stage for WWI, Bismarck's nightmare: A long, bloody, immobile war fought on two fronts with no clear objectives and no real purpose other than to let Europeans play with their new toys- airplanes, Maxim machine guns, and Wilhelm's toy navy. My assumption is that poor Bismarck was performing barrel rolls in his grave during the entire war.

Who was also a madman in a different sense.

i'm a big fan of trotsky, myself.....i've always wondered how WWII would have turned out had it been trotsky and not stalin running things. on the one hand, maybe russia would've been less prepared than they actually were [that's one thing that nobody gives the murderous lunatic credit for.....despite all of the horrible, paranoid things he did, he was right in one huge way: russia really *did* need to focus heavily on defense], but on the other hand, i somewhat doubt that the partition of poland would've actually happened, meaning britain and france would have lost their (perfectly good) justification for declaring war meaning.......?

i think that most of us trotskyites, however, simply admire the man for actually understanding marxism properly, which very few people [lenin and stalin included] actually do....

>snip<
Thirdly, it is not unreasonable to blame Bismarck for WWI. Officially (according to the Treaty of Versailles), this war was Germany's fault, to put it bluntly. However, if a united Germany had not existed, it could not have caused the war. Therefore, since Bismarck united Germany, Bismarck caused WWI.
>snip<
Number III

No need to feel sorry about long posts...but that is a blunt simplification of history. Had Bismarck been at the helm, there would have been no WWI. Read Henry Kissinger "Diplomacy" about that...

To your first point: and Leninism could never have existed without Marxism, and Marxism could never have existed without capitalism, and capitalism/liberalism could never have existed except as a reaction against aboslute monarchies...How far do you want to take this? Please not that my argument, which is equally as valid as yours, blames the monarchists and the monarchs for Stalin. Oh, shoot, and Bismarck was a monarchist too.

As to your second point, I fail to see what this popular bias against cynicism and pragmatism has to support it...In case you have forgotten, pragmatism was a tool that wasn't ignored by monarchs either, when they could use it to further their ends.


i think what you want to get out of this was that stalin was, essentially, a really bad czar....


Thirdly, it is not unreasonable to blame Bismarck for WWI. Officially (according to the Treaty of Versailles), this war was Germany's fault, to put it bluntly. However, if a united Germany had not existed, it could not have caused the war. Therefore, since Bismarck united Germany, Bismarck caused WWI.


yeah, but it wasn't *really* germany's fault; germany just lost, that's all. by that logic, you could blame woodrow wilson for six million dead jews. i'd say it was russia's fault for escalating a minor, local conflict....although they were probably trying to bluff austria out of it, meaning you want to blame austria as equally...

....and, hey, whatever happened to blaming princep......

everybody that jumped in after russia was just doing what they had to do to protect their own interests. russia didn't think it was fair for austria to absorb serbia, but germany couldn't let the russians take over austria [which they would have], but the french couldn't let the germans take over russia [which they might have] and the british couldn't let the germans take over france [which would have been a cakewalk...]....

the point is not to determine who caused world war one as if we could definitively answer this question right here and now.....well, we'd have to publish it, although i'd guess every possible answer (outside of that malta did it) has already been published. the point is that it wasn't bismarck's fault, and my guess is you know that very well. bismarck went way out of his way to prevent anything like this from happening; his genious actually predicted it and prevented it from happening earlier......his great accomplishment was uniting germany peacefully.....or almost peacefully, anyways. he did have to attack france...


Finally, I fail to see why people continue to perpetrate this lie about Lenin being a mass murderer. The fact that many people died because of his actions does not make him a mass murderer.


hrmmn.


Churchill, for example, could be blamed for millions of German and Italian deaths in WWII, but nobody goes around calling him a mass murderer.


winston churchill was most certainly a mass murderer. in being a mass murderer he most likely saved millions of lives, but he was still a mass murderer.

sometimes, you have to be a mass muderer.


Similarly, Kaiser Wilhelm II (who was only able to assume this title because of your vaunted Bismarck's actions) could be blamed for many British, French, and American losses. And yet I have never heard anyone call him a mass murderer.


kaiser wilhelm II was most definately a mass murderer.


And Geroge W., who, during the American invasion of Iraq, has allowed between 20 000 - 30 000 Iraqi civilians to be killed, has never been referred to as a mass murderer before either.


that's one estimate. the number is almost certainly higher.

