13 Sep

This week I think I would like to say a little bit about the emergence of mass politics and the resurgence of desire for democracy among the majority of Germans, and of course abroad as well at the time. There has always been debate about if democracy is truly the best method of governance. This is a worthy debate. It has been said that the majority should have the final say, regardless of what they personally have invested in their government. This became a big desire for Germans, and they were optimistic that they were beginning to taste what it was like to have a constitutional system as well as being able to choose who would represent them in their government, not just by due aristocratic right. At the same time, the traditionally aristocratic ruling class was very anxious of the system as they saw the weak parts of the system; namely, the fact that the voting pool is essentially the mob. History teaches us that "mob rule" very often is focused chaos and used for extreme measures. The traditional ruling class was worried that any common Joe could run for an office and capture an election by recognition and not particularly merit. This is the fundamental danger democracy and mass politics inevitably brings to the table. However, it was very interesting how the new constitutional state in Germany was able to withstand the two opposing forces and basically keep society on an even keel and proves the risiliency of the system, especially in the rapidly developing industrial economy as well as in collapse as was seen in the mid 1870's as Germany was poised to be the industial powerhouse in Europe.

Aug30

So for this first post, though it may not be the best, I would like to discuss the topic of emerging German nationalist hopes in the years after Napoleon. It has been said that the wars with Napoleon had sparked nationalist ambitions in German states. This I believe is an absolutely correct observation. Foreign occupation usually ends in a uniting patriotism against the occupiers among the occupied. Just a simple recent historical example would be the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. Afghanistan at the time was a disorganized state and a highly tribal culture with local loyalties. The Soviet Union, invades and many militant Afghanis from around the territory took up arms against the invaders. These people as it seems would not have banded together without the spark of the need for a united defense. This seems along the lines of the argument presented about the beginnings of German nationalism, post-Napoleon. However, to me this is not a full explanation for the true beginnings of nationalism in German states.
It seems this type of uniting German nationalism only had a single purpose, to expel occupying forces. That is the same in the example of Afghanistan. If you look at Afghanistan, post-Soviet withdrawl, it remained a highly tribal culture. Though the Taliban took "official" control of the country, it was not a widespread consensus by Afghanis throughout the state. The same seems true in the German states after French forces had been finally expelled. The German states kept their local loyalties, and there were only parts of the citizen base throughout the states that promoted a united Germany, further, these were only idealistic promotions. All Germans did not necessarily think that this was either possible, or a good idea. So concluding, it is true that the expulsion of French authority from German territories gave German nationalism a spark, it was not enough to keep the momentum going; there was too strong of opposition to unification coming from German conservatives. It would take many years, strong industrial growth that expanded the more liberal middle class looking for a more capitalistic system in order to fully take advantage of their growing wealth and power. Ultimately, it seems that growing industry was the key to German nationalism after the initial spark provided by the removal of French occupying authority.