government v peasants

I must admit that I found trying to read this article rather tedious. Whether it be because all of those acronyms were annoying or I just flat out didnt understand the article... At any rate, I found the discussion of the article to be fascinating. Seriously. There is a lot that can be learned from this article.
It is interesting to me that the peasants have only recently come under study. And I think that many good points were brought up as to why this was the case. But their importance in deceptive. Yes, these may be "only peasants" as opposed to workers who kept the cities running. Plus workers rebelling in a worker oriented state would seem to be much more telling than mere farmers. This of the PR nightmare! The state would be a laughingstock! However if one sits down and thinks for a moment, farmer discontent is an excellent marker of a regimes success. After all, how the agriculture sector of the economy is doing is an indicator of how the economy is doing as a whole.
It never fails to amaze me just how, pardon me, idiotic some people can be. I mean seriously, I am not joking. I do not understand why someone thought that he was just so smart and important that though he had absolutely NO knowledge of farming, that he would make rules regarding how that sector should run (quotas, LPGs...etc). Actually, it wasn't even just one person but a whole GROUP of men. What on earth!? How are these men in leadership positions? How can you be so arrogant and to believe you know everything? This arrogance is their greatest weakness and that is clear to see in this revolt by the peasants. They knew that the demands on them were absurd and ridiculous to maintain. Hence the uprising.

The Jewish Question

We talked about the situation regarding the Jewish population in class today, and I believe that I have come to a more accurate understanding of the reality in which they lived. A question that I have always had is: why not just leave? I mean, my gracious, if i am faced with death and the possibility of being destitute the rest of my life, I will take my chances with the latter and work my way back to an acceptable standard of living. Yes I realize this could be construed as a demeaning way of looking at these peoples problems, but I do not mean it in this way. I truly believe that if it were me (disregarding the fact that I am female and women just "did not" work during this era) in that situation, I would do everything I could to keep my family alive and then fight my hardest to provide for them and myself in a way that I could be proud of.
As we discussed further, other factors began to weigh in and started to change my mindset about the Jewish populations predicament. When drawing an opinion on the matter there were a couple of "facts" that I took for granted. One, you have to go back and look at the time line. At what point was the "point of no return"? Again, if you look at the functionalist point of view (which I am more inclined to believe, along with a few intentionalist notions), it is not clear that from the beginning the holocaust was inevitable. If I put myself in their shoes, would I want to gamble and lose everything? I have to remember that that they did not necessarily know what lay ahead. It very easy in hindsight to say "oh you should have left", but living in the situations that they did I no longer think that line was so clear.
Another "truth" that I took for granted was that the Jews would have a place to go. I mentioned in class that I felt like either the Jews should leave or that the Nazi's should just deport them all (especially if they had no where to go. just leave them out on their own, its their problem). But one has to consider where could they go? I mean the could illegally sneak into other countries, but remember that many countries that would be "desirable" were at war! And no body wanted them. Somebody mentioned in class that they would not even let them settle in Alaska. Wow. And that's all I have to say about that.
Something that I think is important to remember and that is often overlooked in the history of the Jewish people. As Professor Malto said, what was happening back then (before the mass executions began) was not the worst tragedy to befall the Jewish population. Since the beginning of their existence, the Jews had been persecuted and abused. None of which were truly justifiable. I think that knowledge of their historical resilience hurt them in that it made their thresh hold for pain so great, they couldn't monitor the catastrophe they could face with normal amount of fear.

national nazis?

Actually I want to throw out there that i was going to go on a rant about the selfish ignorance of the German people. How on earth could they support a political group such as the Nazi's!? They were a part of the problem, not the solution. In fact, they created a whole new set of problems! But after talking about them in class i have reached a new understanding of the Nazi party, and yes, i am a touch impressed. They saw the needs of the people and modified their doctrine and methods to appeal to the majority. To me, that is extremely clever. Especially in a time that was so divisive, where individual interests groups reigned, to recognize that the people truly desired unity and then to offer them that security is astounding. No other political party can truly make that claim. Every single on was angled to a specific set of people- which in turn inherently divides the nation. So by bringing all of these divisions together, the Nazi's were essentially creating a brand new country, not just government or economic system. Therefore the Nazi party garnered and unprecedented sense of nationalism, pride and unity that I would argue hasnt been replicated. That is not to say this party did not have enemies, or that they maintained this support, but for that moment in time, they were a forced to be reckoned with.

all for one and one for all...

but the Jews dont count.

during the first world war the german peoples banded together to help one another survive. they actively chose to rely on one another rather than the government. someone, though they were apart of this coming together of people, the Jews became further ostracized. more and more they were differentiated from being "true" germans

how this logic makes sense escapes me. much like many of the decisions that the German population seems to have made socially, politically or militarily. (disregarding a few people of course, who seem to have been radically sane from their bretheren).

somehow, before/during/after the war this feeling on antisemitism began to take hold on the country. but why? why was it more socially acceptable to have anti-semetic views now than before? where does the beginning of this shift lie?

