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.
Friday, February 10, 2012
Bielefeld's Interpretation of German history.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
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.
ReplyDeleteIn 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.
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