All this week my mind has been preoccupied with East Germany. The essay is making me grab my hair and tear it out painfully. I am rather confused with what historians are trying to debate and honestly I am trying to figure out what, if any, were there different causes or "approaches" to the revolution of 1989. It seems so far after checking goodness gracious 25 books about the top down apporoach as well as the significant mass movements within East German that shook the foundations of the regime. I am debating very seriously how much can the revolution in East Germany during 1989 needs to be analyzed or debated? What really baffles me honestly is the question of whether the events in East Germany was truly a revolution? Revolution according to Webster dictionary: : a sudden, radical, or complete change or b : a fundamental change in political organization.
In my opinion, 1989 events in East Germany was both an external and internal revolution. There was a suddenly a radical change in the political environment. In fact an entire entity that existed on the map was destroyed. So honestly, historians who argue whether this is a revolution classical or non-classical, ordinary people will agree that communism ended and reunification was achieved with them protesting in the streets and breaking down the wall-- all happening live on tv.
Sunday, December 6, 2009
Sunday, November 15, 2009
The Set Up of Modern Germany
It was an interesting article about the relationship between American troops and German women in post World War II Germany. What was striking about the article was the new found freedom that German women were already tasting, arguably, under the Nazis. I am not implying that all women were experiencing independence and freedom under the Nazis but there was certainly a breakthrough in the traditionally patriarch dominated German society.
This became more evident when the Nazi party fell and Germany surrendered to the Allied Powers. Women for the first time were able to express their sexual freedom as well as work and study in places that were traditionally dominated by men. For the first time, women outnumbered men in post-war Germany. While men were either killed, held prisoners of war, or divorced, women found themselves free from all social constraints and norms. Some of these developments rose from the total destruction of the society and the nation. Germany found itself occupied by four nations - Britain, France, the Soviet Union, and the United States. Germans were left with barely enough food and the nation's infrastructure in shambles. These new developments portray the new beginning of modern Germany where old traditions and German values have been broken down.
It is more apparent in newly created East Germany. German women can now work and contribute meaningfully to the state. While West Germany tried to maintain the old policy of discouraging women from stepping outside their homes but as capitalism and democracy developed, women found new opportunities. It's interesting to note that the destruction of lives, society, and the nation as a whole leads to news changes in attitude, culture, tradition, and the relationship between a man and a woman.
This became more evident when the Nazi party fell and Germany surrendered to the Allied Powers. Women for the first time were able to express their sexual freedom as well as work and study in places that were traditionally dominated by men. For the first time, women outnumbered men in post-war Germany. While men were either killed, held prisoners of war, or divorced, women found themselves free from all social constraints and norms. Some of these developments rose from the total destruction of the society and the nation. Germany found itself occupied by four nations - Britain, France, the Soviet Union, and the United States. Germans were left with barely enough food and the nation's infrastructure in shambles. These new developments portray the new beginning of modern Germany where old traditions and German values have been broken down.
It is more apparent in newly created East Germany. German women can now work and contribute meaningfully to the state. While West Germany tried to maintain the old policy of discouraging women from stepping outside their homes but as capitalism and democracy developed, women found new opportunities. It's interesting to note that the destruction of lives, society, and the nation as a whole leads to news changes in attitude, culture, tradition, and the relationship between a man and a woman.
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Ordinary Men vs. Ordinary Germans
It is simplistic to assume that every German was a blood-thirsty, anti-semetic demagogue. That's plain bigotry towards a group of people based on their nationality. There has been anti-semitism all over the world with brutal policies aimed directly at Jews. Along with Germany, Russia, Poland, Spain, France, and other countries have a history of antisemistism. Why do historians often target Germany as the hotbed of anti-semistism and the holacoust. Well it is mainly because the Holacoaust is a relatively recent genocidal event involving Jews that was caputured in pictures, films, and pop culture. Even today, there are suvivors of the Holacoust that are still alive.
Therefore many historians tend to focus solely on Germany since there is widespread data available. But in retrospect, I am not going to declare that all Germans in the end wanted to see the Jews massacred. There was massive Nazi propaganda which was state sponsored via a 24 hour cycle of constant bombarded of hate towards Judaism that appeared in schools, films, newspapers, and almost infested in every inch of public space in Germany. In addition, intimidation and political oppression with a grandiose sadio-machismo party machine in full effect, there is not doubt that the German society became a mass flock of sheep following the wolf's orders to go after every Jewish person.
