It’s been rather difficult for me to come up with a subject to write on this week. What with studying for the exam and all of my other classes, it’s been hard to focus on one subject for a long enough time period to put my sights on a particular event. I guess given the fact that I’ve been looking back on all of our older notes, it’s been easier for me to take a look at how the stage was being set for the Third Reich.
It’s always strange for me to imagine just how things could have been different if the slightest event was changed. I look at the timeline and wonder if the events that eventually set up the Third Reich and the rise of Nazism could have started as far back as the Holy Roman Empire trying to fend off the forces of Napoleon or if all of those things could have begun around the time that Bismarck came to prominence. The argument can obviously be made that all of these events came together to lay the groundwork for the Third Reich, but I’m wondering if it really started at a certain time for Germany. I’m thinking along the lines of what we’ve discussed in class: was there a specific point at which Germany turned down the path that would eventually lead them to war and holocaust?
If these things began with the invasion of Napoleon then I could certainly understand that. After the many years that the French maintained power over the area, it would be understandable to for the German people to desire a unified country. It would also make sense for them to feel a kind of camaraderie with other Germans simply because they were being antagonized by the same foe. I realize that this is basically what happened, but why did it take so long for these feelings to come to fruition in someone like Bismarck. This brings up my questioning of whether or not it could have been Bismarck and the politics of his time that set down the road that would lead to the Nazis. Even though Bismarck was called the “White Revolutionary” who seemed to have a desire to calm things down, maybe his actions are the ones to blame.
After everything Bismarck did that brought the people together and even united Germany; maybe it was just that that made the people of Germany feel they had a right to everything that they desired. It seems to me that one of the key factors that the Germans took into war was the feeling that they could do no wrong. The obvious term of “the superior race” shows what they must have been thinking. The surge of nationalism and political zeal was one of the things that Hitler used to mobilize Germany in such a way. Bismarck’s love of his country may have eventually brought it to its knees if the people’s nationalism and lust for more did indeed help push them into the arms of the Third Reich. As far as the country’s hatred of the Jewish during that time, the German people were no strangers to picking out those that they thought were hurting their goals and national strength. Just like Bismarck’s Reichsfeinde, the Jewish were made to be enemies of the state. If the time of Bismarck had any influence of the growth of the Third Reich (which it did), then wouldn’t this be the most solid groundwork for the Reich? I can’t help but correlate the two eras together. Then again, this is obvious. It’s just odd that Bismarck’s love for his country eventually turned into something that did a great job of destroying it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
You know its kind of a funny game that historian play when they say "oh this was caused by that during this time...", or as we have looked at "the Third Reich was determined by the Second". I think one has to be really careful when they play that logic. I think it is flawed. As you said, history could have been altered by the slightest little thing. Had the King of Denmark not conveniently died for Bismark, would he have attained the unification of modern Germany? Its like the flawed logic behind the game of telephone: you start with one simple message and its supposed to get down the line with out messing up. However, just like with history, the human element is severely overlooked. With either humorous or disastrous results.
ReplyDeleteI think the point of this class is largely for us to be presented with many arguments about how certain events were caused or effected by other events and find their argumentative strengths and weaknesses and then pick for ourselves how we thought the events interacted with each other. As far as the derivations of the Third Reich from the Second Empire, I believe it to be directly related mostly to their unification (which resulted in the notion of superior race and xenophobia) and the Bismarckian politics of the time, both of which were mentioned in this article. Further, I would emphasize their position of militarism that had played such a prominent role throughout Prussian/German history.
ReplyDeleteI do think it is hard to point to a particular moment where Germany became locked into a Nazi destiny. Arguably, the contingencies of history only failed at the point at which Hitler came to power or the point at which Nazi officials decided that genoicide was the only solution to the "Jewish question". Certainly there are 'tendencies' that historians can point to but I'm not sure that I buy into the idea that a country's history can be 'pre-determined' like that.
ReplyDelete