Blood and Iron: Production from Destruction
Bryce K. Richards
The idea that a nation can be ruled through violence and war is one that is, at first, frowned upon but in regards to leadership it can be seen as quite effective. Otto Von Bismarck introduced his version of this method of governing during his speech justifying the increase in military spending in Prussia September 29 of 1862. He mentioned the phrase for which he was remembered in that he stated that a nation is better run “not through speeches and majority decisions…but by iron and blood” [1]. This basically implied that he was supporting the increase of military spending as a result of him viewing using them in war and to fight as an essential component of a frugally expanding nation. He ruled in a fashion that prioritized in the utilization of military force rather than that of passing laws and voting. This, as mentioned above, can be seen as a rather scary or utopian but, in regards to effective expansion, economic growth, and leadership; it is a very useful method of ruling. It prioritizes war which is a useful asset in that it creates an organized environment in which conflicts can be resolved through violence as opposed to random acts of such that have no clear or immediate benefits. Also, it allows for a more effective means of governing in that the nation is under stricter rule and is easily malleable. Lastly, it unifies nations in that when a nation comes out of a war, it is often more unified and patriotic. …show more content…
The alternative to this would be unorganized attacks that could potentially injure many innocent citizens that have no military ties. For sake of numbers; during the Stone Age, before the organization of violence through war, every person that was alive had a 20% chance of being killed at the hands of a human being whereas now, that percentage is less
Bryce K. Richards
The idea that a nation can be ruled through violence and war is one that is, at first, frowned upon but in regards to leadership it can be seen as quite effective. Otto Von Bismarck introduced his version of this method of governing during his speech justifying the increase in military spending in Prussia September 29 of 1862. He mentioned the phrase for which he was remembered in that he stated that a nation is better run “not through speeches and majority decisions…but by iron and blood” [1]. This basically implied that he was supporting the increase of military spending as a result of him viewing using them in war and to fight as an essential component of a frugally expanding nation. He ruled in a fashion that prioritized in the utilization of military force rather than that of passing laws and voting. This, as mentioned above, can be seen as a rather scary or utopian but, in regards to effective expansion, economic growth, and leadership; it is a very useful method of ruling. It prioritizes war which is a useful asset in that it creates an organized environment in which conflicts can be resolved through violence as opposed to random acts of such that have no clear or immediate benefits. Also, it allows for a more effective means of governing in that the nation is under stricter rule and is easily malleable. Lastly, it unifies nations in that when a nation comes out of a war, it is often more unified and patriotic. …show more content…
The alternative to this would be unorganized attacks that could potentially injure many innocent citizens that have no military ties. For sake of numbers; during the Stone Age, before the organization of violence through war, every person that was alive had a 20% chance of being killed at the hands of a human being whereas now, that percentage is less