/his/, can you name a statesman who's greater than Bismarck?
[spoiler]You can't.[/spoiler]
Who is Waldo.
>>1364782
What a very bizarre statement!
By starting three wars following fifty years of peace (1815-64), and that helped turned Euorpe into the powder keg of rival blocks, and left an embittered and humilated France set on revenge that led to WWI?
>>1364795
>embittered and humilated France
>implying that's a bad thing
>>1364782
>/his/, can you name a statesman who's greater than Bismarck?
Napoopan. His only grave error was assuming the Russians were human, but even in defeat so many of his acts as a statesman influenced and changed the world. Even Bismarcks work was done on the foundation Napoleon laid.
>>1364795
>>1364798
To be fair, what Bismarck feared the most was making France an immortal enemy. He knew that despite its defeat in the Franco-Prussian war, France was still a nation to be wary of. If I'm not mistaken his post-war plans were getting close to the new Republican government (that wasn't a fan of Napoleon III anyway, even if the masses were) and forming some anti-British, Franco-German trade block. This of course also included lenient peace terms on France, among others guaranteeing territorial integrity.
It was Von Moltke who wanted Alsace-Lorraine, in part because "muh German speaking minorities", in part because he wanted a more secure border. This of course pissed the French off to no end and forced Bismarck to abandon any plans he had and dedicate the rest of his life to diplomatically isolating France. This of course was an act that he couldn't keep up forever and it would've collapsed sooner or later, even without Wilhelm II going full retard.
Bismarck's brilliance is in the fact that he saw pissing off the French was a fatal move. But of course nobody in Germany fucking listened. Whenever somebody posts a picture of Germany and asks "what went wrong?" the answer is much more obvious than for literally any other nation: nobody listened to Bismarck.
>>1364798
>fucking with a country that has proven itself to be relentless at conserving its hegemony, in spite of the costs encumbered
>good
Anyways, as to your question OP, there's Richelieu who litterally oversaw the Thirty Years' War as he saw fit, and brought revolutionary reforms to France.
Maybe Truman too if you can mention more moden statesmen too.
>>1364816
>It was Von Moltke who wanted Alsace-Lorraine
Partly, but it was also to appease William I, who had been unhappy at obtaining no territorial concessions after the Austro-Prussian war. Bismarck was far-sighted enough in 1866 not to embitter Austria by taking German speaking provinces, but with the ultimately worse outcome of having to later agree to the annexation of Alsace-Lorraine at the end of the French war, causing the exact same problem that he had sought to avoid with Austria.
Bismarck, you mean the retard who invented the welfare state?
>>1364854
Yes, and also the one who unified Germany.
>>1364788
You mean WHERE is Waldo?
>>1364854
Two things:
1. Across the Western world, the welfare state decreased poverty significantly. In case you don't realize it, decreasing poverty means creating more consumers to consume.
2. Bismarck mostly did this to appease commies so they wouldn't do commie things.
The welfare state only got bad after the 60s, when women could vote. From then on out the welfare state changed from "let's hand something to the poorest in society so they can consume and keep the economy rolling" to "let's bribe the electorate with goodies they could easily afford themselves".
Or do you honestly believe that hospitals should only treat those who can afford it, pensions should be abolished entirely and the unemployed should just get fucked? There is a spectrum in terms of the welfare state, but saying it should never have been invented itself is in itself one of the two extremes.
>>1364854
That was hardly retarded of him, evil yes, but it was incredibly clever.
>Annexation of Schleswig-Holstein despite no legitimate claims
>Attempting to induce France to annex Belgium despite Treaty of London
>Annexing of German duchies and states into Prussia despite them never having taken arms against Prussia. Crushing of Frankfurt and seizing of Geore V of Hannover's assets
>Ems dispatch to induce war with France. End result was a powerful, embittered enemy at the border, with an angry, resentful population now within Germany's territory
>Backing Russia to violate Treaty of Paris by re-building her Black Sea Fleet, despite potential for war with Great Britain
There's no doubt Bismarck was a genius, but he was too clever by half and cared not a jot for international treaties if the conflicted with his immediate aims. Is it any wonder it induced a psyche within Germany that led it to viewing the Treaty of London as a "scrap of paper" in 1914?
>>1364908
>Ems dispatch to induce war with France. End result was a powerful, embittered enemy at the border, with an angry, resentful population now within Germany's territory
It's not his fault that France lost :^)
>>1364916
It was a war that didn't need to come about. The French were incompetent, both diplomatically and militarily, but the war did far more bad than good for Prussia long-term. And let's not forget the cause of the build up in the first place; Bismarck manoeuvring to get a Hohenzollern on the Spanish throne and send the signal to France that she was to be encircled.
>>1364934
Prussia needs history lessons. The last time France got encircled a Franco-Ottoman Alliance was formed.
![French_alliances_de_revers[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/GvCgKvP.jpg "French_alliances_de_revers[1].jpg")
>>1364941
The Alliance des Revers is a French classic.
