By the time of Napoleon III, the Prussians had learned well the lessons of how Napoleon I had done it.
Before the absolute debacle at Sedan, the French and German armies had looked at the results of 60 years earlier, and had taken almost dramatically different conclusions from it.
The French employed many of the exact same tactics; the French Republican soldier’s fast-marching had been a huge advantage in the French Revolutionary Wars… but the time had passed for faster marching.
The Prussians – Moltke, especially – had seen that correctly placed railroads were going to be critically important:
“In 1840 Moltke had been appointed to the staff of the 4th Army Corps, stationed at Berlin and he published his maps of Constantinople, and, jointly with other German travellers, a new map of Asia Minor and a memoir on the geography of that country. He became fascinated by railroads and he was one of the first directors of the Hamburg-Berlin railway. In 1843 published an article “What Considerations should determine the Choice of the Course of Railways?”
It’s interesting to contrast the French and the Prussians. The French, having been the fastest and most able soldiers in the world 60 years prior, still felt good about their speed and competence – but did not adequately take notice of the fact that railroads solved three critical military problems: movement at speed, supplies, and balancing action with adequate rest and recovery for soldiers.
Moltke did take notice, co-evolved the Prussian armies and the new railroad construction, and the result was a shatteringly powerful advantage over adversaries.
***
EXAMPLE II: “PRACTICAL CHRISTIANITY”
Otto von Bismarck is rightfully known as one of the most skilled diplomats and politicians of all time.
All of this can firmly be seen on display in his speeches pushing for workman’s compensation and social insurance in Germany.
I’ll remind you that I’m largely apolitical; I reject left nor right; the only direction that appeals to me is – up.
I do not think that expanded state programs are always correct, nor always incorrect. But in the circumstances facing the newly unified Germany in the 1880’s, Bismarck was absolutely correct.
German wages at the time were considerably below American wages – in the aftermath of the US Civil War, under a unified federal policy, American industry was booming and was luring away many of the most industrious and hardest working young Germans. There was free land and the westward push in America meant lots of industry and higher wages than most of continental Europe.
Bismarck saw this as a huge problem. From 1870 to 1890, over 2 million Germans immigrated to the United States – a devastating number, considering the German Empire’s population was only 40 million in 1870.
Bismarck settled on a policy of advocating social insurance and workman’s comp to look to retain young potential emigrants.
This policy was sound – once it was implemented, it worked, and German emigration out of the country fell rapidly each decade following the policy enactments – but Bismark faced two obstacles: the hardcore socialists did not want half-measures put in place that would lessen pain and misery and lower their popular support, and the arch-conservatives were opposed to anything like Bismarck’s programs.
His speeches on the topic are poignant, insightful, occasionally hilarious. Note these excerpts from his 15 March 1884 speech to the Reichstag –
“That the Social Democratic leaders wish no advantage for this law, that I understand; dissatisfied workers are just what they need. Their mission is to lead, to rule, and the necessary prerequisite for that is numerous dissatisfied classes. They must naturally oppose any attempt of the government, however well intentioned it may be, to remedy this situation, if they do not wish to lose control over the masses they mislead. Therefore, I place no value on the objections that come from the leaders of the Social Democrats; I would place a very high value on the objections that come from the workers in general. Our workers, thank God, are not all Social Democrats and are not to such a degree unresponsive to the efforts of the confederated governments to help them, perhaps also not to the difficulties that these efforts meet in the parliamentary arena. The parliament has indeed the right to prevent any progress on our legislation; you have the absolute veto with regard to legislation, and through the uncontrolled exercise of this veto you can certainly paralyze legislation, whether it be because you oppose the government on principle, or whether you do so only opportunely, but consistently in each individual case.”
That addressed both the far-left and far-right objections and put them in context.
“The whole problem is rooted in the question: does the state have the responsibility to care for its helpless fellow citizens, or does it not? I maintain that it does have this duty, and to be sure, not simply the Christian state, as I once permitted myself to allude to with the words “practical Christianity,” but rather every state by its very nature. It would be madness for a corporate body or a collectivity to take charge of those objectives that the individual can accomplish; those goals that the community can fulfill with justice and profit should be relinquished to the community. There are objectives that only the state in its totality can fulfill. Among the last mentioned objectives of the state belong national defense and the general system of transportation. To these belong also the help of persons in distress and the prevention of such justified complaints as in fact provide excellent material for exploitation by the Social Democrats. That is the responsibility of the state from which the state will not be able to withdraw in the long run.”