Of course, the Jewish nation has been the pariah of every country since practically the start of history. their persecution is not novel, but it is still terrible. and i am always amazed at the hatred mankind can have for one another. and this hatred does not even have valid grounds!! I digress.

Germany had previously been a center for Jewish persecution (during the 1500's i believe. if you are interested, look up the myth of ritual murder. its fascinating what people can come up with... basically they accused the Jews of stealing children to sacrifice their blood and use their bodies in grotesques rituals. another aspect of this was the desecration of the host: the Host would be stolen and tortured until it became a small child (Christ symbol. someone had a rampant imagination). It seems that they just really really wanted to bring it back. But i dont understand how being a Jews makes you not suffer as much as anyone else, or not stand in line as long, or even look different than the average German. The Jews were not exempt from the Burgfrieden. Can someone please explain to me how on earth the German population cam to the point where the majority did not like the Jews?

oh wilhelm...

wilhelm the second was quite a fascinating character. Not that i admire him or even really like him all that much. but he is really interesting to observe. his decision making process was just wild.
when "willie" was born there was a complication and this resulted in the laming of his arm. In photographs he was able to hide this disability but it plagued him emotionally. It undoubtedly influenced his emotional stability and growth through his childhood. not to mention his parents, the crown prince and princess of germany, were influenced to raise him harshly to compensate for his weakness. Not that they raised him themselves of course, this was not how it was done. but the tutors hired to watch over the boy were very strict. one in particular was extremely harsh and he remembers him as not ever uttering a word of praise but being a very harsh critic.
it is important to note, i believe, that the crown princess was a very significant woman in her own right. She was the eldest daughter of Queen Victoria and her husband Prince Albert (who was never crowned king). She was also her fathers favorite child. She was bright and precocious. her younger brother, the crown prince of england, was less so. he was tricky and rebellious. In many ways he was like willie. yet where Albert (later Edward VII) was a renegade, I feel that Willie was unstable.
Willie was a very jealous person given to fits of indecision. it is evident that his rearing in a society that glorified the military had a profound impact: he loved to dress up in uniform. he loved the discipline and "glory" of the military. of course he was not himself given to the hard work and discipline that the military required, but it was a nice idea.
Wilhelm II assumed the title Kaiser upon the early death of his father, Frederick III. Unfortunately, the cruelness in his nature became even more apparent. He had him mother placed under house arrest and charged her with sending state papers out of the country and into England (this charge is actually somewhat true. Frederick and Vicky were wary of their sons impending rise to the throne and had sent papers out of the country for safe keeping prior to fredericks death. what these papers were i dont remember...). But this cruel streak would reappear numerous times over the course of his rule. He did not have particularly sound relations with his family, particularly his elder sister Sophie, the Crown Princess and eventual Queen of Greece. He was a tyrant, bent on being the "patriarch" of the family. He felt that his siblings should acquiesce to his "almighty power". hah. His mother wrote numerous concerned letters to her daughter articualting her fear and concerns for her son.

A Giant's Fall

i think that the fall of the Iron Chancellor, Otto von Bismark, had as great of an impact as his rise. His fall, expedited by the new Kaiser, altered the course of German history in that one of Germany's greatest political influences was no longer there. Bismark was a remarkable man. He took an dynamic fractured "confederation" and solidified it into a static, unified nation. Not only did he unite these individual kingdoms/dutchies/provinces, but he turned them into a viable, powerful entity. In the middle of nowhere was a militarized country. Its a fear inspiring prospect.
I wonder what the ratio of skill to luck there was in Bismarks success. In the very least he had the wit and cunning to turn potentially neutral situations into an advantage for Germany. For example: what if the King of Denmark hadn't died? Or if he had died even just one year later. Would the impact have been the same? Would Austria have been as vulnerable (does anyone know if they were getting better or worse at this time)? I mean, even if the new Danish King hadn't been so aggressive with trying to absorb Schleiswig and Holstein, would Bismark have been able to nullify the threat posed by the Austrian Empire? His success at defeating the French was also based on the "lucky" timing of the deposition of the Spanish Queen Isabella II. These events cannot be planned out. I mean you could guess that something might happen given the temperament of a country or the health of a king and I dont know if Bismark had that advantage. But even with the luck, Bismark had to have an extraordinary knack for turning these situations into a positive for Prussia. He had almost a sixth sense about it (which i feel gives alot of credence to the mittelege idea of geopolitics).
By taking out Bismark, Willhelm II got rid of the key behind the Empire. Wilhelm was certainly not the strategizer or the stabilizer that Bismark was. (Which, by the way, I dont think its possible to evaluate the rise of the german empire and not recognize Bismarks influence). With Bismark gone, who would be able to do for the Empire what he did? He had decades worth of knowledge and experience. I feel that those who came after him did not understand the nature of the politics to the extent that Bismark did and by neglect harmed the power and position of the Chancellor.

a question and a comment...

