Bismarck: some secret pages of his history (Vol. 3 of 3). Being a diary kept by Dr. Moritz Busch during twenty-five years' official and private intercourse with the great ChancellorBusch, Moritz
History
Bismarck: some secret pages of his history (Vol. 3 of 3). Being a diary kept by Dr. Moritz Busch during twenty-five years' official and private intercourse with the great Chancellor
Busch, Moritz
Bismarck, Otto, Fürst von, 1815-1898
Fifth Envelope. Second half of the year 1854. Begins with a letter of
the 1st of July from Gerlach (who finds that Manteuffel is now taking
a proper course) and ends with a letter of the 31st of December. The
intervening papers include among other things a confidential report
by Bismarck to Manteuffel on the abstention of Würtemberg from the
existing agreement between the other Governments in favour of the
alliance of April 20th; letters from Manteuffel and Gerlach; an
(autograph) memorandum by Bismarck on the attitude of the Bamberg
people, and of Buol towards Prussia. It says: “We cannot consent
to an aggrandisement of Austria, because the importance of Prussia
in respect of physical force would be approximated thereby to that
of Bavaria. The Western Powers will want to restore Poland, which
would be less against the interests of Austria than against those
of Prussia and Russia.” The remaining papers include letters from
Alvensleben, Bunsen, Pückler, Wolzogen and Schulenburg.
Sixth Envelope. The year 1855, but only from the 2nd of January to
the 14th of August. Then come breaks in the correspondence up to
November 1858. Chiefly letters from Gerlach and Manteuffel. Also a
letter from Frederick William to King John of Saxony (dated 18th
January); five or six from Savigny (in one of which he laments that
Prussia has missed an excellent opportunity of placing herself
at the head of Germany) and from Schulenburg, &c. There is a
characteristic letter from Gerlach, dated the 4th of January, in
which he writes: “I believe that we should be in agreement if you
were here, that is to say, as to the measures to be taken, if not
also as to principles--for I hold to the Holy Scriptures, which
teach that we must not do evil in order that good may come of it,
because those who act in that way are very properly damned. Now to
coquet with Bonapartism and Liberalism is to do evil, and moreover,
to my thinking, it is unwise in the present case. This you forget
(a mistake into which every one falls who has been away from here
for some time).... How can you go on finessing indirectly with
such an utterly unprincipled and untrustworthy Minister, who is
involuntarily lured into the wrong path, and with a master whose
peculiarities, to put it mildly, defy calculation? Just remember
that F. D. (Fra Diavolo, pseudonym for Manteuffel) is a Bonapartist
on principle; think of his behaviour in connection with the _coup
d’état_, and of what Quehl wrote under his patronage--and if you
want to know something new I can tell you that he has now written
to Werther expressing the foolish opinion that if one wanted to be
useful to Russia the way would be to adhere to the treaty of the 2nd
of December in order to have a voice in the negotiations; indeed I
believe that F. D. has actually advised the King to adhere to the
treaty of the 2nd of December, that is to say, with modifications,
these, according to the way in which things are done here, being of
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account