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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Well-articulated, good points. It is unmistakable that most of these agrarian political groups were ANTI groups: anti-semitic, anti-military, anti-urban, anti-modern in general. But the fact that they were used to foster Nazism is hazy. This did not seem to be the case outside the Agrarian League and Prussia (though this was an important movement, esp. to Rosenburg). Otherwise, peasants had local, rogue representatives to voice their grievances, which we see in the Mittelstand movement. Also, anti-semitism is a large fault. But anti-militarism? This was a central point of attack, one which does not line up with the interests of the Third Reich...
ReplyDeleteYou're right that many of the rural attitudes were not consistent with those of the Third Reich. The way I read the article though was that other political groups tried to capitalize on the anti-semetic attitudes in the country side for political purposes which magnified the problem. Being negative towards Jews was actually a political ploy by some but it could have had long lasting political consequences.
ReplyDeleteIt was also interesting to me that when the Conservatives wanted liberal support under Bismarck the Catholics were the bad guys and Jews actually got more rights. Now it seems as if there was going to be a fight over the rural areas and Jews were the problem.
Any way you're right that it would be unfair to put blame for the Nazis on rural populations. In my opinion this one aspect was one piece of the jigsaw puzzle though. I don't recall reading about anti-semeitism being a political issue in a negative way before at least during hte period this course has covered.
Anti-Semitism has always been a problem in Germany. In fact Jews had been leaving the German states and immigrating to Poland since before Napoleonic times. The issue seems to be whether or not it was used to bolster support for the NAZI cause. I believe the answer is undoubtedly yes. It would seem that in order to play in this Mass politics realm the conservatives would have to find some concessions to make so they wouldn’t have to give up on the values they deemed slightly higher, like militarism so the Jews became a good scapegoat. That is to say that in order to gain the support of the masses it was far easier for the conservatives to give up their support for Jewish rights than support of militarism or perhaps some of the aspects of anti-modernism. So in essence the Jewish card was a tool so the conservatives could keep what they wanted and the peasants could feel like they had a say.
ReplyDeleteA really great post and excellent comments. For me, the Blackbourn article really symbolize the interaction between elite and mass politics and gives the lie to the idea that the masses had no agency or were simply duped by those in power. These rural populist groups impacted the nationl parties and forced decision makers to make the parties more responsive to popular issues. Unfortunately, I think Jonathan is exactly right in saying that popular issues like Anti-Semitism were often easier for Conservatives to appease than issues like taxation or the voting system. While I think that that looking at this interaction between the masses and the political parties can help us understand the rise of Nazism, I would caution against readings of Anti-Semitism that equate it with Nazism. Most historians now argue that Anti-Semitism played a very small role in the attraction of Nazism. German Anti-Semitism was not schockingly different from other European state and Prussia had been a haven for Jews since the time of Frederick the Great so traditions of Anti-Semitism can easily be countered by traditions of emancipation and protection for Jews.
ReplyDeleteI agree with almost everything in your post. All of your points are lucid and justifiable.
ReplyDeleteThe only thing I feel you should take into consideration is the fact that Germany already had a high number of anti-semites. According to the reading we've done so far it seems many Germans sided with the Nazi party because of their size and great potential for change after the war. While this cannot be said for every German at the time, I feel using the Jews as a scapegoat came about from the major support of the Nazis, rather than peoples' desires to annex their race.