.....and i have called george w. bush a mass murderer several times, even several times on these forums.

so, yes, lenin was mass murderer. some of it was his fault, some of it wasn't.

Uh, Bismark. Reason: He pretty much forged the modern state of Germany.

Although its Bismark for me, he really is a kinda strange character (although nothing as amusing as compared to Talleyrand). Although he is considered the father of German unity, there are certain indicators that point to that a lot of the work was not his (trying to think of the man imparticular, the name escapes me right now, i've misplaced my notes). He himself said that,

"The river of history flows as it will, and if I put my hand in it, this is because I regard it as my duty, not because I think I can change its course."

Of course that can be interpreted in different ways, but in the context of the rest of the passage, it seems clear that Bismark himself wanted to make sure that he was not seen as the father of Germany, but merely one of the many figures who helped in unification. Indeed, the first historians who considered him as such were condemed by him. So it's nice to see a leader who is very much considerate of the part he played and doesn't want to over state it.

Remember, that his background was ultra-conservative Prussian, although his dislike for the army is famous (despite The Best Hat In The World tm :D ) as well as his preference for court politics, which was more his mothers influence. Indeed, in his younger years, his main priority was a powerful Prussia. Before German unification he still said he wanted a powerful Prussia before he wanted a united Germany. So much the 'father of a nation'... ;)

And not forgetting that his monarchist views tempered over time, he once wrote in a letter to Gerlach that

"In my opinion, not even the king has the right to subordinate the interests of the country to his own feeling of love or hate towards foreigners"

Which indicates that he believes that a monarchs power should be limited, unlike say Metternich, who believed that a country is the monarchy.

The best thing about Bismark IMHO was his introduction of a new system of diplomacy for the dealings of nation states and not monarchs, as well as using the Prussian army for diplomacy as much as for war.

As an aside, who has voted "I'd rather die," and why did they do so?

To clear up an earlier point I made, Lenin was not a mass murderer because, although he was responsible for many deaths, I cannot recollect any instance where they could be considered "murders" in the legal sense (other than Nicolas II, but that was at least justifiable in the name of vengeance).

It has been implied that Lenin was a bad leader because he allowed Stalin into his "circle". Interestingly enough, though, Lenin led the country while Lenin was alive, Stalin did not. It is irrellavent who Lenin's "friends" (so to speak) were, so long as he did not allow the more maniacal of them to influence his policies drastically. As a counter-example, I could say that Bismarck was a bad leader because he allowed Wilhelm II into power, and Wilhelm II

kaiser wilhelm II was most definately a mass murderer.

Therefore Bismarck is as bad as Lenin in that respect.

It has also been stated that the NEP was "cynical and pragmatic." Even ignoring this person's obvious bias against qualities in a communist that he/she would support in, say, a monarchist (its not like Bismarck didn't take his chances when he got them), it should be clear that this is irrellavent. The point of the matter is, whether Lenin's intentions were to liberalize or not, the effect of the NEP was to liberalize the economy to some extent. Indeed, the NEP satisfied many Russians who had suffered under "war communism", and, in my opinion at least, was better.

Sincerely,

Number III

You seem to be forgetting the fact that Lenin thought Stalin was a madman who would pervert the ideals of communism to obtain personal power. The politician whom Lenin supported for his own succession was Trotsky.

Wrong! Lenin never condemned Stalin in such strong terms. Although he wrote in his 'Political Testament' that Stalin could not handle power, was rude and should be removed from his position of General Secretary, there is no implicit statement demanding that Stalin be removed from all power - indeed it is current academic opinion that Lenin would simply have had Stalin placed elsewhere in the Bolshevik high command. It is also worthwhile to keep in mind that Lenin's Political Testament criticised all of the potential leaders (Stalin, Kamenev, Zioniviev, Trotsky and Bukharin) as well as evaluating their good points. The Testament does, at no point, say that Trotsky was Lenin's chosen heir apparent. In all probability, Lenin probably hoped (unwisely) that the leaders would share power equally amongst themselves and rule as a group.

Your post was nothing but Trotskyist bobbins I am afraid!

He's got nothing.
Bird hat's are nice, but they have absolutely no function in the world of stationairy, so Bismarck still has the better hat. Now if that were a live bird nailed to his helmet, then that would be the most amazing hat in the history of hats that don't suck.