Otto Von Bismarck Research Paper
John C. Wright
History – 386
Dr. Blum
11/02/2012
Exam #2 This exam is a reflection on the German state, and how it came to be, as well as a look into the actual obstacles that Bismarck had to overcome in order to join the Germanic states in to one, solid German nation. This will be accomplished by focusing on significant people and significant political and economic views that they held to show the differing positions in 1848 – 1849, and by looking at pertinent facts in the 1850s. This will also focus greatly on Otto von Bismarck, who is the man most credited with bringing the thirty-seven Germanic states under one flag, and instilling in the people a sense of nationalism (adding yet another facet to the German people, among radical …show more content…
individuality, organic community, decisionism, and world view). In addition to Bismarck and the unification of the German states, we will also look past the unification and into the German Empire, and see what their domestic and foreign policies were like in regards to Statism and Imperialism, and the eventual return to a more Democratic policy (such as the Germanic people had had before Charlemagne imposed Roman rule onto them). We will be comparing Bismarck and William II’s policies. Finally, we will look at the bigger picture and try and get into the mindset of the Germanic character and see how they related themselves to those around them and how they felt about their place in the world, by drawing heavily on the ideas of Decisionism, World View, and Nietzche’s ideas of Unhistoric and Super Historic, as well as the way that history should be viewed and was viewed by the Germanic character. In 1815 Germany, the Council of Vienna structured and put together the German Confederation of thirty-nine states. This happened because, after the fall of Napoleon Bonaparte, the Quintuple Alliance wanted to create a balance of power that would keep the peace in Europe, and squelch the revolutionary feelings that were running rampant at the time. The entire confederation was made of the 39 German states, and included the largest German states (including Prussia, and Austria). One of the most important people during this time was the Austrian Prince Klemens von Metternich, who was the Austrian Foreign Minister from 1809 to 1848. Metternich was significant because he was an staunch conservative aristocrat who believed that it was in the best interest of Germany and the Quintuple Alliance to put down any and all revolutionary feelings that came up, by any means. However, he and his allies could not squelch the desire for political reform or the cry for unification. After 1815 we see the German businessmen cry out for the abolishment of the old and confining trade requirements of the traditional guilds, for a common currency, and a reduction on the tolls that made travel on the roads so difficult. We also see the rise of a more educated man, of lawyers, professors, and government officials that wanted unification in hopes of causing political reform. These men were liberals that wanted to push for a representative form of government. However, the small traditional states in which they lived and worked had now room to grow. They were a poor place to nurture a political reformation, and these more educated men wanted unification to have a larger political stage so that the roots of political reform had more ground to hold on to. However, these “liberals”, while calling for unification, were not united themselves, and were not focused in on a single goal, thus accomplishing little. The business men only wanted reform that would make their businesses more profitable (much like today’s businessmen), there were many different groups that solely wanted political reform, and not economic reform, but they all had different ideas of what would be better. There were groups that desired a constitutional monarchy, and some wanted more representation, but with the aristocrats still holding most of the political chips (so as to not let the masses tear the country apart), and then there were those that wanted a real republic with suffrage for all (this being said: “all” being all men and not women too). Another side of the problems of unification, in addition to the non-nobility and non-aristocrats, we see the people who were in charge at the time. Namely Metternich and the Germanic aristocrats, who desired to keep the Confederation because they feared losing their power and influence along with their states. Metternich, showing his sense of organic community and loyalty to Austria, desired to keep the Confederation because he wanted Austria to remain the most powerful and influent Germanic state. However in 1832, while Metternich was the Foreign Minister, there was a happening near the Hambach castle. This was the Hambach Festival, which was a gathering that sporratically happened, and was a gathering of educated college-aged students, professors, and other educated