“By his statesmanship the frontier fringed with cannon, disappeared from within the limitsof the father land. No longer now German seeks to take the life of his brother German. WhatBismarck has done to Germany, still one greater had to the human race.”Indeed a great man. Why the constant anti-liberalism throughout his years, though liberalism had almost achieved his aim, several times before he did, then? I will justify Bismarck’s so called practical-dictatorship and point out, and agree, using many extracts, the problems of liberalism. I will also, along the way, exonerate and justify, Bismarck’s methods of achievement, and disprove the bourgeoisie claim of Bismarck being an oppressor or dictator.Bismarck came to be the pivot of government, but within a constitutional framework, the many claims of dictatorship such as:”He had appointed a ministry of clerks out of the Government Offices, who do as they aretold by him, threatening to resign whenever they disagreed with him, that they now voteentirely in obedience to his instructions…”do not sound just like he has a monopoly of the court, but that a lot of MPs though him to be the Messiah of the Germanics. Parliament was never a complete wash away for Bismarck though and had to be manipulated.”Constitutions, like the kings and parliaments that were components of them, could andshould be manipulated by the responsible minister.”Often this desire for quick and vigorous action made it necessary for him to cut through conservative scruples and official caution (liberal protocol). Rather than an authoritarian, he was a constitutionalist, who believed in the benefits of restriction or royal absolutism on the one hand, and on parliament power on the other, a healthy center-wing. Though indeed a benevolent man, there is one important point: it is not as if King Wilhelm could not have organized his removal, had Bismarck truly been aiming for total power.Bismarck was a political realist (Realpolitik), who understood the techniques of diplomatic maneuver and how and when to use force.”Only a monarchial government possessing full authority to the army and diplomacy couldcarry out an effective foreign policy, being a nation situated in the middle of Europe. InsularEngland could afford democracy; Germany could not”Maybe this was the long term thinking when King Wilhelm rejected the offer of crown of the proposed democratic-liberal Germany. Were the liberal unification of 1850, to have succeeded, with a unification from the ‘bottom upwards’, this would surely have resulted in a weak, disillusioned, eventually civil-strife nation, like many of the small nations of the Bund.”The fundamental error of policy of those days was that people fancied they could attain throughpublicists, parliamentary or diplomatic hypocrisies results which could be had only by war orreadiness to fight; in such shape, that they seemed forced upon our virtuous moderation as areward for the oratical demonstrations of our ‘German sentiment’. At a later day, these were knownas ‘moral conquests’; it was hoped that other would do for us what we dared not for ourselves.”‘More work, less talk!’ Bismarck had pointed out the problem of liberalist brought-about dwindling and laziness, showing that Germany would have to be forcefully yet not unnecessarily united, as the Anglo-Saxons did to England, the Muscovites to Russia, the French to France, the Piedmonts to Italy, must the Prussians to Germany.I feel Prussia, could not win (unify Germany) as a liberal, as the Austrians had a monopoly on the ‘liberal’ German Confederation.”The two great powers are not measured with the same standard by the smaller states andgovernments, and the aims and laws of the Bund are made subservient to the needs of Austrianpolicies.”So this answers the question as to weather Bismarck was a true attempt at German unification; it was either the ‘Prussinisation’ of Germany, or the Austrians continually using and exploiting the Confederation – of which Bismarck would not stand. I agree that Prussia had become the destined nation to unify Germany, (as Wilhelm once said, we were born betrothed to Germany’s unity). Of Austro-Hungary’s 36million people, ONLY 6million were German, while of Prussia’s 16million, 14 were German, who sounds like they are interested in benefiting the German unity? Austria had no right to lead the Confederacy into unity, as they were a multicultural, aristocratic, worn, racially strifed, Jewish state, that was purely bourgeois (not the Marxist defined ‘bourgeoisie’).I disagree that Germany’s unifying completely, was just Prussian expansionism. Prussia (Bismarck) led, having proved with his seldom yet powerfully military might, yet with often diplomatic restraint, rescuing not only Prussian militarism (dwindling because of the constant revolutionary activities), but”Perpetuated that subaltern spirit in German public life that was its natural concomitant.”Bismarck restored complete nationalism saving the smaller states from the slow-down, inefficiency and deceit of complete democratic-liberalism, of which not even the USA had yet mastered, and after having proved its success, installed an autocratic but perpetual constitution, king and (military) tradition, that would make Germany one of the leading economical and military world powers in the next half century.