Final Thoughts on Germany

History is the story of mankind.  This story is worth paying attention to, because no matter how much we may evolve our technologies, from the time period from which history has been documented, we have not substantially evolved as a species.  Thus, the lessons from the past can help of avoid the flaws, or replicate the successes, of past generations.  The story of Germany is a fascinating tale, one I have enjoyed learning about immensely, and in a way has shaped the formation of the European peoples.

The first lecture of class we learned about the “patchwork of small worlds” that was the Holy Roman Empire.  This concept is not the easiest to grasp from the modern, nationalistic perspective, but it offers insight to a the time period before nationalism in Europe.  This lifestyle in Germany began to denigrate throughout the 19th century, and then the work of Bismarck changed the course of European history. 

More than any one figure from this course, Bismarck has fascinated me.  I am highly interested in politics, and to see what he did, using his realpolitik, is nothing short of remarkable.  Through manipulation of foreign armies and military conquest, Bismarck fulfilled his master plan; a unified, and Prussian led, militaristic Germany.  Many historians account for the future horrors of Germany to be found in the process of unification and legislative acts under the chancellorship of Bismarck, but I would tend more to believe that these faults arose due to a lack of effective leadership.  

  World War I is somewhat of a mystery.  Death and suffering occurred on an unparalleled scale, yet the players involved appeared almost eager to go to war.  It is not easily understand by a mind in the 21st century.  Germany's role was crucial as the premier power on the axis side.  While some brave, and prophetic members, of the Reichstag predicted the horrors that would ensure, Germany as a nation was eager to fulfill the Schlieffen plan and try to conquer their European and Russian neighbors.  The war ended in shame, and the Versailles Treaty contributed greatly to later terrors.

  Hitler came to power legally in 1933.  His primary political position, that he campaigned on throughout the decade of the 20's, was that of tearing up the traitorous Treaty of Versailles.  This is one of the great lessons from history.  Do not kick a powerful nation while it is down.  Unfortunately, 20th century history learned this the hard way, and the Germans brought more suffering into the world in WWII than was even imaginable after WWI, especially with their ruthlessly efficient genocide.  

  Post WWII Germany has accurately represented a new Europe, a unified Europe.  After the second World War, Europeans desired to have a union, not only economically, but culturally, to be united in world affairs.  Germany has played its part in this union, a union that it's past history helped inspire.  As we travel into the 21st the lessons Germany has taught the world are worth learning, and are very helpful in understanding the modern, post-nationalistic Europe.   

Final Thoughts on the Holocaust

We did a fairly extensive amount of reading on the holocaust, concluding with our two articles focusing on the 101st police battalion.  This unit, built from the leftovers of Nazi Germany, gives the history student a perspective into the mind of a unit of systematic murders.  Browning and Goldhagen's contrasting views attempt to recreate differing themes from the darkest period of of the twentieth century.  Browning, attempting to prove that these killers were indeed "ordinary", shows the reader a group of individuals with a vauge moral consciousness, but unfortunately were too weak to stand in the opposition of obvious wrong.  Goldhagen tells a different story, one where these same men were cruel participants in the massacre, and at the very least okay with the ideas of racial genocide.  I remember in discussion a student commented that both contained "sins of omission," and I think that his point is valid, with some faulty word choice.  In my eyes both of these historians choose to have a narrow vision, diametrically opposed, with the truth lying somewhere in between.  I think that these extremes were found due to a an oversimplification of human nature, thus leading to the broadest base themes of bad and good.

A fraternal atmosphere undoubtedly aided the shooting of innocent Jews.  Many men were not comfortable with cold blooded massacre, and while they were given free reign to side step the duties, in one of the articles a man commented on the verbal abuse he received for taking this out.  Further, men that did choose not to shoot, had to give their explanation as being of weakness, not on any moral grounds.  This is significant.  An order of massacre was carried out by men who viewed it as a test of manliness.  This  avoidance of morality in favor of cruelty shows the conflict in our human nature with learned moral systems.  Humans beings, brought to the twentieth century after millions of years of evolution, are violent creatures.  Killing ensured survival for our earliest ancestors, thus they lived to pass on their genes to us.  Violence is carnal.  In time of war this instinct is profound, and even though the Jews were not a military opponent the mindset of the third reich fostered this degradation of these German's humanity.

Likewise, these men undoubtedly felt uncomfortable about their role.  Some of them, represented by Trapp, felt sick about the prospect of this slaughter.  Here a latter aspect of human evolution, our consciousness, is openly in conflict with other instincts.  Browning did cite examples of men who appeared to be average citizens all around.  These individuals carry the weight of his entire article.  These men represents learned humanity, the single factor that separates ourself from all other species.  Our ability to conceptualize right and wrong is this defining trait, and has taken human beings from ape like creatures into pieces of civilizations.  