Metternich.
>>1364782
Metternich and Talleyrand
>>1365047
You mean the traitor who took bribes from Napoleon's enemies?
>>1364816
Not just Moltke, it was widely desired among the erupting German nationalism Bismarck wanted to gain from war with France in the first place.
Maybe he should've just divided France into several small German colonies instead like the French wanted to do after WW1. Alsace-Lorraine is actually a pretty small territorial concession for a country that got completely and utterly defeated. Why are the French such sore losers and sore winners?
>>1364782
Richelieau is way superior to Biscuck
You can't in all seriousness name someone that is a better.
![1345953966.78234736[2].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/PuY10cn.jpg "1345953966.78234736[2].jpg")
>>1366064
>Maybe he should've just divided France into several small German colonies
Of course. Let's divide the country with the most establishd and longest tradition of nationalism into small pieces, what could possibly go wrong? Chances are they'd downright voluntarily band together, with maybe the exception of Corsica and Bretagne. Compare Germany in which even during WW1 there was a separate king of Bavaria for example. Splitting Bavaria off from Prussia would be as simple as restoring the full sovereignity of its king.
IL VECCHIO GIOLITTI
>>1366083
This. Lee Kuan Yew was playing Sim City on God Mode.
>>1366083
should have spawned a god-emperor together with margaret thatcher
Alexander Hamilton, maybe?
While certainly not as influential on the global scale as Bismarck or some of the other names in this thread, Hamilton was one of the key people that led the fledgling United States through its tumultous early years.
He and James Madison are arguably the two most influential figures who worked on the Constitution, and it's thanks to Hamilton that the country didn't fall apart right after the Revolutionary War ended.
>tfw your name is slandered and then everyone realizes you were always right
feelsgood.jpg
>>1365069
You can't deny that Talleyrand was a great diplomat though. The problem is that the self interest that he pursued didn't always coincide with what was best for France.
>>1364866
>
Or do you honestly believe that hospitals should only treat those who can afford it, pensions should be abolished entirely and the unemployed should just get fucked?
The irony is that statistically speaking, the same people who act as if the welfare state/ any social provision is evil would've been the same people who'd have been dying of nonsense illnesses and living in squalor. Your mother is dying from an illness that a rich woman would have treated easily and you're at her death bed thanking god for the amount of liberty you have in that situation.
Toppest of keks
>>1366729
What did he do?
>>1367530
>liberty
Napoleon
>>1367083
>Margaret Thatcher
kek
Franco
>>1369273
It's still a right wing party which has been ruling in Spain over the last years.
So yeah...fuck off.
Righ wing=corruption. EVERY SINGLE TIME
>>1369332
>It's still a right wing party which has been ruling in Spain over the last years.
And Spain has the one of the fastest growth rates in Europe thanks to the right,after the socialist debacle.
>Righ wing=corruption
The most corrupt party in Spain is PSOE
>>1369273
>abortion
>forbidden
>this means it didn't happened!
Ceaușescu thought the same.
>Wrong at everything
>Mad
>>1369332
The right brings you corruption but the left brings you destruction
>>1369371
If it's criminalized it'll happen less because the effort of going through all of it is just not worth it
>>1369404
Nah, if it's criminalised doctors cash extra for it and nothing else changes.
>>1369429
>Nah, if it's criminalised doctors cash extra for it and nothing else changes.
Yes it does.Most people wouldnt abort.
>>1369450
>Yes it does
Didn't helped in Romania doesn't help anywhere it's banned.
When will you dumb pro-lifers understand that you're just tools in hands of abortionists who want more money?
I guess never because you need the ego stroking - hey look you're fighting for right of unborn babies to live, my hero <rubs hands>!
>>1364782
easy
>>1369475
Do you not think that it was reduced?
Tell me, if they legalized, say, LSD, would you not agree that the rate of casual users would increase?
Why do you think the majority of the population doesn't use drugs? Because they're moral and they believe in PSAs? Please. They do it because it is hard to obtain, therefore the effort in getting it outweighs any possible pressure
>>1369494
>Do you not think that it was reduced?
I think not.
>Tell me, if they legalized, say, LSD, would you not agree that the rate of casual users would increase?
Initially - yes. Then all the fucking druggies and other human scrap would die from OD and we'd be better off.
>Why do you think the majority of the population doesn't use drugs?
Because they have proper, constructive ways of dealing with problems rather than escapism.
>>1369503
>I think not.
The rates of abortion in Communist Romania are exaggerated in fiction for the simple reason that they make for dramatic stories.
>Initially - yes.
As Ceaceasu thought
>Because they have proper, constructive ways of dealing with problems rather than escapism
Yeah, right. They drink and they smoke, damaging their bodies with each passing day, but it's all legal so it's all cool
>>1369488
This isn't a genocide thread
>>1369625
kek