This week has really been a struggle for me. Not just in class but trying to figure out what to blog about. I have, however, found this second reading to be fascinating. Who would have thought that there were so many ways to interpret this stuff!? (yes im a little biased...) It is extremely interesting the different directions that historians have gone on. I am curios to see how much political affinity, nationality and time affect what these people say. Of course people writing while the country was divided would have a much different opinion that those who wrote right after the fall. What about internal or external pressures? What if work wouldn't get published unless it presented facts in a certain way? What about governmental or social pressure? If people disagreed with what he said they wouldn't purchase his book or perhaps react even more strongly. How much of what these people write is what they truly believe?

To go off on a little different direction (and I may be incorrect in this, so don’t attack. Remember I don’t do the whole politics thing well. This is my uneducated opinion)…

Is anyone else extraordinarily irked with the social democrats? I mean they get enough support to create a political party, which splits. well alright, but they spend THIRTY YEARS trying to decided what ideology to believe, how to influence the government, what kind of government they wanted, "who they were" etc... and what did they accomplish? NOTHING. well ok they were able to disagree to every bit of legislation that came to the Riechstag there for a little while, until Bismark (thank goodness) kicked them out. Not that I only disagree with their ideals, but my gracious. What a waste of space! Get voters in there who will actually vote on the issues. Voting against stuff to “prove a point” and be antagonistic is a useless exercise. Yeah, whatever I am sure that you have some nice plans and pretty ideas but not doing anything is not going to implement them. At some point you have to be realistic. Its like the girlfriend who gets mad at her boyfriend because, I don’t know, say he fell asleep and forgot to call her. Rather than say, “Hey baby it really hurt that you didn’t find me important enough to talk to…”, she is furious, rants to her closest girlfriends, gets a manicure, goes shopping and ignores him for a week. I mean he might get the hint (smart boy). But to get any sort of real change you have to confront the underlying issue head on. Giving the cold shoulder or pretending to not be angry is NOT going to solve anything. At all. Grow a pair and tackle the issues at stake. Don’t waste thirty years of my time.

Power to the Church!

disclaimer: Before I get going on this thing I want to go ahead and admit that I am not strong with politics. it is difficult for me to understand those subtle differences that define a party. I cannot keep them all straight in my head. If I get something wrong, I apologize in advance. If anyone would like to explain all of these different parties to me, please feel free)

The role that religion plays in the "modernized" society is actually an interesting and slightly ironic story. Something that I think is important to remember is the religious/secular struggle that had been going on for decades, even centuries before this conflict. For hundreds of years the Church was the ultimate authority on all issues. They held “the keys to the Kingdom” so to speak. You see the “German” (yes I know it did not exist yet, but go with me) secular world start to try to assert is power as early as the 11th century with the struggle between Pope Gregory VII and Henry IV, Holy Roman Emperor. Embedded deeply into the European psyche is this rebellious attitude toward papal authority. You see it pan out multiple times over the years (remember the Reformation?)

I think that it is this mindset that helped push the mistrust and censorship of the Catholic community. After Italian Unification, the power of the Papacy was further diminished. During this time a particularly ambitious Pope was trying to regain secular power (for example, by announcing the Infallibility of the Church). Of course in the now distinctly Protestant, unified Germany there would be an outcry. In fact, I think that all of Protestant Europe was infuriated. The leaders, the aristocracy and ruling family (and Bismark), feared the influence that the Church might try to reassert. The rise of Church authority meant the decline of secular influence. After all, hadn’t they JUST put the Papacy in their place? Hadn’t Church and State already been (mostly) separated?

It is also pretty amusing how Bismark fought for and achieved universal male suffrage but that ended up being detrimental to his plans later on. Much of the lower working classes were indeed Catholic. By giving them the power to vote, they could vote for the Conservative (Catholic leaning) politicians.

Sew Modern?