A more recent example is in China where the state has influence in every Chinese person's lives. The state controls the media, the internet, and every public instititution. Even private businesses have to follow what the Communist party dictates. It can be assumed that an average Chinese person thinks Dalai Lama is out to disrupt unity and harmony in China by supporting Tibet's independence. There is also the widespread that the Western media portrays China unfairly and tends to harm the country's image internationaly.
When you are faced with intimidation, state brutality, and a constant reckless bombardment of one-sided message continoulsy being over played, eventually society will conform to it. There is no doubt that Germans will have to feel the guilt of electing a mad men to run their lives. Remember the Nazi party came to power through a democratic election. There is no doubt that there was a substantial number of Germans guilty one or another of helping the Nazis implement the "final solution" of the Jews. But today Germans fully accept that the Holacoust was a large black hole in their nation's history. It is said that no one is innocent and that is true especially in Rwanda, Sudan, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and numerous stories involving indigenious people fighting for their land and livelihood.
Here is my take on ordinary men vs ordinary germans. Men are naturally, I believe, evil and everyone is out to look after themselves. The Germans have always been ordinary men and they are not alone in having a history of committing a grave genocide that lead to the murder of six million Jews. Liberal democracies such as the United States, Canada, and Australia have all, you can argue, been founded on the genocide of indigenous people. Ordinary settlers in the United States and Canada pushed the Native Americans off their ancestral land rather than respect their land and way of life. My point is what constitutes an ordinary man? It is not based on race. like Germans, Americans are equally guilty of committing genocide as well as having an infamous history of maintaing slavery of African Americans. The same can be said about Spanish conquistadors and their invasion of Latin America, the Armenian genocide, the Apartheid, the break up of Yugoslavia and the ugly civil war that followed.
Every society has taken orders from the top to carry out horrific acts of genocide against another race. So the question does of ordinary men vs. ordinary Germans does not pertain to Germany itself. The question should be extended to ordinary men vs. ordinary Americans, ordinary British people. I take that example since liberal democracies are equally guilty of committing a similar incident like the Holacoust.
I have written what I think now, but my views will change as I grow older and more mature on this debate.
Therefore many historians tend to focus solely on Germany since there is widespread data available. But in retrospect, I am not going to declare that all Germans in the end wanted to see the Jews massacred. There was massive Nazi propaganda which was state sponsored via a 24 hour cycle of constant bombarded of hate towards Judaism that appeared in schools, films, newspapers, and almost infested in every inch of public space in Germany. In addition, intimidation and political oppression with a grandiose sadio-machismo party machine in full effect, there is not doubt that the German society became a mass flock of sheep following the wolf's orders to go after every Jewish person.
A more recent example is in China where the state has influence in every Chinese person's lives. The state controls the media, the internet, and every public instititution. Even private businesses have to follow what the Communist party dictates. It can be assumed that an average Chinese person thinks Dalai Lama is out to disrupt unity and harmony in China by supporting Tibet's independence. There is also the widespread that the Western media portrays China unfairly and tends to harm the country's image internationaly.
When you are faced with intimidation, state brutality, and a constant reckless bombardment of one-sided message continoulsy being over played, eventually society will conform to it. There is no doubt that Germans will have to feel the guilt of electing a mad men to run their lives. Remember the Nazi party came to power through a democratic election. There is no doubt that there was a substantial number of Germans guilty one or another of helping the Nazis implement the "final solution" of the Jews. But today Germans fully accept that the Holacoust was a large black hole in their nation's history. It is said that no one is innocent and that is true especially in Rwanda, Sudan, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and numerous stories involving indigenious people fighting for their land and livelihood.
Here is my take on ordinary men vs ordinary germans. Men are naturally, I believe, evil and everyone is out to look after themselves. The Germans have always been ordinary men and they are not alone in having a history of committing a grave genocide that lead to the murder of six million Jews. Liberal democracies such as the United States, Canada, and Australia have all, you can argue, been founded on the genocide of indigenous people. Ordinary settlers in the United States and Canada pushed the Native Americans off their ancestral land rather than respect their land and way of life. My point is what constitutes an ordinary man? It is not based on race. like Germans, Americans are equally guilty of committing genocide as well as having an infamous history of maintaing slavery of African Americans. The same can be said about Spanish conquistadors and their invasion of Latin America, the Armenian genocide, the Apartheid, the break up of Yugoslavia and the ugly civil war that followed.