American society isn't very hateful.  If seriously interrogating university students across the nation, I doubt many would be able to give a sure fire answer as to where they direct their hatreds.  This is a relatively recent development.  Most cultures have harbored ill feelings for specific groups.  This hatred was entirely prevalents toward the Jews in Nazi Germany.  Hate, unfortunately, mirrors its opposite, love, in that it has a powerfully intoxicating effect upon the individual possessing the emotion.  It is hard to understand another's hatred, and adds complexity to the study of the holocaust.  When assessing it from my perspective, I do think that these men were relatively normal.  However, I feel that they fell prey to state sponsored hatred, and that their base animalistic instincts helped make sport of the massacre.  Many of these men felt the psychological pangs of moral burden, but unfortunately this was not enough to halt the mission.  When I see the holocaust, I see complexity, and potential for humans to learn from our fellow ancestors that took part in this  horrific narrative.  I don't know if this post is convincing or not, but I'd like to reiterate that I feel that both Browning and Goldhagen's analysis were elementary in their narrow vision.  I have not read their books in their entirety, which could potentially change my opinion.

Jews

I cannot think of a darker story than that of the treatment of the Jews under the jurisdiction in throughout duration of the third Reich.  Knowing the result, organized and systematic genocide on an unprecedented level, it doesn’t seem possible to draw a logical progression to the final result from the general European anti-Semitism.  Robert Gellately, in an engaging article, poses a convincing argument in which he illustrates a Nazi Germany in which the mass of the population made possible the enforcement of anti-Jewish legislation that eventually metastasized into the holocaust.  

The forced mass conformity of the third Reich undoubtedly played a role in the development of the holocaust.  After the enactment of the Nuremburg Laws, the first wave of the mass loss of rights for the Jewish community, Gellately reports that a German citizen felt that most Germans “go back and forth or have contradictory opinions” about the treatment of the Jews in Germany.  This response doesn’t seem to be that unnatural.  The Germans, while living in a society that was no stranger to anti-semitism, were a Christian nation, and, as Gellately points out, many Christian leaders attempted to use their influence to ease the difficulties of the Jewish burden.  Unfortunately, this initial humane urge was quickly diminished by the top down surge of hate.  

By 1938, 75 to 80 percent of all Jewish businesses operating in 1933 were liquidated, thus stripping Jews en masse of their livelihoods.  This was only the beginning as the first mass deportation to a concentration camp occurred in the same year, starting a disastrous trend.  As these blatant civil injustices progressed into outright seizure and murder, German citizens seemed to turn their head.  

Dr. Goebbels and his ministry of propaganda played a key role in the development of a murderous psyche.  Owning all facets of German media, the Nazi propaganda machine effectively convinced the German public that, among other social atrocities, the Jews were solely responsible for the second world War.  Gallately states, “Many people in Germany apparently agreed that the Jews started the war, at least if official surveys from that period can be believed.”  The vulnerable German public, which anti-Semitic tendencies, had fallen prey to the intended trap of the Nazi leaders.  

As the “final solution” was put into practice, Germans were repeatedly informed of the mass deportations of Jewish people.  They were not informed of the fate of these persons, and, from all indications, were not concerned.  The turning of a populations’ head to genocide, even under the veil of ignorance, is simply not excusable.  This theme is implicit throughout Gellately’s argument as he asserts that most of the people giving away information about to the Nazi’s were not politically motivated, but in fact fell victim to more sinister personal reasons.  Studies will continue on this subject, but in light of Gellately’s article, and in line with reasons, it seems that to some degree the blood of millions of innocent Jews have has to be dispersed among the general German public. 

Money

For much of my life I have followed politics.  As I have matured into voting age, my interest in the nature of American politics has drastically increased.  Being a student of political science, naturally I am fascinated by voting patterns.  During last year's presidential election, I felt enveloped by a sense of enlightenment when I realized that, from my perspective, the weight that tips the scales of the majority is simply money.  Obviously, to simplify politics to an exclusive taxation issue is stripping a piece of art of its colors, but without a medium of exchange there would be no canvass for the construction of civil society.  This inextricable link between money and society has influenced history greatly, and has everything to do with the rise of the Nazi's and the ensuing horrors that marked the 20th century's bleakest time.

Germany's post WWI economic woes have been well documented in our assigned reading for class.  The war reparations, irresponsible economic leadership at the federal level, and incredibly war debts set the stage for the devastation that the stock market crash brought upon the struggling Germans.  As fritzsche describes, "meat became a luxury," and it was only be eaten sporadically on Sundays.  Unemployment skyrocketed, and the national discontent for an already unpopular national government increased.  

