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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This is a real valid argument and your perspective has made me agree with you. From our readings I think it was an easy conclusion to draw that the German military was pretty much the only difference amongst German Europeans and the rest of the continent. There has been a lot of studies into the secod reich and how it may have produced the coming of the third reich, but your argument makes me think that maybe it was not the second reich in its entirety, but the German military of the second reich and its relative autonomy from the rest of German institutions that may have lead to the third reich...
ReplyDeleteNipperdey resonated with me as well. A good point you make is a lack of political modernization in the military. The history of army reform in Prussia would be a revealing one, going back to Hardenberg. Bismarck came in to protect the army from intereference (oversight) and made sure it stayed that way post-unification. This was disastrous.
ReplyDeleteI found the concept of militarism as a leading connection of the Third Reich and Second Empire most interesting because it was the essential difference between Germany and the many other European states. Prussia had always been a powerful and militarily focused state and its unification into the state of Germany created tension throughout Europe that the Germans responded to with increased militarism, introversion, and xenophobia. It geographical location plus technology put it at the center of conflict and forced it to have its guns permanently trained on the other states leading to inevitable conflict. I find it ironic that though they were the center and the most likely to be most heavily devastated, aside from a Russian light offensive, almost no battles were fought on German soil in WWI.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteNipperday made a lot of sense to me too. It seemed that this all encompassing conservative organization seemed to be driving national politics in terms of setting a system of values by which the nation could then mirror. The idolism of the military would ensure that the ideals of this organization would permeate into the general populace in almost a subliminal way.
ReplyDeleteIn relation to other nations I think it would also be interesting to look at militarism in other nations and compare to really tell if the German case was special. For instance Great Britain was most known for its naval prowess. An emphasis on the navy meant an emphasis in overseas commercialism. I think it’s because of the relation between the shipping industry and capitalism. The nation was surviving off a liberal bourgeois and their large shipping and overseas industries wealth and power were then propelled by this facet of their military exploits that supported a more liberal Bourgeois system. The land based military Prussian army was better suited for a controlled conservative economy and as such had an effect on the culture and political views of the people who lived there. I’m in no way suggesting that the military is the only factor that affects the tendencies of a nation, but a tradition in military specialty in one particular branch was the potential to create a nation icon and as such had a definite effect on the perception a group of people have of themselves.
I agree with your explanation of how the separation of the military is what later caused Nazism. I think that Bismarck's influence throughout Germany also helped maintain the separation of the military until he failed. The liberal base Bourgeois and separated military slowly clashed which ultimately led to Nazism.
ReplyDeletea great post and insightful comments. One interesting feature of German militarism explored by Isabel Hull in her book is the idea that the German military operated without civilian oversight and that its emphasis on military goals led to the rise of a theory of absolute victory. If absolute victory could not be achieved, the next option was absolute destruction in order to force the enemy to accept its complete defeat. Hull argues that this pattern of absolute destruction first appeared in the Franco-Prussian War, really developed in SW Africa and then continued in WWI. According to Hull, the lack of civilian oversight and the willingness to accept 'military necessity' as justification for atrocities helped pave the way for the horrors of the Third Reich.
ReplyDelete