He doesn’t mention realpolitik – he knew the speech would be disseminated widely. But you can see him allude to retaining population – comparing the problem of citizens’ welfare to national defense and transportation infrastructure.
He likewise frames it as “practical Christianity” – in another speech, he famously laid out the fact that a worker could get injured or crippled permanently on the job through no fault of his own, and was not owed anything beyond standard poor relief – which seemed a sorry and unsound state of affairs.
“Gentlemen, freedom is a vague concept; no one has a use for the freedom to starve. But here freedom is also in my opinion not at all limited and not in contradiction with itself. The proposal intends a freedom in the organization, but it makes the execution obligatory.”
Likewise, you can see Bismarck directly address multiple times in the speech that anything that can be done by individuals should be done by individuals; anything that can be adequately done by joint-stock corporations should be; but these matters were not being handled well in those ways, and so intervention was necessary.
I’ll remind you once again I’m apolitical – this was, retrospectively, clearly the correct answer for the German Empire, and Bismarck navigated treacherous political and social waters very skillfully.
Bismarck had identified that emigration and unrest were huge problems; his way to drive at the “heart of the issue” was through guarantees and indirect wages (insurance, workman’s comp, etc – new inventions; Bismarck’s German Empire was the first nation with workman’s comp). He noticed that he had to deal with far-left objections, far-right objections, and centrist business objections. He took a different approach to each one and was able to get the legislation passed, which did indeed let Germany retain more of their talented industrious young people.
***
EXAMPLE III: THE SEQUENCING OF THE WARS
In wartime, modern Germany’s problem is ever and always that it is surrounded.
If it can navigate that and isolate adversaries, the country generally wins; if it cannot, it loses.
Bismarck and Moltke were remarkably able – due to appearing weaker than the country actually was – to have opposing sides expediently declare war on them.
Thus, their wars often morally had a defensive character to them, and did not immediately generate expansionary fears the way Napoleon had, or the way Hitler lat
er would.
It’s hard to explain exactly how Bismarck and Moltke did it in 1866… the amount of context needed would far outstrip the value of the lessons. Briefly, let’s try –
“The second episode in Bismarck's unification efforts occurred in 1866. In concert with the newly formed Italy, Bismarck created a diplomatic environment in which Austria declared war on Prussia. The dramatic prelude to the war occurred largely in Frankfurt, where the two powers claimed to speak for all the German states in the parliament. In April 1866, the Prussian representative in Florence signed a secret agreement with the Italian government, committing each state to assist the other in a war against Austria. The next day, the Prussian delegate to the Frankfurt assembly presented a plan calling for a national constitution, a directly elected national Diet, and universal suffrage.”
This was before German Imperial Unification and Bismarck, basically, looked like he would be offering a very appealing set of political prerogatives to the Germans in the Austrian sphere of influence. Meanwhile, the Italians were acting somewhat rowdy near the Austrian border.
Austria declares war… and Moltke – in the first major war under his command – swiftly defeats them, before any Austrian allied states could mobilized.
After a few swift victories by Moltke over the Austrians, Bismarck gave them incredibly reasonable surrender terms – terms they accepted but which cleared the way for the Unification of Germany. They were able to do this before Russia mobilized and intervened in the war, which likely would have run for the Germans similarly to the one-generation-later disaster of World War I.
France would make the same error – when Bismarck backed a German candidate to the Spanish throne, the French made a rash ultimatum. Bismarck immediately showed them up in a public way, and the French declared war rashly, and were likewise swiftly defeated by Moltke’s high command.
***
WORAUF?
Bismarck and Moltke might have had one of the most fruitful collaborations in all of history. The two men didn’t always get along perfectly; nonetheless, the amount they were able to achieve is astounding – in technological modernization, in industry, in legal reform, in national modernization, in reforming the constitution, in uniting into a modern state, in infrastructure and transportation, in the sciences, and many more things – very few collaborations have been as fruitful.
Both men very keenly honed in on the most critical next step to their aims.
“Worauf kommt es eigentlich an?”
They would eventually spread that spirit throughout the ranks of their armed forces and of the various provincial legislators, bureaucrats, and judges – there’s a reason that very many modern legal systems across the world have adopted the German legal system, built in that era, as the foundation of their own.
The key is to always hone in on the most critical issue, recognize it, and go from there.
Once that aim is secure, the next most important issue. And so on.
Do not neglect the details! Of course not. Bismarck and Moltke were both incredibly thorough men.