Every society has taken orders from the top to carry out horrific acts of genocide against another race. So the question does of ordinary men vs. ordinary Germans does not pertain to Germany itself. The question should be extended to ordinary men vs. ordinary Americans, ordinary British people. I take that example since liberal democracies are equally guilty of committing a similar incident like the Holacoust.
I have written what I think now, but my views will change as I grow older and more mature on this debate.
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Women in Nazi Germany
Women in Nazi Germany experienced different circumstances and conditions. Not all women were treated the same the Nazi regime. Some found the regime supportive of their new found freedoms of individuality while others seemed to be forced to confine to social norms such as being at home, having a family, and nurturing kids. German women who were held up as role models for the nation were given the opportunity to marry and receive loans from the government. However their freedom was curtailed ironically. Even though they were held as the ideal "German" woman, they were the one expected to get married, stay at home, and raise kids.
Those were not held with high standards, some of them experienced individual freedom than ever before. Some single woman were now able to work and live independently without the obligation of staying at home or getting married. Despite single woman having the freedom to live independently, they were shunned from society and treated like a pariah. The Nazi government nonetheless demeaned them either because of their flaws in their physical characteristics or their personalities.
In Nazi Germany, the treatment of women was mixed and contradictory. Women who the Nazis saw as the "Aryan" type were held in high regard but confined to strict social norms. Single women who were not allowed to get married, for the first time, had the opportunity to experience independent life although their situation was not any better than married women who were considered part of the "Aryan" race.
Those were not held with high standards, some of them experienced individual freedom than ever before. Some single woman were now able to work and live independently without the obligation of staying at home or getting married. Despite single woman having the freedom to live independently, they were shunned from society and treated like a pariah. The Nazi government nonetheless demeaned them either because of their flaws in their physical characteristics or their personalities.
In Nazi Germany, the treatment of women was mixed and contradictory. Women who the Nazis saw as the "Aryan" type were held in high regard but confined to strict social norms. Single women who were not allowed to get married, for the first time, had the opportunity to experience independent life although their situation was not any better than married women who were considered part of the "Aryan" race.
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Nazi Impact
There is no doubt Hitler was successful in mesmerizing the German masses to vote for the Nazi party in 1933. It is fair to say that a madman who was not under public scrutiny could become Chancellor. But there is no doubt that behind Hitler's ability to arouse the German people through fiery, nationalistic speeches, he was as argued a total demagogue who became delusional with the notion that he had the last word on every matter.
He was not an expert on economics, military affairs, and foreign affairs. Initially unemployment fell as Germany began recovering on the economic front. The Nazi party implemented four programs: the creation of the autobahn highway, investment in housing and government buildings, and finally the largest investment went to reviving the nation's military. According to Kitchen, Germany spent 90 thousand million marks on defence. This proved to be a bad idea in the long run, the Nazi regime soon faced severe shortages of raw materials and food. Kitchen wrote, "In 1938, meat consumption was still below the 1929 level and there was a shortage of quality consumer goods." Hitler was so focused on Germany avenging it's humiliating defeat in World War I, that his regime made sure that by all means, money and all the resources would be devoting in re-arming the German military.
This leads to my second point, money was poured to give Germany a better army, an improved navy, and exceptional airforce, the Luftwaffe. The only problem was Hitler was not a brilliant military strategist and his decisions to lead Germany to invade Britain and the Soviet Union was nothing short but a fiasco. Hitler was obssesed with expanding the Third Reich that he himself made the decision to invade Soviet Union. His strategy costed Germany and became a turning point in World War II.
The last point, Hitler was not an expert on foreign affairs. He did invade Czechslovikia and annexed Austria. But when he invaded Poland, it was then that Britain and France declared war on his country. Hitler's army did enjoy the early victories, but these victories soon turned out to be defeats when the Fuhrer decided to ignore the German-Soviet Pact which promised that neither country would invade one another.
He was not an expert on economics, military affairs, and foreign affairs. Initially unemployment fell as Germany began recovering on the economic front. The Nazi party implemented four programs: the creation of the autobahn highway, investment in housing and government buildings, and finally the largest investment went to reviving the nation's military. According to Kitchen, Germany spent 90 thousand million marks on defence. This proved to be a bad idea in the long run, the Nazi regime soon faced severe shortages of raw materials and food. Kitchen wrote, "In 1938, meat consumption was still below the 1929 level and there was a shortage of quality consumer goods." Hitler was so focused on Germany avenging it's humiliating defeat in World War I, that his regime made sure that by all means, money and all the resources would be devoting in re-arming the German military.
