Jonathan Steinberg (1)Rezensionen

La Germania nazista e l'Italia fascista erano unite da una «brutale amicizia» nell'alleanza dell'Asse. Ambedue avevano selvagge leggi razziali: sia Hitler che Mussolini denunciarono fortemente la «minaccia ebraica». Tuttavia le due nazioni trattarono gli Ebrei in modo piuttosto diverso.

Tra il 1941 e il 1943 le forze italiane di occupazione in Croazia, Grecia e Francia si opposero con successo ai piani tedeschi di deportazione e sterminio degli Ebrei, il tutto contravvenendo agli ordini impartiti da Roma.

Mentre gli Ebrei che caddero nelle mani dell'esercito tedesco furono relegati nei campi di concentramento, non ci fu un solo Ebreo, preso dagli Italiani, che subì la stessa sorte. Gli ufficiali italiani non protessero solamente gli ebrei italiani, ma i rifugiati ebrei di ogni nazionalità.

Questo volume nasce dalla consultazione delle diverse fonti documentali che dimostrarono una ricerca estremamente ampia ed accurata.
Jonathan Steinberg ricostruisce questa storia toccante e singolare per districare i motivi e le forze che hanno sostenuto sia il nazismo che il fascismo, in un tentativo di risolvere la domanda fondamentale: perché? (fonte: retro di copertina)

Þessir fyrirlestrar fjalla um sögu Evrópu á tímabilinu 1715-1914. Kennarinn Jonathan Steinberg gerir skemmtilega tilraun til að skoða þennan tíma sem einkenndist af örum breytingum í gegnum líf þekktra persóna sem eru að hans mati einkennandi eða brautryðjendur mismunandi strauma og stefna þessa tíma þegar síðmiðöldum lýkur og upphaf nútímans hefst.
Steinberg fjallar vel um tímabilið sjálft og þær breytingar sem urðu með og einkenndu þessa einstaklinga en sem gefur að skilja verður ævisaga persónanna stundum æði stuttaraleg.

Otto von Bismarck was a towering figure in the late nineteenth century. In this 2011 biography Bismarck: A Life, Jonathan Steinberg argues that accomplishments and triumphs achieved by this historic statesman stemmed from the force of his personality. What was this personality? While he could be charming and witty, he was a narcissistic bully who shamelessly used people, even his own children. Bismarck lied repeatedly, openly, and could never tolerate being wrong on anything. He demanded absolute loyalty but gave none in return. He betrayed those who supported him. He hated his enemies with a Nixonian passion and could be equally paranoid in interpreting the motives of others.

Politically, Bismarck was a master strategist who played the long game, looking years in the future. He was an equally ingenious tactician combining multiple plans and options, setting different constituencies and factions off one another. He used any means necessary to gain an advantage and accomplish his goals. His drive to unify Germany took three wars that he essentially precipitated. Bismarck’s extraordinary successes and ability to make the big play when needed, accounts for his longevity.

Lacking any adherence to an external ideology, Bismarck was a party of one. His objective was to maintain and enhance his own power. Although he depended on the will of the sovereign, his intensely histrionic performances full of threats and offers to resignation played King and later Emperor William I. The old monarch once commented that Bismarck was more important to Germany than he was. Steinberg points out how lucky Bismarck was that William I lived to be ninety years old. These pathetic emotional performances fueled Bismarck’s hypochondria, gluttony, and frayed his nerves to the breaking point time and time again. It did not help that Bismarck refused to share power or delegate tasks. Instead, he kept all the decision making – and stress -- concentrated in his own hands.

Unfortunately, such personal control over the construction of a united Germany infused the state with some significant flaws. In international affairs, he set the stage for the alliance system that would become a contributing factor to the First World War. On the domestic scene, his lack of respect for the legislative branch (such as it was) remained a feature of German politics until 1918. His playing groups off one another hampered national unity and plagued social relations. His intense anti-Semitism was a harbinger of much worse to come.

I came away from this biography convinced Bismarck was a thoroughly repellant person.

There are several things that I liked about the book. First, it was focused and coherent with clear arguments. That is an accomplishment with a subject so full of contradictions with both stunning accomplishments and total failures. Second, I liked the liberal use of primary source block quotations. Typically, I prefer them to be used sparingly, but Steinberg skillfully uses them to build the story and give the reader a sense of the times and what people thought. And, finally, I liked the authorial voice. Steinberg is present and part of the conversation, sharing his opinions and thoughts with the reader.

