Kultukampf

Religion has been the most common identity among Western Europeans for the last several millennia, particularly Catholicism.  After its adoption, the Roman empire, with an abundance of brutality and a lack of respect for foreign beliefs, set a tone for a pattern of conversion.  This mindset determined the fate of the Western world.  As a result of the this mechanistic and hierarchical movement, organized religion in the 19th century had a prominent role in everyday life.  Pitted against one another philosophically, Catholic and Protestants lived had for centuries in strife.  With the unification of a Protestant German empire it is not surprising that Catholics received political backlash resulting in stifled individual liberties.  What remains interesting is how and why this change occurred in a newly founded constitutional state.

Flaunting his popularity, Bismarck led the way in the persecution of the Catholics.   The Catholics, as pointed out by Margaret Anderson, were a fairly liberal group of people.  She tells us that a distinct link between Catholicism and conservatism would be a complete misinterpretation of the actual scenario.  If the Catholics were believers in a political ideology shared by so many Protestants, why the persecution?  I find the answer in a simple, and subtle fear.  

With Rome’s secular influence over the world at an all time low, I ironically see this coupled by an increase in international political power. This political power lies in the relatively new European concept of the vote.  While the newly unified German empire did disproportionately represent its citizens, I would imagine that the sheer number of Catholics did not sit well with Bismarck and the ruling Protestants. 

Anderson’s approach to the discerning clerical influence on the vote appears to be less dangerous than those in strict Catholic opposition would liked to have believe.  Anderson does say that “pastors had sometimes conveyed their support for a candidate from the pulpit...hung around the polls.”  I believe that in this period in Germany people overwhelmingly, as is human nature, voted for socio-economic reasons.  However, being raised in a Catholic church I have been present at multiple homilies where a well respected priest has thrown his support behind a candidate, even to the point of insinuating mortal danger of the soul pending on the vote.  My personal experience, in much more secular world than could ever have been dreamed of 150 years ago, is the  incarnation of the Catholic’s struggle for power in the modern world.  Any institution composed of a substantial portion a nation’s population has inherent power.  Bismarck cleverly used the masses to exert tyranny against the German minority.   

I hypothesize that this fear inspired a sort of paranoia in Bismarck that comes so often with great power.  As a diplomat of his stature, he had little trouble exerting his will to see the growth of the Kulturkampf.  Unfortunately, this complex did not die out.  The ability of the German majority to have extreme prejudices fostered by the conservative national leaders eventually led to historical tragedy. 

Bismarck

Easily one of the most intriguing personalities I have ever crossed in my study of history, Otto Von Bismarck plays a most crucial role.  With about as legitimate a claim as would exist as the “father” of German unification, Bismarck changed Europe, and in turn the world, forever.  

Pegged in hindsight as a Bonapartist, Bismarck the Junker came from a highly privileged class.  While his political tactics may have been debated as controversial, it is undeniable that he had an uncanny vision.  His vision was crossed with the conventions of the time for a member of his status.  This cross was the byproduct of his “realpolitik,” a philosophy that has carried significant influence in Western society.  

Brought in as an answer to the rising liberal movement, Bismarck began by appeasing the majority, lulling them under his influence in his effort to create a successful “white revolution.”  His revolution from the top down materialized in 1863, with Prussia’s invasion of Denmark.  Regaining the duchy of Schleswig, a surge of nationalism arises, and his master plan moves along.

How I would have loved to have been present in a meeting with Bismarck and other Prussian officials as he architected a plan for innocent imperialism.  The brilliance of his plan is nothing short of awesome.  As I’m sure he would have expected, Austria declares war on Prussia, and also according to his plan, Prussia proves vastly superior on the battle field.  Nationalism again surges.

The created war with the French was one of aggression, built from years of animosity towards past empire, and one that morally and philosophically I totally disagree with.  With that being said the brilliance displayed in Bismarck’s cunning is nothing short of spectacular.  In an era of an emerging media, he successfully manages to manipulate not only the German states, but the French as well.  Once again the facade is created that the Germans are merely on the defensive, innocent in effect.

