Friday, February 10, 2012

Bielefeld's Interpretation of German history.

Reading the different interpretations of how German history progressed through the 19th century and early 20th century, I find that some interpretations in my mind are over simplistic in their approach. The one that sticks out to me the most is the Bielefeld interpretation by Hans- Ulrich Wehler. While I do agree with the assessment that  the autocrats in Germany still held the majority of the political power and did everything to uphold  this poltical system, I do think that it fails to take into account the mass poltics equation that Blackbourn and Eley describe. I also feel that by making no mention of the geographical situation that Germany faced after becoming a unified State in 1871, the Bielefeld interpretation misses the fact that Bismarck had it in his best interest that Germany not go to war, because he understood better than most that a two front war would prove devastating to Germany. Wehler makes the argument that Bismarck would be willing to stir up conflict as his foreign policy if it meant that he would keep the masses distracted from any domestic issues at hand. Obviously these two theories contradict each other and to me the geographical theory makes more sense since Bismarck had actively sought to make treaties to prevent this two war front. Bismarck had earlier sought out trouble with other nations such as France and Austria, but most of this was before he helped unify Germany, and even then it was only done to create a unity among the various German States.
                The Point that the Bielefeld that I am the most skeptical though, is about how he says that the failure of the liberals in the 1948 revolution and beyond is at least partially to blame for why the Nazis were able to rise to power in the 1930’s. This is oversimplifying history and especially the causes of the rise of the Nazis in Germany.   It is interesting to ask the question of had the Germans won the First World War and Germany not have suffered through the economic hardships of the 1920s on top of being humiliated by the victorious Allied Powers, would the population been so willing to accept a call to the return of the past glories the Nazi’s offered? Saying yes, would mean that liberalism in Germany had indeed failed during the crucial period after Germany had become unified.  Depending on what your answer maybe, it will help to define if you agree with the Bielefeld theory or not. 

2 comments:

  1. I agree completely with a lot of your claims, especially Bielefeld's claim that "the failure of the liberals in the 1948 revolution and beyond is at least partially to blame for why the Nazis were able to rise to power in the 1930’s." This may have set the stage for the future rise of the Nazis, but it is a huge stretch to say that the failure of such a revolution was a cause for Hitler's rise. In other words, Bielefeld is making the claim that had a constitutional monarchy or even a republic system been instituted, the Nazis would have never come to power. This is something we can neither prove or disprove, many circumstantial changes to history could have prevented the Nazis from taking power, to single out only a few as the cause of their rise is just bad history.
    In addition, the claim that to suggest Bismarck hoped to avoid war but at the same time wanted to use it to distract from domestic problems is, as you pointed out, a major contradiction. I had never connected that myself, but to say that Bismarck wanted to go to and avoid war, in both cases for national stability are indeed opposing claims.

    ReplyDelete
  2. An interesting take the Bielefeld argument. As far as Bismarck's foreign policy went, quite often what he employed were "war scares" where he would build up the idea that a threat loomed (whether true or not) as a means of rallying "loyal" Germans to the support of the government. Bismarck is far from the only politician to resort to such tactics but they can be seen as highly manipulative of public opinion.

    ReplyDelete