people that desired a democratic reform and unification into one country (also where the black, red, and gold flag of a democratic Germany was first seen). This led to Metternich’s issuing the Carlsbad decrees, which were a major censorship of printed information (such as newspapers) and a limiting of personal rights. Thought to be one of the milestones in the time preceeding the unification of Germany. Happening at this time, we see also a young Otto von Bismarck entering into his adulthood, and polotics. In 1848, the year of revolutions, we see a string of domestic German revolts, specifically the ones in Prussia (where Otto von Bismarck was) and in Austria (for Metternich). The differing points of view in these two places between the liberals and the aristocrats was, in Prussia, the people wanting more representation and a German Nation, and the aristocrats not wanting to merge together with the other states, fearing the loss of their own state. In Austria, the people called out for the resignation of Metternich, and he was forced to oblige. However, none of this led to the unification of Germany at this time. It did lead to a change in power in Austria, and in a Monarchial Constitution being written and the Landtag (a governing body) being formed in Prussia. Otto von Bismarck was elected to this first Landtag. Otto von Bismarck, between the years 1862 and 1871, guided the Germanic states into their eventual unification through many difficult situations. The first of these key situations that led to a unified Germany was the Schelswig-Holstein question, which came up after the Danish King Frederick VII died without heirs. This caused the country of Denmark to try and absorb Schelswig and Holstein into the kingdom of Denmark. However this was in violation of a protocol with the German Confederation and caused the combined forces of Prussia and Austria to crash down upon the Danish. The Germanic armies were in full strength and commanded two powerful armies and had backing from the other Germanic states. Denmark, on the other hand, had broken protocol and could not rely on help from its Norse allies. This led to a swift defeat at the hands of Prussia and Austria. This was the last martial victory of the Austrian Empire, because the next major point in German unification was the Austro-Prussian war.
In 1862, after the Landtag’s budget committee refused the King’s (Wilhelm I) request for further military funding, he appointed von Bismarck to Minister-President and Foreign Minister. The next day, von Bismarck delivered his “Blood and Iron” speech, which became, not only his most famous quotation, but also the beginning of the German Nation: The position of Prussia in Germany will not be determined by its liberalism but by its power ... Prussia must concentrate its strength and hold it for the favorable moment, which has already come and gone several times. Since the treaties of Vienna, our frontiers have been ill-designed for a healthy body politic. Not through speeches and majority decisions will the great questions of the day be decided - that was the great mistake of 1848 and 1849 - but by iron and blood. (Otto von Bismarck, Blood and Iron Speech, 1862) This was the beginning, and the next step presented itself in the unification of Italy. Italy became Prussia’s ally, and then von Bismarck created a political climate to have Austria declare war on Prussia in 1866. This was a war to decide who would become the voice of Germany and who would have the ultimate say in how things ended up being run (this being said, think of how history would have been changed in Austria had won instead of Prussia). As mentioned before in the previous paper, in regards to the Prussian way of life and it’s militaristic nature due to lack of arable land (and the way that Frederick the Great had set Prussia on the track to becoming a strong military power in Europe). Von Bismarck used the strong Prussian army and his alliance with the Italians caused the Austrians to fight a war on two fronts and gave von Bismarck his decisive and uncontested victory over the Austrians. This victory caused a stir in Europe.
It showed that with overwhelming militaristic force, and good diplomatic and political leadership, a country could overwhelm and overturn the original alliances and power structures created in 1815 by the Congress of Vienna. This caused unrest in the larger powers of Europe. Around this time, Napoleon III was the ruler in France, and “power-broker” in the continental west. In 1868, a revolution in Spain led to the exile of Catholic Queen Isabella II, and there was a void to fill in Spain. Napoleon III denied the first three candidates, so the regency offered the position of the King of Spain to Leopold Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen, a relative of the Prussian Hohenzollerns, von Bismarck encouraged Leopold to accept the offer. Napoleon III was upset by this, and sent a messenger to Wilhelm I, King of Prussia with terms for this affront. The messenger wouldn’t wait for Wilhelm to come back from his vacation to the Ems spa, and delivered the telegram to him [Wilhelm] there (this was considered extremely rude, and reflected badly on Napoleon III). Wilhelm sent von Bismarck a telegram of the French terms, and von Bismarck doctored the telegram and sharpened the words in his response to the French to, yet again, instigate another country to declare war on Prussia; thus began the Franco-Prussian