This leads to my second point, money was poured to give Germany a better army, an improved navy, and exceptional airforce, the Luftwaffe. The only problem was Hitler was not a brilliant military strategist and his decisions to lead Germany to invade Britain and the Soviet Union was nothing short but a fiasco. Hitler was obssesed with expanding the Third Reich that he himself made the decision to invade Soviet Union. His strategy costed Germany and became a turning point in World War II.
The last point, Hitler was not an expert on foreign affairs. He did invade Czechslovikia and annexed Austria. But when he invaded Poland, it was then that Britain and France declared war on his country. Hitler's army did enjoy the early victories, but these victories soon turned out to be defeats when the Fuhrer decided to ignore the German-Soviet Pact which promised that neither country would invade one another.
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Failure of the Weimer Republic
The Weimer Republic failed largely due to Germany never experiencing a democratic system in dire times when the nation is facing the biggest post-World War I crisis. Historically, Germany has always turned to strong, iron-fist leaders such as Bismarck to alleviate the nation's woes. However this time around, no larger than life leader with strong political will could solve the rising unemploment, frustration, and disillusionment among the German people. It can be said as well that the Germans themselves were reality deniers and actually never gave a chance to support the government in harsh socio-economic times.
The Weimer Republic failed to address important problems. It, first, I believe failed to communicate with the people. When Franklin Roosevelt was elected president, he conducted "fire-side" chats with the American people. He was constantly in tuned to the needs and concerns of the American people whereas it seemed that the German politicians did not at once seem to care about communicating via radio or hold mass rallies to get their message across to the Germans. Once again this is largely due to previous 3-tier class system that every German from a wealthy man to penniless hobo knew and conformed to.
Unfortunately, the reason why the Nazis were able to capture power was Hitler's ability to communicate his ideas to Germans. He was able to establish a connection, that in contrast, the leaders of Weimer Republic could not do.
The Weimer Republic failed to address important problems. It, first, I believe failed to communicate with the people. When Franklin Roosevelt was elected president, he conducted "fire-side" chats with the American people. He was constantly in tuned to the needs and concerns of the American people whereas it seemed that the German politicians did not at once seem to care about communicating via radio or hold mass rallies to get their message across to the Germans. Once again this is largely due to previous 3-tier class system that every German from a wealthy man to penniless hobo knew and conformed to.
Unfortunately, the reason why the Nazis were able to capture power was Hitler's ability to communicate his ideas to Germans. He was able to establish a connection, that in contrast, the leaders of Weimer Republic could not do.
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Bundestag Election 2009
Angela Merkel has won a second term in the 622 seated parliament, the Bundestag after her party, the CDU, routed the Social Democrats. She will be the first woman to win re-election as leader of Germany. Today's election is special since Germans have renewed Merkel's mandate to serve as their Chancellor for the second time after elections in 2005. According to Deutche Welle, German public broadcaster, Merkel's CDU along with CSU have secured 239 seats in the lower house. The liberal Free Democrats Party led by Guido Westerwelle have gained significant seats in Bundestag. The FDP has captured 93 seats while the Social Democrats (SPD) won 146, the worst since World War II. Interestingly, the leftist party, Die Linke, made significant gains by winning 76 seats and the Green Party has captured 68.
The mandate proves that Germany has a succesful democratic system with a woman winning re-election for the first time in the nation's history and Merkel can focus on implementing economic reforms without sharing power with the SPD. Political analysts predict a coalition between the CDU/CSU and the FDP. This new alliance will ensure Merkel's success in solving Germany morbid economy by encouraging business-friendly polices.
For more information, go to:
http://www.dw-world.de/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,651610,00.html
The mandate proves that Germany has a succesful democratic system with a woman winning re-election for the first time in the nation's history and Merkel can focus on implementing economic reforms without sharing power with the SPD. Political analysts predict a coalition between the CDU/CSU and the FDP. This new alliance will ensure Merkel's success in solving Germany morbid economy by encouraging business-friendly polices.
For more information, go to:
http://www.dw-world.de/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,651610,00.html
Lack of Revolutionary Mass Power in Deutschland
I think probably one of the most arguable reasons why Germany was not a successful democracy in the first half of the 20th century is probably due to the lack of any revolutions by the masses demanding more individual liberties. The common man, the peasant, always knew where his or her place was in the German social hierarchy. What scholars argue implies that the traditional way of life was held more strongly in the German society especially among small farmers and landlords than in France and Great Britain.
