Wednesday, September 23, 2009
The Importance of the Second Reich
It seems to me that people seem to be trying connect the Second Reich with the infamous Third Reich. The question to me is why? Of course if would seem logical to try to find a connection between the two most influential periods of Germany's history. The Second Reich, under Bismarck's political guidance, achieved a unified Germany with established borders and a military able to withstand any power on the continent. The Third Reich was also made territorial gains and established a powerful and effective army. I believe, however, that the Second Reich is not the place to look for the "birth" of the Hitler's Germany. The evidence points out the fact that while Bismarck and Hitler were both charismatic and politically savvy leaders they were as different in their aims as two men could be. Bismarck played his political games with the European powers and fought wars to expand and establish Germany's borders but went no further. Hitler fought and would have taken over the whole world if he had had all the right advantages. He would not be satisfied with the Sudetenland or Czechoslovakia. The end of World War 1, the resulting Versailles treaty, and the failure of the Weimar Republic is the real birth of the Nazi Party and the Third Reich.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree 100% with what you're saying. While the Second Reich played an influential role in German history, trying to find ways to make the Second and Third Reichs father and son (respectively) is absurd. The Treaty of Versailles and the chaos during the Great Depression in the Wiemar Republic was the impetus for the development of Hitler's Germany. The only thing that could possibly be traced back to the Second Reich would be the militarism that Nipperdey spoke of in his interpretation of German history.
ReplyDeleteI don't think historians are looking for a "birth" of the 3rd Reich within the 2nd Reich, just sown seeds of unhappiness that the Nazis used and reaped later on down the road. There is no doubt that the Liberals (more specifically their failures) had some importance as to why the German nation ultimately fell under the clutches of a tyrant like Hitler and his cronies...so the question that should be asked, and was asked in this reading was how? How did this happen? You have 5 different ideas on how this happened: are they all flat out wrong?
ReplyDeleteI agree with that, but I think that historians will always try to make the connections that seem so rampant in history books, articles, etc. To me, historians make these connections in order to make the story of history more fluid and cohesive (even if it might not always seem the same way to others). I agree with you about the Versailles Treaty, with the increased nationalism and love of the father land that the German people were experiencing during WWI, it's no wonder that Hitler could come along and take advantage of that for his own gain. The people that remembered what they most likely saw as injustice in the treaty probably jumped right on board in order to take another shot at German glory.
ReplyDeleteI think that historians are looking for structural (social or economic) patterns. The argument is that the Weimar Republic was not long enough to destroy the traditions from Bismarck's Reich. They believe that structural factors remained unchanged and that a true shift in power had not occurred so that the Third Reich emerged from this undimished power structure.
ReplyDelete