war. This was all according to von Bismarck’s plan, because this war caused an 1866 treaty to come into affect that united all the German states militarily (if not necessarily happily) to fight the French. This gave the Germanic people an opportunity to see what they could accomplish as a united people. It helped to bolster nationalistic feelings and begin to sow the seeds of national pride in every Germanic person. So, looking at this war, and the total Prussian/Germanic victory over the French due to their better mobilization (utilizing railways so that their soldiers arrived at the battlefields before the French and were well rested to fight) and unified armies, we see the ultimate culmination of the plans laid by Otto von Bismarck. He manipulated mass quantities of people to succeed in this unification, which happened in the Hall of Mirrors, in the palace of Versailles on January 18 1871 with the crowning of Wilhelm I as German Emperor. And thus was the country of Germany founded. Germany was a country and now had to reevaluate their domestic and foreign policies. The German Empire was led, in name, by Kaiser Wilhelm I, however the power rested mostly with von Bismarck. Bismarck used this power to change the way that Germany those policies. In the beginning, von Bismarck made alliances with the German center-left parties, and thus allowing him to maintain power and establish the main elements of national administration: legal codes, railroad and banking systems, a judicial apparatus, and the civil service structure. Then, the liberals of Germany called out for support in their “anti-papal” campaign, which von Bismarck was more than happy to side with due to his thinking that the German Catholics could never be true supporters of the state due to their divided allegiance to Rome. Here we see how von Bismarck began to shape the statist idea in the new nation, and exert his “iron” will over Germany as Chancellor. His anti-catholic agenda had some consequences. Specifically that the anti-catholic agenda and policies enacted by von Bismarck’s Statism caused the German people to begin to question the social aspects of the new administration and allowed the Catholic party to gather Catholic votes and oppose von Bismarck’s policies in the Reichstag. This agenda ended when it was broken down and Catholic toleration became law. After the Catholic party lost steam, the social democratic party became von Bismarck’s main enemy, and he created a government social welfare policy to try to keep them from becoming too popular. However, his policies and changes were too moderate to stifle the Social Democratic fervor, and in 1890 Kaiser Wilhelm II fired von Bismarck. Then, in 1914, Wilhelm needed mass conservative support to keep the Social Democrats in the minority. He then manipulated the old aristocracy and the middle class though an aggressive military and nationalistic campaign that called for imperialistic colonization. This is where we see Imperialism come into play in the German Empire. However, the Social Democratic Party (the fruit of Karl Marx’s labors) would not be stifled and remained in the background. Von Bismarck and Wilhelm II had differing views on many policies, and differed greatly in how they tried to run the country. Thus it is no surprise that Wilhelm II sacked von Bismarck. Von Bismarck was very reliant on the domestic side of the issues, always looking toward Germany and what could be done for the nation that he had created. However, looking at Wilhelm II’s decision to fire von Bismarck and pursue a more aggressive Imperialistic policy, seems more risky. We can summate that von Bismarck was a more self contained Chancellor, who wished to rule his country with the iron fist of Statism, and Wilhelm II, the Kaiser, wanted to branch out and garner favor with the people by winning glory for Germany, all the while stifling the Social Democrats (thus is the curse of a crown, one may suppose). They both had the best interests of Germany at heart. Moving away from the political side of Germany, we look at the philosophical side. Namely Friedrich Nietzsche’s On The Advantage And Disadvantage Of History For Life. We shall attempt to look at this book’s ideas from a German point of view. As we have discussed so far, the German character is one of radical individuality as well as a sense of organic community. These two main points, along with cosmopolitanism and world-view, give us a rather good overview of what a German citizen was/is.
