the instabilities of the Wilhemine "society"

I think the 2 biggest reasons why this particular time in German history was so unstable was because of the conflict between modernity and the past and the fact that this society was increasingly divided. When one sees the economic unrest, as Jennifer said in class, "the face of capitalism was changing." This economic shift, thanks to the 1st and 2nd industrial revolutions, had transferred most of the economy from the villages (agrarian) to the cities (modernity). Even today, while kids talk about I-phones and technology, the older generation talks of how things used to be back "in the good ole days." These exists this un-noticed tension between progress and tradition: the future and the past. There were tons of people throughout Germnay that did not like this "progress" and wanted things to go back to the way it used to be. Increasingly, more and more people were afraid of this "mass" culture developing in Germany. This development was scary; was this an unfortunate consequence of progress? This idea leads into another trend; the country was increasingly divided. National minorities were seen as forces for disintegration and threating to a unified Germany in the minds of many germans. Jews were increasingly becoming scapegoats 4 the country's problems. Because Catholics formed their own communities, many saw them as separate from the rest of German society, and thus a threat. The SPD, conservatives, and Liberals also helped dis-unify the country, further adding to the instability of this time period. On the whole, Wilhemine society was unstable, unfriendly, and disunified.

A mixed bag of German history

I see the complex political scene within pre-Nazi Germany as a very fluid, interesting situation. As Chris Lorenz accurately points out in his work Beyond Good and Evil? The German Empire of 1871 and Modern German Historiography, this time in German history was "abnormal history without a half-life...[the past that won't pass]." To an extent each theory, whether it was the Bielefeld, Mittellage, Mommsen, Ritter, or Nipperdey schools of thought, each in my view, added (and still add) some badly needed light onto a very mirky, confusing topic. I believe that each person had at least 1 idea that helped bring us, those who look back on this particular time in German history, a little closer to discovering why Germany ultimately bought into the appeal and sway of the Nazis. The Bielefeld interpretation argues that Germany's modern economy combined with a feudal, aristocratic political system, tragically led to the rise of Nazism in Germany. The weakness of the Liberals, whether they were "traitors" to their own cause of just got dealt a poor political hand (coupled with poor timing) also probably led to the establishment of the 3rd Reich as well. I agree with the Mittellage theory that argues that the poor geopolitical position of Germany, even though Bismarck was a good statesman, contributed to the eventual descent down the dark path to Nazism too. Agreeing with Mommsen, Liberals did have a huge problem on their hands when it became evident that they lacked appeal to the masses b/c they had nothing to offer them (and possibly because the Libs were also scared of the masses gaining too much power). I agree with Gehard Ritter in that the social structure, which did pre-date Germany itself, factored into the equation. And when it comes to Nipperdey, I believe that he is correct in saying that Germany's unique glorification of the military compared to other European countries, helped lead the country down the road toward national socialism. If one takes a piece of each argument and pieces them all together, I think all of these issues working together unbeknowst to the actors on the stage at the time ultimately led Germany toward a political climate where a man like Hitler could bubble to the top and effectively assume control of the country.

The Erfurt Program and Eduard Bernstein

I find this particular time in German social democratic history when the Erfurt Program and the "revisionist" views of Bernstein intersect very interesting. As Carl Schorske points out, "Social Democracy was expanding not in an atmosphere of increasing misery and unemployment, but in 1 of unpredented prosperity." The Erfurt program in 1891 did pull together revolutionaries and reformers, but it was ultimately committed to revolution. Then along comes Bernstein, with his "revision of Marxist theory," which in essence argued the revolution that the revolutionaries unceasingly called for was unneccessary. This optimistic outlook envisioned a situation where the capitalist system and the ideals of socialism could come together in a nonviolent way, sort of like the Lassallean view (legal rather than radical change) that could positively be accomplished. Bernstein thus caused two consequences; 1) he helped cause a schism to surface within the ranks of the party. Reformers, for the first time, had ammo and a reasoned argument as to why legal means, rather than violent revolution, were a better manner in which to proceed as a party in the Reichstag. 2) Bernstein and his ideas really put the Erfurt Program to the test; as a party, what do we stand for? Can socialism and capitalism really coexist? "Thus Bernstein's revisionism provided an alternative base for the reformism enshrined in the Erfurt Program." No doubt it certainly would have been an very interesting indeed to be a socialist in germany near the turn of the 20th century.