There were a few negatives. First, I felt a lack of context to some issues. I do think that I understood some of the political issues, especially around German unification and the Prussian king’s attitude towards it ,because I read Christopher Clark’s Iron Kingdom as well (a work Steinberg cites) simultaneously. Ditto the Prussian culture of Bismarck’s time. I certainly would have struggled to grasp them had I not been reading Iron Kingdom. Second, I think Steinberg handles Bismarck’s marriage well, but his children go almost unmentioned until they are adults (at which point Bismarck dominates and uses them as he did to everyone else). His eldest son first appears in the text when he is thirty-one or two years old on page 406. The index is organized around people, not subjects. As an active index user, I found this quirky and a little frustrating.

As a Gilded Age Americanist, I could not fail to notice Bismarck’s political domination in the decades when, except for Abraham Lincoln, the presidency of the United States was at its weakest point. Still, on a personal level, I would much rather hang out with Chester Arthur than Otto von Bismarck.

The answer, it turns out, is "because Switzerland".

No person was more responsible for the creation of Germany in 1871 than Otto von Bismarck. First as minister-president of Prussia, then as chancellor of the German Empire he shaped and guided the creation and development of the country for over a quarter of a century. Yet as Jonathan Steinberg points out in the introduction to his biography of the man, he was a ruler without any sort of sovereignty or popular support, a fact that in our more democratic age makes his achievements all the more remarkable. How Bismarck came to occupy this role and stamp he placed on Germany is detailed in this perceptive book, which provides an understanding of his achievements within the context of his life and times.

Little about Bismarck's early years indicated the outsize role he would play in history. Born to a Prussian landowning family, he benefited from the opportunities open to him as a member of the Junker class. Drawn to politics in his early thirties, he soon made a name for himself as a staunch supporter of the Prussian king, Frederick William IV and in 1851 was named the Prussian representative to the Diet of the German Confederation. It was here that he developed his famous pragmatism as a politician, as well as fostering an image of recklessness he felt would serve him well in his political dealings. Yet he desired to be at the heart of power, and he succeeded in winning appointment as Prussia' minister-president in 1862 thanks to the active support of Albrecht von Roon and other members of a conservative camarilla.

Once in power Bismarck began a remarkable transformation of European politics. The key to his power, as Steinberg notes, lay not with party support or military backing but from his ability to dominate Frederick William's brother and successor, William I. With the king's backing, Bismarck was able to remake the map of Europe, forging the nation of Germany from the disparate states that survived the Napoleonic era. Yet the governing system he constructed was one designed to maximize his authority as chancellor, thwarting the demands of liberal politicians for a greater voice for parliamentary democracy. This system proved to be a double-edged sword, however, as Bismarck found out when William's grandson William II took the throne. Lacking the hold that he had on the new emperor's grandfather, Bismarck's resignation was finally accepted in 1890, leaving the governing power of the advanced industrial state in the hands of a mercurial young monarch and his independent and assertive military.

Steinberg's book is an excellent account of Bismarck's life and times. He offers a fascinating portrait of a dramatic politician who dominated the politics of his nation as few have before or since. By setting Bismarck's life into the context of its times, he demonstrates well the impact Bismarck's policies had — for better and for worse — on the development of Germany as a nation. Unfortunately this does come at a cost, as Bismarck's private life is generally given short shrift outside of its impact upon his temperament, but such a sacrifice is understandable given the challenge of summarizing such a long career within the confines of a single volume. Steinberg succeeds in providing readers with what is likely to be the best single-volume biography of the "Iron Chancellor" for decades to come, one that should be read by anyone seeking to understand this fascinating and important figure.

This book is full of detail. From my perspective, there is a lot of detail and, it does become a bit bewildering, especially for someone who is not familiar with the context of Bismarck's life. What I would have liked was some short contextual notes.

I think that Jonathon Steinberg struggles between his personal assessment of Bismarck as a person, and his achievements as a statesman.