The main thing to take away from Nietzsche’s writings is that “Culture is constantly changing” through the political and the economic aspects of life. The German people saw a lot of this in the nineteenth century. There were revolutions, new ideas, new monarchs, the rise and fall of regimes and families. However, one thing stayed true: the idea of what it meant to be a German to a German. As we have heard in class, the German people have always had a very cosmopolitan sense of noblesse oblige, or that they, as Germans, had a duty to the other people and countries in Europe to emphasize how great it was to be German. To a German, Germans should lead the world (note: I say “lead”, not “rule”. This is significant). However, Nietzsche is seen quoting Goethe a lot in his book. To start, on page twenty-two (22) of his book, he is seen saying “Whatever has a beginning deserves to have an undoing. It would be better if nothing happened at all.” (Nietzsche, On the advantage and disadvantage of history for life, pg 22). This is a rather pessimistic view of history, and also one that isn’t very German. This leads us into the idea of Historicism, which is simply the understanding of the patterns that occur throughout history. Things begin, and then they end; this is the essence of Historicism. However, while this can seem a bit dismal for a German who wants to lead the world to better places, it is significant in that it stresses that an individual, say, a radical individual must make his own take on history. This is a very decisionistic way of thinking, in that, by looking at history, we can learn from it and make sure the future emulate the good that happened before and avoids the bad. This is how the German people look at it. They live by a policy that their history should have an affect on others, and they should have the course of history “flow through them”. However, there are yet two different ways this can be done. On is the “Unhistorical” way, where man acts the beast and makes decisions based on trivial things, while pushing aside the rational and the moral (not acting). Then there is the “Super Historical” where one sees the pattern and acts on it, learns from it, makes decisions based on it. Super Historical thinking is very rational and moral in that it is better for more people, and not only ones self. The idea is to find a balance between the Unhistorical and the Super Historical, and this balance creates radical individuality. This is to say that, while you (a German) may see the pattern, you act in the way that you (a German) deem the right way; again, history flows through you. We have looked at the efforts and stages between 1815 and 1871 leading up to the unification of the German Nation, looked at the political-economic interests and conflicts that needed to be overcome for that Nation to form, and the pertinent events of that time period. We have looked and discussed the events that were guided by Otto von Bismarck during from 1862 to 1871 that resulted in the unification of the German Nation. We have discussed the foreign policies and the domestic policies of 1871 through 1914 and the ideas of Statism and Imperialism, and how von Bismarck differed from Wilhelm II. Finally we looked at Nietzsche’s ideas from a German point of view, and talked about how history shaped the German people into being an organic community of radical individuals. Learning about this time period, in this location, with these people only helps one to see the pattern of history in his way and learn how to help history flow through them better and hopefully affect others for the better. These ideas and decisions made by others, now continue to help shape the minds of the future.
History – 386
Dr. Blum
11/02/2012
Exam #2 This exam is a reflection on the German state, and how it came to be, as well as a look into the actual obstacles that Bismarck had to overcome in order to join the Germanic states in to one, solid German nation. This will be accomplished by focusing on significant people and significant political and economic views that they held to show the differing positions in 1848 – 1849, and by looking at pertinent facts in the 1850s. This will also focus greatly on Otto von Bismarck, who is the man most credited with bringing the thirty-seven Germanic states under one flag, and instilling in the people a sense of nationalism (adding yet another facet to the German people, among radical …show more content…
individuality, organic community, decisionism, and world view). In addition to Bismarck and the unification of the German states, we will also look past the unification and into the German Empire, and see what their domestic and foreign policies were like in regards to Statism and Imperialism, and the eventual return to a more Democratic policy (such as the Germanic people had had before Charlemagne imposed Roman rule onto them). We will be comparing Bismarck and William II’s policies. Finally, we will look at the bigger picture and try and get into the mindset of the Germanic character and see how they related themselves to those around them and how they felt about their place in the world, by drawing heavily on the ideas of Decisionism, World View, and Nietzche’s ideas of Unhistoric and Super Historic, as well as the way that history should be viewed and was viewed by the Germanic character. In 1815 Germany, the Council of Vienna structured and put together the German Confederation of thirty-nine states. This happened