One of the things that I am struggling to understand is how the innovation of the sewing machine ended up causing the extinction of the guild system. I find this to be ironic. Not to mention utterly absurd. I feel that the guilds had some things moving against them, but that if they treated this invention like the gift it was, they would have been successful. Perhaps they would have even thrived.
Let me ponder the potential reasons why a tailor would refuse to embrace the sewing machine:

1. Pride: Oh deadly sin that causes so much folly! Tailors were the "masters" of their craft. aspiring young ones sought out the teaching of these learned men who knew every aspect of their craft. They were masters, however, of sewing by hand rather than machine. After all, this was how it had been done for years. Hand-stitch was pure, perfect art. How could you sully it with a machine? Well interestingly enough, the machine could create neater stitches than any human being, but then it wouldnt have that hand made feel. and gracious me, you would have far too much extra time on your hands! you might even be able to produce more. gasp! I think that tailors were too concerned with preserving their "craft" rather than their business. which is nice, kinda like a diet, in that its a pretty ideal that would never work in practice. after all , sewing machine + plenty of work > (is greater than) no sewing machine + being outsourced to an inferior entity.

2. Pride: yes its the only reason besides commercial suicide that I can come up with (sorry im not more creative). Being a "sewing" machine that makes that strenuous task more pleasant (hah.), it seems that the sewing machine took on a distinctly feminine vibe. Again, it was pride that would keep a male from embracing this "woman helper". Goodness gracious me. Having a job to put food on your table is infinitely than watching your children starve. Or starving yourself. The market for the wealthy who could afford the quality hand stitched clothing was not big enough for every tailor in Germany. Im sorry, some of them should have gotten off their high horse and learned how to use the sewing machine. Besides, masculinity/femininity is merely a matter of perception. By making it a tool of the male tailors trade rather than a female seamstress, the sewing machine would have become an inherently masculine object.

Tailors had all the tools to save their profession. They already had a market that they were familiar with and customers who were familiar with them. They already knew the ins and outs of trade: what cloth to buy, when to buy it, who to buy from, where to sell...etc... And they had the upper had when it came to quality. An experienced tailor who knew how to produce faster with a sewing machine was going to outsell a housewife trying to earn a little extra. The market became polluted with inferior work made from inferior cloth. (the machines were so expensive to buy and maintain that the women were forced to work nearly 24/7 to make ends meet. not a recipe for good work. they also probably had to buy inferior cloth because it was cheaper). As a result of these things, I have concluded that the tailors made an unfortunate decision in not adapting to the changing world which caused them to become extinct.

Fall from Grace

One of the most interesting parts of the Priscilla Robertson article that I found (and wished had been elaborated on more) was the influence of King Ludwig's mistress, Lola Montez. " At Munich in 1848", wrote Priscilla, " things were different, partly because Bavaria was Catholic and partly because of the role of th kings mistress, Lola Montez." I find this to be quite an alluring line. Who was this woman? How did she influence Germany to this extent? What was the people's reaction? I just had to snoop.
I have always found the role of kings favourite to be fascinating. To be favoutie you had to be more than a pretty face. You had to have cunning, wit, charm. These were women not content with their traditional role in life and were willing to risk their reputation (and in some cases their salvation) to better themselves and their own. It wasnt just money and jewels and gowns. It was power, influence and in the case of Anne Boleyn, a crown. I find it frustrating that people fall into the trap of dismissing women as useless during this time. Women, while lacking a direct path to influence, were able to create their own power. It was a different kind of power, but not one less weak than their male counterparts. Indeed, Sarah Churchill, Duchess Marlborough, helped her friend the Princess Anne to become Queen. Many in London joked that it was Queen Sarah who ruled them rather than Anne so great was her influence. Barbara Villiers, Lady Castlemaine remained high in the kings favor not for her beauty alone, but her daring imperiousness. Her will was never crossed.The ingenius ways in which these illustrious women were able to exert their power thus (obviously) intrigues me to no end.
To return to Eliza Rosanna Gilbert, alias Lola Montez, I believe that she held the power of many of these same women. Her ability to seduce the king not only in body but also in mind altered the course of German history. Ms. Robertson describes the trouble Lola stirred up toward the end of her career. For her actions she was exiled for her adopted home. Gracious what mischief had she wrought to warrant such a punishment?!
I think that the people, expecially the middle classes as described by Shorter, feared Lola. She embodied the immorality that they feared was taking over their land. She was a shockingly wild woman. She was not just a mistress to the king (adulteress!) but she had been previously divorced. And she was an Irishwoman! Foreigners are forever stirring up trouble. Holding the precarious place of kings woman, she did nothing to endear herself to the people (other than the students). She did not improve her ways and sought to further her own very liberal political agenda. Lola also isolated herself from any sympathy she may have had from the aristocracy. She was able to convince the king to naturalize her and give her the title of Countess. Members of the aristocracy were appalled. How could this woman now be apart of their ranks?
A key mistake of Lola's was to distance herself from the people and not care what anyone thought about her. She alienated any allies she may have had and further distanced herself from those who could save her. In the end a king can only be in power as long as the people let him be. She was part of the reason he fell out of favor with them. After the REvolutions of 1848 Lola was forced to flee and he to abdicate his throne. All in all a dismal ending for them both.