The Nazi party, first organized in 1920, sought to rise to prominence and "overwhelm" German democracy.  Beginning only as a small group of power hungry individuals deciding on a preacable ideology, the party had battled it's downs(Beer Hall Putsch 1923) and began to emerge in the mid to late twenties as a legitimate party behind their exalted leader.  Reaching out to the industrial, agricultural, and bourgesouie classes, The Nazi's separated themselves from other falling parties of the era.  Despite these gains, before the stock market crash in 1929 the highest percentage the National Socialists had polled in a national election remained in the low teens.

When the depression sank to its lowest depths in Germany, nearly seven million Germans found themselved unemployed.  Vigorously organizing for his party, Hitler sought to familiarize the fatherland's people with the Nazi platform.  Outlining a distinctly new future Hitler won the votes of many workers.  Fritzsche asserts that 1 in 3 workers voted for the National Socialists in the 1932 election.  While still keeping votes in many other social classes, Hitler gave a viable option to economically concerned voters, particularly the unemployed.  

The Nazi's assume power in 1933.  This power was assumed on the appointment of Hitler as chancellor, and the forged majority in the Reichstag which came from the support of the Centre party.  History was not at an irrevocable point.  Hitler, clearly the most focused, visionary, and talented politician of his day, had assumed a position of immense power, but with a percentage of only 37.6 % in the 1932 elections he did not have the majoritarian mandate.  

The following four years, in which Germans saw their individual rights stripped, persecution of minorities increased, and the criminalization of political desent become the status quo, were made possible by the fact that unemployment was virutally eradicated in Germany.  Hitler has promised a prosperous future and the to the people of Germany he was not only the messiah but a prophet as well.  William L. Shirer asserts, Germans may have lost all of their freedoms, but they no longer had the "freedom to starve."  Hitler used many tactics to achieve his maniacal agenda throughout his decade and a half in power, but nothing was more effective to vindicate his mass support from the German people than his deliverance of the workers from unemployment.  Relieved of their ecnomic insecurities, the masses were vulnerable to the propoganda campaign of Goebbels.  This propoganda played to their nationalsim and "aryan" elitism, which in turned allowed Hitler to "legally" create his reich and all of the horrors that accompanied it.

Early 20th Century German Youth

By the arrival of Revolution in 1918, Germany had become an unstable state.  People, driven by a strong sense of national unity, and sharing the suffering’s from a nation at war, demanded more from than their government than death, destruction, economic hardship, and deceit.  The birth of the Weimar Republic signified an intense rise in political action more than a rise in true republicanism.  This sense of citizenship across Germany, which would eventually lead to the emotional rise of the Nazi party, is inextricably tied with the fate of Germany’s youth.

Post World War 1 Germany had a disproportionately large youth population.  Created by the high birth rate around the turn of the century, and aided substantially by the incredible losses of some of the older male population in the war effort, there was a disproportionately large group of young Germans.  This group, under the Weimar republic, carried great political weight.  In a nation politically fragmented as it was geographically merely 50 years previous, this group of people proved to be the desired electorate to attain power.  

This younger generation inherited a more drastically different world than any previous generation in Europe’s history.  Not only living in a post WWI society, they lived the era of atomic physics, psychoanalysis, booming cultural expansion, and the origin of mass communication.  While many citizens of the industrialized world met this onrush of modernity with fear and apprehension, much of the youth embraced the changes the world brought.  

The surplus of youth, coupled with extreme economic troubles, brought unemployment.  While the government did what it could to protect this branch of society, many still felt the pangs of hunger, or at the very least a difficult existence.  This generation, banded together by a new system of youth organizational involvement focused around athletics and hiking expeditions, continued to galvanize throughout the 20’s, in both positive and negative ecnomic standing, as they had during the war years.

After Hitler’s stay in jail following the Beer Hall Putsch, he voraciously returned to his work of political organizing and speech delivering.  While German cities banned his speaking privileges, they severely underestimated his skill or endurance to arouse support for his party.  Working with the goal of massive mobilization in the cities, Hitler found a perfect audience among the disproportionate number of youth living in the cities of Germany.  His message also spread to this audience in the University system, also primarily in the cities.  

The youth, having lived through tough economic and unstable political times found refuge in Hitler’s National Socialist party.  Denouncing the doctrines of capitalism and Marxism alike and built upon the back of German nationalism, the ascendency of the Nazi’s seems less befuddling when an analysis of the youth that grew into the Nazi generation is done.  This vulnerable youth was brought together by one of the most talented leaders in modern history.  Unfortunately for so many, this will forever be viewed as one of the most tragic developments in the history of human civilization.  

The Strain of War

World War 1 proved to be drastically more significant than many influential characters in the time could have ever predicted.  With estimated civilian and military casualties estimated at 37 million, the scale of the slaughter made the war distinct from past human military engagements.  Experimentations with gas, machine guns, and the advent of the defensive trench warfare strategy brought the horrors of war to this new generation in a never before seen way.  While this massive military undertaking was underway, it is interesting to note the role of the civilians at home in this conflict, particularly the Germans.