because, after the fall of Napoleon Bonaparte, the Quintuple Alliance wanted to create a balance of power that would keep the peace in Europe, and squelch the revolutionary feelings that were running rampant at the time. The entire confederation was made of the 39 German states, and included the largest German states (including Prussia, and Austria). One of the most important people during this time was the Austrian Prince Klemens von Metternich, who was the Austrian Foreign Minister from 1809 to 1848. Metternich was significant because he was an staunch conservative aristocrat who believed that it was in the best interest of Germany and the Quintuple Alliance to put down any and all revolutionary feelings that came up, by any means. However, he and his allies could not squelch the desire for political reform or the cry for unification. After 1815 we see the German businessmen cry out for the abolishment of the old and confining trade requirements of the traditional guilds, for a common currency, and a reduction on the tolls that made travel on the roads so difficult. We also see the rise of a more educated man, of lawyers, professors, and government officials that wanted unification in hopes of causing political reform. These men were liberals that wanted to push for a representative form of government. However, the small traditional states in which they lived and worked had now room to grow. They were a poor place to nurture a political reformation, and these more educated men wanted unification to have a larger political stage so that the roots of political reform had more ground to hold on to. However, these “liberals”, while calling for unification, were not united themselves, and were not focused in on a single goal, thus accomplishing little. The business men only wanted reform that would make their businesses more profitable (much like today’s businessmen), there were many different groups that solely wanted political reform, and not economic reform, but they all had different ideas of what would be better. There were groups that desired a constitutional monarchy, and some wanted more representation, but with the aristocrats still holding most of the political chips (so as to not let the masses tear the country apart), and then there were those that wanted a real republic with suffrage for all (this being said: “all” being all men and not women too). Another side of the problems of unification, in addition to the non-nobility and non-aristocrats, we see the people who were in charge at the time. Namely Metternich and the Germanic aristocrats, who desired to keep the Confederation because they feared losing their power and influence along with their states. Metternich, showing his sense of organic community and loyalty to Austria, desired to keep the Confederation because he wanted Austria to remain the most powerful and influent Germanic state. However in 1832, while Metternich was the Foreign Minister, there was a happening near the Hambach castle. This was the Hambach Festival, which was a gathering that sporratically happened, and was a gathering of educated college-aged students, professors, and other educated people that desired a democratic reform and unification into one country (also where the black, red, and gold flag of a democratic Germany was first seen). This led to Metternich’s issuing the Carlsbad decrees, which were a major censorship of printed information (such as newspapers) and a limiting of personal rights. Thought to be one of the milestones in the time preceeding the unification of Germany. Happening at this time, we see also a young Otto von Bismarck entering into his adulthood, and polotics. In 1848, the year of revolutions, we see a string of domestic German revolts, specifically the ones in Prussia (where Otto von Bismarck was) and in Austria (for Metternich). The differing points of view in these two places between the liberals and the aristocrats was, in Prussia, the people wanting more representation and a German Nation, and the aristocrats not wanting to merge together with the other states, fearing the loss of their own state. In Austria, the people called out for the resignation of Metternich, and he was forced to oblige. However, none of this led to the unification of Germany at this time. It did lead to a change in power in Austria, and in a Monarchial Constitution being written and the Landtag (a governing body) being formed in Prussia. Otto von Bismarck was elected to this first Landtag. Otto von Bismarck, between the years 1862 and 1871, guided the Germanic states into their eventual unification through many difficult situations. The first of these key situations that led to a unified Germany was the Schelswig-Holstein question, which came up after the Danish King Frederick VII died without heirs. This caused the country of Denmark to try and absorb Schelswig and Holstein into the kingdom of Denmark. However this was in violation of a protocol with the German Confederation and caused the combined forces of Prussia and Austria to crash down upon the Danish. The Germanic armies were in full strength and commanded two powerful armies and had backing from the other Germanic states. Denmark, on the other hand, had broken protocol and could not rely on help from its Norse allies. This led to a swift defeat at the hands of Prussia and Austria. This was the last martial victory of the Austrian Empire, because the next major point in German unification was the Austro-Prussian war.
