The Blackbourn reading was interesting in that it looked at a different dimension of Imperial Germany's political evolution compared to the theories we have been looking at the last 2 weeks or so which have generally revolved around elite politics, industrialization, and general political ideals. As we've discussed a high percentage of the population did reside in rural areas, and with increased democratization the rural community was a powerful constituency either for a new political movement or for an exisiting group to try to form a coalition with.
The most disturbing thing about rural Germany was their general mistrust for outsiders and change. While the rural community did have economic interests, their ideas about cultural matters, provided an opportunity for certain political groupsCertain political groups, most notably the conservatives, could build rural culture and promote their cultural attitudes at no expense to themselves. Anti-semitisim found its way into mainstream politics during this period while under Bismarck Jews had flourished in Germany.
We have discussed a lot of factors that had huge influences on Germany's future. Liberalism did fail and authoritarianism did take hold after WWI. However it is impossible to discuss Nazi Germany without first looking at the Holocaust. It appears that this rural political phenomenon may have created a culture where the Jews could be made a scapegoat for fallout of the military failures that were soon to come. We all know the consequences of that connection.
I also find the exploitation of the rural population's mistrust of outsiders an important cautionary tale. Even in this country it is common practice to pander for votes by fighting "culture wars". Certain groups are held to be representative of superior values, and by implication culturally superior to other groups. It's a cheap alliance because unscrupulous individuals can promote their own agenda simply by making cultural statements where they pay no cost for pleasing certain constituencies.
Saturday, September 26, 2009
Sunday, September 20, 2009
German militarism
This week we discussed many factors from the Second Reich that undoubtedly played some role in molding the future of Germany from World War I to the rise of the Third Reich. While reading and discussing the Historiography one particular thing stood out to me, and that was Nipperty's assertion that the one thing that could be considered uniquely German from the period was militarism. The Prussian military was the most conservative and undemocratic institution in Imperial Germany, and it played a great role in forming the alliances that led to World War I. Undoubtedly the hardships and humilition suffered by Germany as a result of the first World War created the political void which was exploited by the Nazis and led to the tragic events of the Holocaust and World War II.
Bismarck's first actions after rising to power involved making concessions to the liberals and progressives in domestic affairs. Bismarck laid the framework for national unity which the liberals had failed at in 1848 and he agreed to universal suffrage at least for elections in the new Reichstag. These were notable goals of the liberals and progressives, and it begs the question of what did the conservatives get early on out of their supposedly conservative chancellor. The answer is that he protected the military and with his gap theory allowed funding changes in the structure of the military without legislative approval.
The military maintained autonomy after the founding of the Reich. It was the military cabinet that told Austria Germany would support them in the event of a conflict in the Balkans as discussed in the textbook, and this was done unilaterally without involving the civilian government. This had disastrous consequences as it led to World War I, and many in the military including Schlieffen considered military matters to be above civilians.
The composition of the military is also important to note. The aristocracy had a near monopoly on officer positions. A few Bourgeois were allowed to gain promotions as the military grew larger, but only if they were considered politically safe. Jews were also excluded from officer ranks in most cases. The military was dominated by the conservative, aristocratic establishment. It control was undemocratic and authoritarian.
Nipperty was correct in his assertion that militarism was what seperated Germany from the rest of Europe during this period. While as he notes here were many factors and individual decisions that played a role in molding Germany's future there can be little doubt that there were decisions of great importance in foreign relations that were made excluding civilian oversight and that the military was insulated from any political modernization in Germany. There are a variety of reasons why this was accepted and I'm not going to go into them here, but I do believe that it was military culture that led to World War I and may have played a role even beyond that.
Bismarck's first actions after rising to power involved making concessions to the liberals and progressives in domestic affairs. Bismarck laid the framework for national unity which the liberals had failed at in 1848 and he agreed to universal suffrage at least for elections in the new Reichstag. These were notable goals of the liberals and progressives, and it begs the question of what did the conservatives get early on out of their supposedly conservative chancellor. The answer is that he protected the military and with his gap theory allowed funding changes in the structure of the military without legislative approval.
The military maintained autonomy after the founding of the Reich. It was the military cabinet that told Austria Germany would support them in the event of a conflict in the Balkans as discussed in the textbook, and this was done unilaterally without involving the civilian government. This had disastrous consequences as it led to World War I, and many in the military including Schlieffen considered military matters to be above civilians.