The German Generational Dilemma of Spilled Milk

I have this "gut feeling" that history seems to repeat itself; each generation must re-learn the same material and overcome the same obstacles as the previous generation had done. In another class I read this book by Ivan Turgenev called "Fathers and Sons," which dealt with the concept of a cycle of ideas/governing that each generation must learn. I see this cycle of the same problems and poor solutions with the Prussian gov't leading up to 1848 and with Bismarck and his newly created German gov't in 1871. In the 1840s, as we have discussed in class, the Prussian gov't, with the numerous problems the State faced (taxation, wood theft, guilds, too much gov't intervention, exc), and it's overreaction to fix the issues led to the creation of more problems within society than eventually led to a "Revolution" of sorts in 1848. The Government, in the attempt to correct precieved problems, (i.e spilled milk) thus spilled more milk on the floor and had an even bigger problem on its hands than b4. This idea can also be seen with the Bismarck ran German gov't in the 1870s and 1880s. There were problems with social classes, (the bourgeoisie and the working class) religious divisions, and the economy, in addition to foreign affairs. Arguably the only 1 that Bismarck was able to fix was the issue of foreign policy, which worked in keeping France isolated until the outbreak of WW1. In trying to fix these problems in Germany, Bismarck, like the previous generation, created even more problems. 1) In developing the idea of "Reichsfeinde" (enemies of the State), Bismarck created a voting bloc of roughly 25% that would always vote against him, in essence giving political power to his emenies, the Center Party.
2) While trying to bring the Liberals to his corner with "Kulturkampf," Bismarck alienates the "evil Catholics," and the "evil socialists" with the Anti-Socialist Law (1878) thus driving both groups and their economic earning power underground, and at the same time making both groups increasingly radical. So Bismarck, while trying to fix this problem of a political puddle of milk on the floor, spills even more milk all over the place just like the previous generation had done in the 1840s, to the ultimate detriment of the german people.

Thoughts on 8/26 discussion

When I read these articles from Shorter and Robertson, I felt that there was a loose connection between the two. On page 368 of Robertson's article she writes "these students were, in actual fact, mainly middle class, seeking equality with their social betters under the rubric of equality for all men." In the Shorter article on pg 195 he writes that "apprehension about losing status and power gave the middle class the reactionary stamp we shall encounter in the essays." Both the students and the independent, land-owners saw and felt that the country was going in the wrong direction. However this is where the similarities really cease between the two articles unfortunately in my opinion. It seems to me that the students wanted to, in a somewhat radical way, change the way things were being done. They wanted to be called german students @ german universities instead of Bavarian students at a Prussian university. In many ways the students were leading the way in this "revolution" of sorts, with the Academic Legion and the demand to carry firearms during this time. They were initiating change and indeed causing some"mischief" as Duke Wellington put it. I just don't see that same intensity coming from the middle class. Yeah they're issuing petitions and answering essay contests, but what are they really doing? I think they're just complaining. Complaining about how there's "overpopulation," the poorer classes are wearing clothes like the middle class, the machines should be done away with, and the youth were immoral. Seems like a laundry list of complaints, albeit important issues to them at that time, but complaints none the less. This brings to mind an elderly couple sitting on some park bench talking to each other and complaining about "those darn kids with their iphones, internet, and X-boxes are so spoiled! It wasn't like this in the good ole days." I just think the middle class response was one of reaction, to turn back the clock, to reform the system passively with petitions and essays while the students responded in a more proactive, aggressive manner (i.e students on the barricades) in the streets, and at the rallies trying to get things accomplished.