In Germans Into Nazi’s we see the nationalism of the summer of 1914 on display by they incredibly large public demonstrations.  War was in the air, and many people thought that was a very good thing.  Worth noting is the fact that Fritzsche emphasizes that there were strong anti-war feelings among the masses.  History has deemed it easier writing to ascribe a blanket support for the war through this blind nationalism.  When the war effort turned southward, as viewed by the public, discontent rose with the political authorities rises as the angst of a miserable existence was commonplace throughout the empire.  This discontent can only have been strengthened by, or around, those who initially thought war could lead to less than a glorious international empire.  

Built upon an era of economic prosperity, imperial Germany was the leading industrial power of Europe when war broke out.  This high standard of living was immediately put under strain by the immense drain of male labor due to military positions needing to be filled.  Intoxicated by the early glories of having gone to war, the masses eventually became frustrated with their elected government.  This frustration eventually led to skepticism, which ultimately killed the second Reich. 

Food may have been the most prominent issue in leading to the national discontent.  With an ineptly designed and executed rationing system, by the third year of the war people were going without common commodities such as bread, meat, and milk.  Fritzsche emphasize the incredible role that turnips played in the diet of German citizens.  It evolved to the extent where, according to a woman spotlighted in the book, they “went to bed hungry, and woke up hungry,” and their diet was only turnips “cooked in water.”  That would be a terrible existence.  It didn’t make matters easier that many families were constantly hearing the reports of their dead loved ones.  

Following the failure of the Schlieffan plan, German authorities arguably supported and fought an arguable impossible war.  This message was obviously not conveyed to the public.  As the years passed, and death tolls reach historical levels, citizens began to see the flaws in the state which they had entrusted under the veil of German nationalism.  This process reoccurs time and again throughout history and, no differently here, the people wanted change from the authority that had been making decisions.  

Following defeat in November of 1918, the people of Germany underwent drastic political change in order to construct a republic.  This was a result of a failed war philosophy and the extreme economic stress put upon the German people in the time of war.  Both of these factors, inextricably linked, create an interesting narrative as the twentieth century progresses.  While I have not read any further into Germans Into Nazi’s, I have a hunch that the rise of the third Reich was influenced just as heavily by severe economic distress as was the fall of the second Reich.  

Prostitution

Prostitution never fails to create riveting conversation.  The most ancient documented human career, the occupation of selling one’s body has seen increases and decreases with the evolution of society.  Following unification, accompanying a rapid rise in industrialism, imperial Germany has a drastic national increase in prostitution. This commonly viewed decay in morality cause much outrage from German citizens as they sought to tear prostitution from the conditions that so promoted it.  

In 1850 London and Paris were the only cities in Europe with a population exceeding half a million.  Both of these cities had prostitution on a large scale.  With the growth of German cities like Hamburg and Berlin, it is no surprise that they too had a boom in prostitution.  In our article on prostitution a stat is given that there no less than 330,000 prostitutes in Germany at the time of the first world war.  How did this occur.

Middle class anxiety throughout the 19th century, while composed of multiple factors, had roots in changes among sexual attitudes.  A more casual attitude towards sex was appalling to the vastly conservative generation.  By the end of the century revolutionary views on sexuality were being postulated by the incredibly influential German doctor Sigmund Freud.  His bold theories mark a paradigm shift in human reflection upon sex.

Industrialization undoubtedly led to an increase in prostitution.  A mass movement to the cities occurred in the late 19th century.  With an abundance of labor, and an increasing standard of living, a sizable supply and demand was created for this market to function.  This crude capitalism, vied by the Social Democratic Party as the epitome of what needed to be overthrown by revolution, was linked with Bourgeois values and seems likely to have added strength parties in opposition to the liberals.

The authorities were not fond having their cities filled with highly active brothels.  On the heels of unification, legislation was passed, under Clause 361/6 that allowed police to take captive and medically inspect anyone accused of being a prostitute.  Legislation like this was common reflection widespread distaste for this profession.  Unfortunately for the legislators they police authorities simply did not have the practical manpower or organization to keep a strict control on this immorality.

Changing attitudes towards sex, an intense period of urbanization, and a burgeoning capitalist market all helped to foster a prostitution in Imperial Germany.  Interesting is the response of the government and legislators as almost all forces united against this change in society.  The rise of the moral pressure groups is also of note.  I couldn’t help thinking of right winged groups in Washington pressing for stronger moral legislation.  The story of this period of prostitution is a lesson to be learned in human nature.  The negative backlash from the masses is an indicator to positively evolving moral compass ingrained in society, a society in which prostitution is now undeniably less acceptable than a century ago.