The composition of the military is also important to note. The aristocracy had a near monopoly on officer positions. A few Bourgeois were allowed to gain promotions as the military grew larger, but only if they were considered politically safe. Jews were also excluded from officer ranks in most cases. The military was dominated by the conservative, aristocratic establishment. It control was undemocratic and authoritarian.
Nipperty was correct in his assertion that militarism was what seperated Germany from the rest of Europe during this period. While as he notes here were many factors and individual decisions that played a role in molding Germany's future there can be little doubt that there were decisions of great importance in foreign relations that were made excluding civilian oversight and that the military was insulated from any political modernization in Germany. There are a variety of reasons why this was accepted and I'm not going to go into them here, but I do believe that it was military culture that led to World War I and may have played a role even beyond that.
Sunday, September 13, 2009
The demise of the German liberal
When studying the German liberal it is fascinating how in a period of about 30 years they went from a progressive force on the rise in German politics, to allies of the conservative Chancellor Bismarck, to a position of decline where they could no longer form a coalition that could be a serious threat for power in German politics. I had been thinking about their change of fortune before reading Barkin's article for class on Monday, and it gave a very interesting perspective on how the liberals were both elitest and progressive and thus caught in a no man's land of sorts during an extremely dynamic period of German history
Given that the liberals had risen as an opposition party to the conservative establishment it is interesting to me that they took an elitest political philosophy regarding democracy. In the beginning the liberals benefited a great deal from industrialisation, and their opposition to feudal privilege. This made them extremely appealing to the middle classes and won some support from the lower classes. However they were resistent to working with large segments of the population because they did not see them as informed or educated enough to participate in government. They opposed Democracy and chose to align with Bismarck who represented the interests to which they had originally been opposed.
Given that the liberals were opposed to Bismarck's largest constituency, namely the military and the nobility it is not surprising that they eventually had a falling out. It almost seems that it was an alliance based on who both parties did not like as opposed to mutual interests. In the process the liberals made a lot of enemies in the working classes and with Catholics thus reducing the possibility of forming future alliances.
While Barkin notes that many of Bismarck's policies did work out for the liberals, I feel that their loss of political power left a void in German politics. While their economic positions were dramatically different from the socialists and workers, it would not have been impossible for them to have had some political ties and they could have been a moderating force between the two groups. They also could have provided an alternative to the militaristic policies of the conservatives, and could have allied with teh socialist in opposing Bismarck's favortism towards the Junker class.
Utopian politics does not exist in the real world. It is necessary to form alliances, and unfortunately the best and the brightest do not usually rise to power and govern in a non-partisan way. The liberals had some ideas that could have been very good for Germany, and Germany needed them in a position of power but their own elitism and unwillingness to be politicall inclusive prevented them from any chance of forming a coalition that could bring checks on Bismarck.
Given that the liberals had risen as an opposition party to the conservative establishment it is interesting to me that they took an elitest political philosophy regarding democracy. In the beginning the liberals benefited a great deal from industrialisation, and their opposition to feudal privilege. This made them extremely appealing to the middle classes and won some support from the lower classes. However they were resistent to working with large segments of the population because they did not see them as informed or educated enough to participate in government. They opposed Democracy and chose to align with Bismarck who represented the interests to which they had originally been opposed.
Given that the liberals were opposed to Bismarck's largest constituency, namely the military and the nobility it is not surprising that they eventually had a falling out. It almost seems that it was an alliance based on who both parties did not like as opposed to mutual interests. In the process the liberals made a lot of enemies in the working classes and with Catholics thus reducing the possibility of forming future alliances.
While Barkin notes that many of Bismarck's policies did work out for the liberals, I feel that their loss of political power left a void in German politics. While their economic positions were dramatically different from the socialists and workers, it would not have been impossible for them to have had some political ties and they could have been a moderating force between the two groups. They also could have provided an alternative to the militaristic policies of the conservatives, and could have allied with teh socialist in opposing Bismarck's favortism towards the Junker class.
Utopian politics does not exist in the real world. It is necessary to form alliances, and unfortunately the best and the brightest do not usually rise to power and govern in a non-partisan way. The liberals had some ideas that could have been very good for Germany, and Germany needed them in a position of power but their own elitism and unwillingness to be politicall inclusive prevented them from any chance of forming a coalition that could bring checks on Bismarck.