With the crushing defeat of the French, and the proclamation of the German empire, Bismarck etched his place in history.  The man behind the unification created the most powerful state in Europe, and most importantly an industrialized Europe.  Not wishing for a two sided war, Bismarck architected an intricate system of treaty’s. While preserving peace throughout his political career, diplomats of lesser skill would live to see these agreements deteriorate into the bloodiest conflict in human history. 

I would assert that no one character was more influential in the creation of the two world wars than Otto Von Bismarck.  The creation of an unnaturally powerful state, and a German identity had long reaching consequences that proved to be very severe.  My purpose in this summary of events is not to analyze what happened after Bismarck, but merely to state my awe to his political ability and his the almost unbelievable manner in which he changed the world.  Never again may the world see a character fill a role quite Bismarck, for better or for worse.

first blog-8/30-Being a student during the Vormarz

Early on this semester, in my political science class, during the talk in which he addressed our need for acceptance and rational in our debate of political values, my professor repeated a claim, “90 percent of University faculty are on the left, the other 10 percent are on the far left.”  While in all likelihood this expression is an exaggeration, it is a reasonable assertion to believe that our leading educational institutions have a tendency toward liberalism.  This is not a new development.  Coupling mankind’s ascent from the dark ages, our brightest minds have aggregated and chosen to believe that our system can always be improved.  This determination for improvement is the basic quality of liberalism.  While socioeconomic conditions in Vormarz Germany spurned discontent and anxiety, the larger proportion of educated society, particularly those at University, were highly influenced by their surroundings, and in turn influential in the liberal mindset that helped to determine Europe’s future.

Johann Fichte, German philosopher and contributer to the German Idealism movement, sets the nationalistic tone for Robertson’s essay in his call to arms for the “fatherland” against the French in 1813.  After the fall of Napoleon, and a return to a peace, students were living in a land of “thirty separate sovereigns.”  While some had viewed the fight against Napoleon as a fight for “Germany,” as so often happens the patriotism and unity dissolved after the common enemy was defeated.  While peasants went back to farming their land and artisans resumed their craft, the students were left with a revolutionary new sets of ideas to linger upon as a result from the massively influential enlightenment and French Revolution.  These new, and now dubbed as liberal by historians, thoughts led to basic desires for “free press, free speech, a constitution, and, of course, academic freedom.”  On a broad level students wanted to see democracy in their respective institutions.  They wanted to see merit cited as a principal in governmental appointments.  They were eager to see the fall of arbitrariness in society as replaced by reason.  Perhaps the strongest sector of unity amongst the intellectual community was in their desire for a united fatherland.

Unfortunately the many governments widely did not acquiesce these demands, and thus Revolution.  State control hampered academic freedom.  In a land where the mightily influential Immanuel Kant envisioned a world where the Universities had freedom of criticism of the governments, the authorities made sure that vision simply did not develop.  In a post-Napoleonic Europe, state control of the more radical portion of society seemed like the only sensible option to the conservatives.  While the students were apparently thrilled at the selective status as citizens with the right of dueling, the lack of fulfillment in what we would consider basic rights did little to quell the anxiety and discontent amongst the masses.  In my analysis I can’t see any other scenario than it perpetuating those sentiments.  

Institutional appeasements were made after the incidents of 1848.  These concessions illustrated a change in philosophy of the aristocratic elite.  No longer was suppression absolutely necessary, which is good, because as we all learned in Braveheart, we can’t kill an idea.  The beliefs in inherent freedoms, the desire for a fatherland, and the push for academic freedom united intellectuals of the time, and remained a prevalent part of German society.  While not fully recognized until the 20th century, the intellectual evolution in Germany is a strong factor in Germany rising to challenge the world on two occasions.