In 1862, after the Landtag’s budget committee refused the King’s (Wilhelm I) request for further military funding, he appointed von Bismarck to Minister-President and Foreign Minister. The next day, von Bismarck delivered his “Blood and Iron” speech, which became, not only his most famous quotation, but also the beginning of the German Nation: The position of Prussia in Germany will not be determined by its liberalism but by its power ... Prussia must concentrate its strength and hold it for the favorable moment, which has already come and gone several times. Since the treaties of Vienna, our frontiers have been ill-designed for a healthy body politic. Not through speeches and majority decisions will the great questions of the day be decided - that was the great mistake of 1848 and 1849 - but by iron and blood. (Otto von Bismarck, Blood and Iron Speech, 1862) This was the beginning, and the next step presented itself in the unification of Italy. Italy became Prussia’s ally, and then von Bismarck created a political climate to have Austria declare war on Prussia in 1866. This was a war to decide who would become the voice of Germany and who would have the ultimate say in how things ended up being run (this being said, think of how history would have been changed in Austria had won instead of Prussia). As mentioned before in the previous paper, in regards to the Prussian way of life and it’s militaristic nature due to lack of arable land (and the way that Frederick the Great had set Prussia on the track to becoming a strong military power in Europe). Von Bismarck used the strong Prussian army and his alliance with the Italians caused the Austrians to fight a war on two fronts and gave von Bismarck his decisive and uncontested victory over the Austrians. This victory caused a stir in Europe.
It showed that with overwhelming militaristic force, and good diplomatic and political leadership, a country could overwhelm and overturn the original alliances and power structures created in 1815 by the Congress of Vienna. This caused unrest in the larger powers of Europe. Around this time, Napoleon III was the ruler in France, and “power-broker” in the continental west. In 1868, a revolution in Spain led to the exile of Catholic Queen Isabella II, and there was a void to fill in Spain. Napoleon III denied the first three candidates, so the regency offered the position of the King of Spain to Leopold Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen, a relative of the Prussian Hohenzollerns, von Bismarck encouraged Leopold to accept the offer. Napoleon III was upset by this, and sent a messenger to Wilhelm I, King of Prussia with terms for this affront. The messenger wouldn’t wait for Wilhelm to come back from his vacation to the Ems spa, and delivered the telegram to him [Wilhelm] there (this was considered extremely rude, and reflected badly on Napoleon III). Wilhelm sent von Bismarck a telegram of the French terms, and von Bismarck doctored the telegram and sharpened the words in his response to the French to, yet again, instigate another country to declare war on Prussia; thus began the Franco-Prussian
war. This was all according to von Bismarck’s plan, because this war caused an 1866 treaty to come into affect that united all the German states militarily (if not necessarily happily) to fight the French. This gave the Germanic people an opportunity to see what they could accomplish as a united people. It helped to bolster nationalistic feelings and begin to sow the seeds of national pride in every Germanic person. So, looking at this war, and the total Prussian/Germanic victory over the French due to their better mobilization (utilizing railways so that their soldiers arrived at the battlefields before the French and were well rested to fight) and unified armies, we see the ultimate culmination of the plans laid by Otto von Bismarck. He manipulated mass quantities of people to succeed in this unification, which happened in the Hall of Mirrors, in the palace of Versailles on January 18 1871 with the crowning of Wilhelm I as German Emperor. And thus was the country of Germany founded. Germany was a country and now had to reevaluate their domestic and foreign policies. The German Empire was led, in name, by Kaiser Wilhelm I, however the power rested mostly with von Bismarck. Bismarck used this power to change the way that Germany those policies. In the beginning, von Bismarck made alliances with the German center-left parties, and thus allowing him to maintain power and establish the main elements of national administration: legal codes, railroad and banking systems, a judicial apparatus, and the civil service structure. Then, the liberals of Germany called out for support in their “anti-papal” campaign, which von Bismarck was more than happy to side with due to his thinking that the German Catholics could never be true supporters of the state due to their divided allegiance to Rome. Here we see how von Bismarck began to shape the statist idea in the new nation, and exert his “iron” will over Germany as Chancellor. His anti-catholic agenda had some consequences. Specifically that the anti-catholic agenda and policies enacted by von Bismarck’s Statism caused the German people to begin to question the social aspects of the new administration and allowed the Catholic party to gather Catholic votes and oppose von Bismarck’s policies in the Reichstag. This agenda ended when it was broken down and Catholic toleration became law. After the Catholic party lost steam, the social democratic party became von Bismarck’s main enemy, and he created a government social welfare policy to try to keep them from becoming