The second arguable reason why Germany never developed a democratic culture was mostly Germans were content with the rulers who ruled with an iron fist. Bismarck is probably the best example. He was not a democratic by no means, he initiated the Kulterkampf, divided the liberal party thus weakening the liberal movement, and cracking down on Social Democrats. The French were not satisfied with King Louis the XVI, they no longer felt that the king was absolute and equal to God, and the British forced King John to sign the Magna Carta. way back in 1215; Magna Carta proved to be one of the first documents that was enforced to keep a check on an absolute ruler.
It leads to my third arguable point, when the Great Depression affected the world in 1929, Germans looked towards the Fascists, the Nazis to alleviate their misery since historically all the problems regarding the economy, religion, and political crisis have been handled by larger than life unelected rulers. In 1933, the majority of the German population elected the Nazis to power who dangerously usurped power from the Reichstag and began a totalitarian regime.
The second arguable reason why Germany never developed a democratic culture was mostly Germans were content with the rulers who ruled with an iron fist. Bismarck is probably the best example. He was not a democratic by no means, he initiated the Kulterkampf, divided the liberal party thus weakening the liberal movement, and cracking down on Social Democrats. The French were not satisfied with King Louis the XVI, they no longer felt that the king was absolute and equal to God, and the British forced King John to sign the Magna Carta. way back in 1215; Magna Carta proved to be one of the first documents that was enforced to keep a check on an absolute ruler.
It leads to my third arguable point, when the Great Depression affected the world in 1929, Germans looked towards the Fascists, the Nazis to alleviate their misery since historically all the problems regarding the economy, religion, and political crisis have been handled by larger than life unelected rulers. In 1933, the majority of the German population elected the Nazis to power who dangerously usurped power from the Reichstag and began a totalitarian regime.
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Liberalism
Liberalism is important for the development of democracy because there is always a group of people committed to giving enfranchisement to the people and responsible power to an elected legislative body. However, Germany never had a genuine liberal movement. Arguably, German leaders and most politicians had a feudal mindset towards establishing a democratic republic. The Reichstag was more of a rubber stamp organ of conservative influential elites than an actual parliament keeping a check on the government. It's important to understand, that unlike Britain, Germany was ruled by three social classes; the aristocracy, the military, and the monarchy. Britain did not have a universal suffrage till the 20th century but it had an established parliament that performed check and balances on the monarchy as well as on the government. The political parties were much stronger to perform, the Liberals and the Consevatives. The society was relatively open and democratic than Germany's. Why did Liberal's fail to have clear definite goals and represent the middle class?
The Liberals never had mass support from the German people. By far majority of the people were elites who never ever knew what democratic culture feels like. Most of the them were scared of what universal manhood suffrage despite implemented after the German unification. Liberals like conservatives had a deep fear of Germany experienced a type of French revolution. In addition, liberals did not push for making the Reichstag responsible and accountable to their constientuency. There was opposition to the national budget but they failed to take the monarch, the military, the unelected elites, and Bismarck head on.
The economy is important because since the economy was doing well and Germany was becoming more industrialized, there was no need for Liberals to push for political reforms. This is the same scenario with China today. If there is economic prosperity, than there was no need to democratize politics and society.
The Liberals never had mass support from the German people. By far majority of the people were elites who never ever knew what democratic culture feels like. Most of the them were scared of what universal manhood suffrage despite implemented after the German unification. Liberals like conservatives had a deep fear of Germany experienced a type of French revolution. In addition, liberals did not push for making the Reichstag responsible and accountable to their constientuency. There was opposition to the national budget but they failed to take the monarch, the military, the unelected elites, and Bismarck head on.
The economy is important because since the economy was doing well and Germany was becoming more industrialized, there was no need for Liberals to push for political reforms. This is the same scenario with China today. If there is economic prosperity, than there was no need to democratize politics and society.