But they never got swamped in individual details while neglecting the heart of the matter – fast movement of people and supplies during wartime, technological superiority, quickly decisive conflicts, manageable conflicts one-at-a-time, reducing unrest and retaining talent in peacetime.
In business, the two key matters are typically product (broadly speaking) and revenue in normal circumstances; and perhaps product, growth, and financing for some class of startups.
You can get all other details right, but if your customers do not want what you’re selling, or you’re not making money, you’re going out of business. This tends to be the heart of the matter in business.
In productivity and habit change, I broadly think that checking in, monitoring, and making adjustments on a daily and weekly basis is the heart of sustaining the changes. It must become the keystone – the piece that is least stressful to keep up, and which allows the structure to stand on its own.
The contrast to asking “Worauf?” is being scattered, diffused, and not knowing what is most important.
What’s most important here?
What’s the heart of the matter?
Then drive the vast majority of your energies at that until solved.
Temporal Control #7: Operations
DISPUTED ROCKEFELLER QUOTATION
“I have ways of making money you know nothing about!”
Rockefeller would later say he didn’t say it.
Maybe he didn’t say it exactly, but I reckon he said something like it.
A competitor he’d driven out of business, Isaac Hewitt, was testifying to the New York Assembly about Standard Oil and John Rockefeller.
Rockefeller did, indeed, have ways of making money that most people knew nothing about.
***
A 4% SAVINGS ON THE COST OF SEALING A BARREL
If you read into John Rockefeller’s life, the vast majority of his dealings are the exact opposite of what people tend to associate with extreme amounts of wealth: he had a fanatical eye for detail, extreme frugality, and typically went about in extraordinary modesty for his levels of wealth.
“Grabowski tells a well-known tale of Rockefeller’s visit to the factory where his workers made barrels to ship kerosene. When Rockefeller noticed the employees used 22 drops of solder to seal each barrel, he asked if they could use 20 instead. When the new barrels leaked, he instructed them to use 21 drops of solder. Those barrels didn’t leak, and Rockefeller saved one drop of solder on every barrel made.” – The Rockefeller Legacy
That anecdote says something right by itself – despite making incredibly high profits for every barrel of oil sold, Rockefeller wanted to economize every single aspect of his operation.
Once he had ascertained that 21 drops of solder were enough to seal a barrel, he disseminated a memo to all refineries – each barrel was to be sealed with precisely 21 drops of solder.
This amounted to a little more than a 4% cost savings on… well, really, a relatively trivial fraction of an expense of barreling oil, which was itself a relatively trivial expense in the grand scheme of things.
But in this, you can see Rockefeller’s attitude to business firmly on display: everything was to be done correctly.
***
TEMPORAL CONTROL #7: OPERATIONS
Last chapter we talked about driving at The Heart of the Matter.
Figuring out which item is the keystone – without which, your structure will not stand… or which is the keystone to destroying some obstacle in your way; take it out, and the whole thing collapses.
It is, of course, a metaphor: outside of a particular type of architecture, there might not be a single keystone that holds everything together… and even if there is, it might not be obvious.
The process of discovering the “most critical thing for success” in a particular domain – and then testing and iterating until you have a way to get that critical thing – is very, very expensive.
We know this, of course: the most expensive version of a new product costs an astronomical amount of money to make. The first iPhone, perhaps, cost hundreds of millions of dollars of R&D to make.
But the 700,000th iPhone… the only cost was raw materials and labor. The invention, the R&D, the failed paths, the new capital infrastructure… it had already been built and paid-for. The cost had come all the way down.
In life, far too many people are going through all the trouble of “inventing the iPhone” – and then manufacturing only one or two of them.
Once you discover a method that is very powerful and potent, you need to ensure it reliably happens all the time to get the relevant gains.
This is operations.
***
OPERATIONS, I: PRE-OPS
My definition of Operations is “the coordination of tactics over time” – to summarize a very complicated issue, life seems to run like this:
Philosophy --> Strategy --> Tactics
1. Philosophy is what’s consciously or unconsciously important to you.
(Actually, I think Religio is more accurate… see “Toughness #4: Religio” in Progression for elaboration… but everyone knows the word philosophy and not everyone knows religio, so we’ll stay with that here.)
Your philosophy might be individual greatness, self-expression, a desire to serve others… it might be a philosophy of hedonism and having as much pleasure as possible… it might be a love of beauty and a desire to be surrounded by beautiful things, or a desire to make the world more beautiful… it could be lots of things.
This is where everything starts.
MACHINA Page 31