too popular. However, his policies and changes were too moderate to stifle the Social Democratic fervor, and in 1890 Kaiser Wilhelm II fired von Bismarck. Then, in 1914, Wilhelm needed mass conservative support to keep the Social Democrats in the minority. He then manipulated the old aristocracy and the middle class though an aggressive military and nationalistic campaign that called for imperialistic colonization. This is where we see Imperialism come into play in the German Empire. However, the Social Democratic Party (the fruit of Karl Marx’s labors) would not be stifled and remained in the background. Von Bismarck and Wilhelm II had differing views on many policies, and differed greatly in how they tried to run the country. Thus it is no surprise that Wilhelm II sacked von Bismarck. Von Bismarck was very reliant on the domestic side of the issues, always looking toward Germany and what could be done for the nation that he had created. However, looking at Wilhelm II’s decision to fire von Bismarck and pursue a more aggressive Imperialistic policy, seems more risky. We can summate that von Bismarck was a more self contained Chancellor, who wished to rule his country with the iron fist of Statism, and Wilhelm II, the Kaiser, wanted to branch out and garner favor with the people by winning glory for Germany, all the while stifling the Social Democrats (thus is the curse of a crown, one may suppose). They both had the best interests of Germany at heart. Moving away from the political side of Germany, we look at the philosophical side. Namely Friedrich Nietzsche’s On The Advantage And Disadvantage Of History For Life. We shall attempt to look at this book’s ideas from a German point of view. As we have discussed so far, the German character is one of radical individuality as well as a sense of organic community. These two main points, along with cosmopolitanism and world-view, give us a rather good overview of what a German citizen was/is.
The main thing to take away from Nietzsche’s writings is that “Culture is constantly changing” through the political and the economic aspects of life. The German people saw a lot of this in the nineteenth century. There were revolutions, new ideas, new monarchs, the rise and fall of regimes and families. However, one thing stayed true: the idea of what it meant to be a German to a German. As we have heard in class, the German people have always had a very cosmopolitan sense of noblesse oblige, or that they, as Germans, had a duty to the other people and countries in Europe to emphasize how great it was to be German. To a German, Germans should lead the world (note: I say “lead”, not “rule”. This is significant). However, Nietzsche is seen quoting Goethe a lot in his book. To start, on page twenty-two (22) of his book, he is seen saying “Whatever has a beginning deserves to have an undoing. It would be better if nothing happened at all.” (Nietzsche, On the advantage and disadvantage of history for life, pg 22). This is a rather pessimistic view of history, and also one that isn’t very German. This leads us into the idea of Historicism, which is simply the understanding of the patterns that occur throughout history. Things begin, and then they end; this is the essence of Historicism. However, while this can seem a bit dismal for a German who wants to lead the world to better places, it is significant in that it stresses that an individual, say, a radical individual must make his own take on history. This is a very decisionistic way of thinking, in that, by looking at history, we can learn from it and make sure the future emulate the good that happened before and avoids the bad. This is how the German people look at it. They live by a policy that their history should have an affect on others, and they should have the course of history “flow through them”. However, there are yet two different ways this can be done. On is the “Unhistorical” way, where man acts the beast and makes decisions based on trivial things, while pushing aside the rational and the moral (not acting). Then there is the “Super Historical” where one sees the pattern and acts on it, learns from it, makes decisions based on it. Super Historical thinking is very rational and moral in that it is better for more people, and not only ones self. The idea is to find a balance between the Unhistorical and the Super Historical, and this balance creates radical individuality. This is to say that, while you (a German) may see the pattern, you act in the way that you (a German) deem the right way; again, history flows through you. We have looked at the efforts and stages between 1815 and 1871 leading up to the unification of the German Nation, looked at the political-economic interests and conflicts that needed to be overcome for that Nation to form, and the pertinent events of that time period. We have looked and discussed the events that were guided by Otto von Bismarck during from 1862 to 1871 that resulted in the unification of the German Nation. We have discussed the foreign policies and the domestic policies of 1871 through 1914 and the ideas of Statism and Imperialism, and how von Bismarck differed from Wilhelm II. Finally we looked at Nietzsche’s ideas from a German point of view, and talked about how history shaped the German people into being an organic community of radical individuals. Learning about this time period, in this location, with these people only helps one to see the pattern of history in his way and learn how to help history flow through them better and hopefully affect others for the better. These ideas and decisions made by others, now continue to help shape the minds of the future.