Bismarck may well have left a shaky administration, and he may well have been a ruthless person in the pursuit of power. However, any person who has to reach that level will be ruthless, and maybe an assessment in the context of others who have pursued power would have also been helpful.

All in all, it is fascinating to read a book on Bismarck, where he is presented, warts and all. This is unusual, and this in itself makes the book an interesting read.

I enjoyed this. It is an interesting approach to history, using the biographies of important people of the the time as a stepping stone to learning about the events of the time. Many of the half hour lectures left me wanting more details. Many times I went back and forth to re-listen to some of the segments, but he builds a very thorough tapestry of the events he covers.

Old geezer on old geezer. Bismarck is the defining figure of German history in the 19th century, so I came to this biography with certain expectations. It soon became obvious, however, that the author lacked the freshness or empathy to make this biography come alive, and only cares about demonstrating a central thesis. Sentences are repeated, German names are mangled, and there are odd interjections like a grumpy uncle would make, especially concerning the European Union. So what's the central thesis then? Easy: Bismarck = Hitler's John the Baptist, paving the way for national socialism, dictatorship and the Holocaust. Bismarck's anti-Semitic comments, though obviously deplorable, were not that uncommon for his age or country. When reported by the author (whose father, according to Wikipedia, was "the noted rabbi and author Milton Steinberg"), they constitute a straight line leading to the extermination camps. My main peeve, however, is the lack of understanding of Bismarck's psychology. This biography describes his life like a medieval saint's story, with wondrous twists and turns that defy explanation. It is never made quite clear why exactly Bismarck was offered the chancellorship, nor why he took the political positions that he did.

Detailed, entertaining, but too opinionated for its own good, and not really telling us anything new about the old bugger.

I was very disappointed in this book.

Biographies generally need two additives, a good subject and a good narrative. Otto von Bismarck is a fantastic subject and led an extremely interesting life - he was essentially the Hitler of the 1800s.

I found the problem here though was the writer has taken an interesting subject and added dull narrative. I found it extremely difficult to 'get into' this book and it just seemed to ramble on and on. I found it resembled a textbook more than a non-fiction book designed for pleasurable reading.

If you are interested in Bismarck's correspondence and motivations there's plenty of copies reproduced in this book and some analysis of circumstances but overall it makes the life of an extremely interesting man during an extremely interesting period of time utterly boring.

This book was, for me, incomplete. The author explained that he wanted to talk about Bismarck as a man, and used quotes from those who felts the effects of his powerful personality to paint a portrait. However, I found that not enough context was put into the book, so that we had a series of "characters" entering and exiting the stage without any attempt to paint sufficient background to tell a story. This book really needs at least some analysis to hold it together.

A clear, well-written and thoughtful life of Bismarck that simultaneously acknowledges the achievements and marvels at the weaknesses. The verdict: the creation of a major world-power against all odds, but one which was fundamentally flawed in ways which led to the rise of the Nazis.

The question posed by the title can be interpreted in two ways.
- Why is Switzerland the way it is
and
- Why does it matter to the rest of the world

This book purports to answer both questions, but it spends 95% of the time on the former, by examining Swiss history, as well as politics and religion.

The overarching conclusion is that 'Switzerland is the Europe that didn't happen', with which the author means that Switzerland never went through the centralization of power to the nation-state that happened to all other European countries through the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries.

Prior to the peace of Westphalia there were over three thousand 'sovereign' entities, that owed allegiance to the Holy Roman Emperor, and many of them had signed bilateral defence treaties, similar to the Rütlischwur, that has frequently been taken as the foundation of the Swiss confederation. This was a succession of oaths binding sovereign entities (later cantons, but in the early days cities or regions) in defence alliances.

Thus, the important question isn't 'Why Switerland', but rather 'Why not Europe' - and the answer is that the Swiss cantons were able to defend themselves (Swiss footsoldiers were long famous, and in fact there are still Swiss mercenaries in employ outside the country.) The Alps have always been separated into small valleys and cities with long histories of independence and self-rule, even under nominal overlordship, such as the Holy Roman Emperor. Many also developped into democratic societies where the individual peasant farmers formed the basis of a society with respect for individual ownership, rather than fealty towards a lord.