Saturday, September 12, 2009
The Social Democratic Party
The development of Social Democracy is rather interesting since during the time, there were "reformed" radicals, men and women who supported universal suffrage, improved work conditions, and the public ownership of property, that decided to push for their cause in the parliament rather than on the streets. In Germany since the industrial revolution was in full force, affecting the urban and rural society, both the aristocrats and the peasants alike, new political development to give the masses more democracy was intensely debated. The German Workers Association and the Social Democratic Party more or less did adopt tactics such as advancing socialism through parliamentary means rather than initiating a revolution. In the beginning there were two groups, the General German Workers' Association led by Ferdinand Lassalle and and the Social Democratic Labor Party led by Wilhelm Liebknecht and August Bebel. The SDLP party was influenced by Marxism while the former was established to bind socialism with democracy. When the Reich was established in 1871, the two parties came close together and both merged to form the Socialist Labor Party of Germany. The new party decided above everything else to improve workers' rights by abolishing private property and establishing state sponsored cooperatives that would be publicly owned. The new party planned to implement their plans through parliamentary means which betrayed Marxist's goal of creating a violent revolution. The idea of starting revolution became popular when the Socialist party was persecuted by Bismarck between 1878 and 1890. During that time, the party once again embraced Marxism. This time the German Socialist Labor Party came up with a two-part plan that would appeal to the workers. The first plan was long term, social democrats envisioned the evolution of captilism, one from private ownership to public ownership held and owned by the common people. Property included, land, mines, raw materials, machines, and transportation that would be eventually owned collectively by the workers. The second part was short changes needed to be made while a capitalist economy prevailed. The Socialist Party proposed widespread political reforms but also economic reforms such as an eight hour work shift, a social insurance system, the rights of labor unions, and a law to ban child labor.
Many of the ideas and goals that the Social Democrats advocated were part of the Erfurt program. Clearly the Erfurt program was vague in whether these political and economic ideas should be implemented through revolutionary means. Rather, the Social Democrats made their voices heard by opposing every policy that Bismarck's government proposed including boycotting the vote for a national budget in the Reichstag or in the state assembly, the Prussian Landstag.
Many of the ideas and goals that the Social Democrats advocated were part of the Erfurt program. Clearly the Erfurt program was vague in whether these political and economic ideas should be implemented through revolutionary means. Rather, the Social Democrats made their voices heard by opposing every policy that Bismarck's government proposed including boycotting the vote for a national budget in the Reichstag or in the state assembly, the Prussian Landstag.
Sunday, September 6, 2009
Germany Unification
German unification was not possible without the iron hand of Chancellor Otto von Bismarck. He made it possible for the various German states with different backgrounds and history to consolidate and become a major European power during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. One of the reasons why Bismarck was successful was because he was clever and brought both the conservatives and the liberals to support his policies. Bismarck was able to convince the conservatives and the liberals that "National Unity" was first and it needed solid backing from both groups in order for the German states to unite as one nation. When Germany was finally formed, the German parliament was divided into two houses, the upper house Bundesrat was to accomodate royal nobles and elites while the lower house, Reichstag was elected by universal manhood suffrage. Germany also adopted federalism in which the central government shared power with the states in governing the people. Another reason why Bismarck was successful in making Germany unified was he made Prussia responsible for the unification. While Bismarck used political pragmatism to win liberals as well as radicals over to his side, he also knew Prussia was the most powerful German state. It had already reformed its army and its weapons were much superior than German state. Kitchen wrote, "The Prussian army was equipped with the needle gun which could release seven rounds a minute and could be fired lying down." When Prussia went to war against Austria, several German states joined the Austrian empire including Saxony, Hanover, and Electoral Hesse, all of them were attacked the Prussian army. Prussia was so strong that in less than three weeks, it defeated Austria at Koniggratz on July 3rd. Austria lost 45,000 soldiers compared to Prussia losing 9,000 lives. Such victory for Prussia made it possible to annex the Northern German states and eventually use its new political clout to merge the southern nation states into the new union.
Sunday, August 30, 2009
German Middle Class
The German Middle class since they were educated and aware of the circumstances that the German states were facing, slowly embraced the concept of a united German state during the nineteenth century. The revolutionary idea started in universities where young college students dreamed of putting their idealism into action by forming societies dedicated to advocating the merging of several German speaking states into one nation. Many of them decided to participate in war against Napoleon, mainly inspired by their growing pride to fight for the German fatherland. Students also took park in holding festivals honoring the Reformation and the Battle of Leipzig. It is interesting that students honored Lutheran and his work to break away from the Catholic Church. To some degree, it can be applied that Protestantism is strongly tied with the idea of a united Germany and that the two cannot be separated. College students also made huge bonfires where they burned anything that was foreign or symbolized foreign domination as well as objects that represented domestic oppression. These acts can also imply that German students became fiercely nationalistic. Strong nationalistic sentiments will occur continuously in Germany's history, up until the end of World War II.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