Sunday, September 6, 2009
Kulturkampf and Catholicism versus modernization
The role of religion and religious institutions is a source of great controversy in modern society. Personally I am highly sceptical when a government tries to interfere with the practice of a particular religion or when a particular religous group tries to tell the state how to operate. This is the general attitude we have had in America at least in terms of Constitutional theory. Personally my initial reaction when discussing Kulturkamf was that it was troubling that a Protestant majority with great political clout was openly taking on the Catholic Church using the government. However when preparing for a class dealing with a much older period in European history I was reminded of the role the Catholic Church had traditionally played in Europe.
For over a millenium the monarchs of Europe had been closely tied to the Catholic Church. Many of the early Holy Roman Emperors had been crowned by the Pope. Monarchies claimed their power came from god and when they acted against the wishes of Rome it was a source of great friction. In reality politics in old Europe and the Roman Catholic Church were inseperably tied in most cases.
When you look at this you can understand why the liberals were so threatened by the Catholics especially when you consider the Montanist position the Catholics had taken in recent years. It is only natural that the Protestant government would feel threatened by a group of people whose leader wasn't even German and who had been tied to an older way of doing things. If one was in favor of modernization it is quite understandable how this much older institution could be threatening.
It is also interesting to look at the role the Church played when evaluating the perceived threat. The Church to a large degree controlled schools. The clergy had a great deal of influence on children during their formative years and it is understandable that the government wanted to play a role in determining who the priests were. It is also understandable that the government wanted to sever the Church from their legal influence. The Church having influence over law due to holdovers from an older era would be an obvious concern for the state.
The Catholics had a history of being a political institution. The friction was only natural. The Protestant Church as it existed at that time was more consistent with a modern vision of Germany, and it did not give influence to leaders who did not even reside inside the Reich. I think that it is important to remember that any religious institution who has a history of being a source of political power is eventually going to be a source of politial controversy. Autonomy is only going to exist if the religious institutions stay out of government whether it is the Catholics or any other institution.
Addition
I can't add comments to my own blog so wanted to make it clear that I'm adding this later. This was not based on Wednesday's reading and discussion and I wanted to make that clear. After that I really have looked at some of the internal issues including economic and societal issues that interacted with Catholic influence particularly in local areas.
I will say though that I do stand by the fact that the Catholic Church really did make an easy target for these types of criticism. Historically when Rome had the power to meddle they did, and I do remember reading comments that the Pope lamented the defeat of the French and was not exactly sympathetic to Protestant Prussia. I have become convinced though after this week that Rome probably did not have the influence to interfere and that much of the Catholic opposition was local not international.
For over a millenium the monarchs of Europe had been closely tied to the Catholic Church. Many of the early Holy Roman Emperors had been crowned by the Pope. Monarchies claimed their power came from god and when they acted against the wishes of Rome it was a source of great friction. In reality politics in old Europe and the Roman Catholic Church were inseperably tied in most cases.
When you look at this you can understand why the liberals were so threatened by the Catholics especially when you consider the Montanist position the Catholics had taken in recent years. It is only natural that the Protestant government would feel threatened by a group of people whose leader wasn't even German and who had been tied to an older way of doing things. If one was in favor of modernization it is quite understandable how this much older institution could be threatening.
It is also interesting to look at the role the Church played when evaluating the perceived threat. The Church to a large degree controlled schools. The clergy had a great deal of influence on children during their formative years and it is understandable that the government wanted to play a role in determining who the priests were. It is also understandable that the government wanted to sever the Church from their legal influence. The Church having influence over law due to holdovers from an older era would be an obvious concern for the state.
The Catholics had a history of being a political institution. The friction was only natural. The Protestant Church as it existed at that time was more consistent with a modern vision of Germany, and it did not give influence to leaders who did not even reside inside the Reich. I think that it is important to remember that any religious institution who has a history of being a source of political power is eventually going to be a source of politial controversy. Autonomy is only going to exist if the religious institutions stay out of government whether it is the Catholics or any other institution.
Addition
I can't add comments to my own blog so wanted to make it clear that I'm adding this later. This was not based on Wednesday's reading and discussion and I wanted to make that clear. After that I really have looked at some of the internal issues including economic and societal issues that interacted with Catholic influence particularly in local areas.
I will say though that I do stand by the fact that the Catholic Church really did make an easy target for these types of criticism. Historically when Rome had the power to meddle they did, and I do remember reading comments that the Pope lamented the defeat of the French and was not exactly sympathetic to Protestant Prussia. I have become convinced though after this week that Rome probably did not have the influence to interfere and that much of the Catholic opposition was local not international.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)