It's common to compare Switzerland to the federal state of USA, but one very important difference is that the Swiss cantons (unlike America's states) have along history of independence, and have historically only resigned to the federal state questions of defence. In that way Switzerland more closely resembles the European Union than the USA. It's true that with the constitution of 1848 the federal state has taken on additional responsibilities, but the cantons themselves remain very important. And within the cantons there are communes, with very great autonomous power. There are almost 3000 communes in Switzerland, and about 50% of them have less than 1000 inhabitants. This means that the average Swiss person is very close to the government, even if it's only a clerk working half-time as a public servant.

It would of course be impossible to characterise the Swiss without mentioning the system of direct democracy. Four times a year all adult Swiss citizens (and some non-citizens, according to a very complicated formula) are allowed to vote on a list of issues, that can range between (to take an example from last year) increasing the sales tax by 0.1% (federal referendum), to building a new recycling centre (communal referendum).

Even on the highest level the decision-making is coloured by consensus rather than competition. The highest executive branch of the government is the seven-seat Federal Council, and it's made up of a representative selection of all the major political parties. Among these seven the role of presidency rotates, changing every year1.

This gives the system a certain slowness, which can also be interpreted as stability, but at the same time the system changes, with for example the federal constitution having been completely re-written three times since 1848, and with numerous modifications in between. The same is true on the federal level.

He also goes through the history of religious strife within the country and without, but I must admit that I find the various squabbles between the anti-ultramontane and josephinists a bit tiresome.

All in all a very interesting book! The prose might get a bit sluggish at times, but for the most part the author manages to bring the subject alive. The only complaint is that it's getting a bit old. the book was originally written in 1976, but was given a serious face-lift in 1996. A new edition wouldn't go amiss.

This turned out to be an utterly fascinating book, and it explained quite a bit about Swiss behavior and culture. While I of course can't vouch for everything in the book, I've tested a lot of it by observation and questioning the natives, and it seems consistent with reality.

Switzerland turns out to have a number of unique characteristics that aren't obvious to the outsider. For example, the government consists of an extraordinarily complex nested set of committees with a rotating presidency. The author makes the case that virtually all Swiss institutions, including government at all levels, the church and major corporations, are strongly influenced by an 800-year tradition of committee organization. In spite of having the most stable government in Europe (which my Swiss co-workers do not dispute), Switzerland has one of the most malleable constitutions in the world (which my co-workers do dispute).

I'm personally fascinated by language issues, so I read ahead to that chapter before finishing the lengthy chapter on politics. Again, Switzerland is unique in its treatment of dialects, which have very different social implications and practices in the French, German, Italian, and Romansh areas. According to the author, the urban Swiss Germans gave serious consideration to aligning themselves with 'greater Germany' in the 19th century. This obviously did not take place, and one of the unique results is that the local versions of Schwyzer Tüütsch (choose your spelling depending upon the valley you're in) are universally spoken without significant class variations. In other words, this chapter explains why the Italian Swiss are more likely to be comfortable in standard Italian, and the French Swiss are more comfortable in standard French, than the Swiss Germans are speaking standard German. As any outsider who speaks German is painfully aware, the Swiss Germans read and write standard German (Hochdeutsch), but generally prefer not to speak it.

Swiss seem more willing to discuss politics than religion, but the chapter on religion was enlightening. After all, Switzerland was at the heart of the reformation, with Zwingli in Züri and Calvin in Geneva. Again, the Swiss are unique among European countries in their treatment of religion and the extraordinary compromises they have made to allow the peaceful co-existence of roman catholicism and protestantism.

The Swiss military is, unsurprisingly at this point, another unique institution. Virtually the entire male population is expected to belong to the reserves for most of their working years, and they keep their weapons and ammunition in their homes. It was only recently that 52 year olds were no longer required to serve a short annual duty. I've found that the military intrudes regularly when you are working with the Swiss, so besides being interesting, the chapter on the Army is helpful in becoming more aware of some of the workplace dynamics.

How can a country with 4 different official languages have and maintain a common culture? What do the different regions have in common? Quite a bit, actually. Anyone who deals with the Swiss on a regular basis or spends over a week here would find this book a helpful start on building an understanding of Swiss institutions and culture. This would also be an excellent book for students doing cultural area studies of Europe or Switzerland. It is a good read, and anyone interested in contemporary Europe would enjoy it and find it educational.