I actually enjoyed reading the historiagraphy text Beyond Good and Evil? Viewing different perspectives by various historians sparked my interest in the issue of German Liberalism a little more. Jennifor also seemed to have sparked our classroom interest a little by asking us the question if we consider the German liberals at the time of the second reich traitors? There seemed to be various answers to this question and as a whole the class seemed to be split on the decision to whether or not the German Liberals were traitors or not. Instantly I was like Hell yeah they were traitors!!... but others seemed to disagree with me. This drove me to be plagued by this question for the rest of the day. Dictionary.com defines traitor as this:
1. a person who betrays another, a cause, or any trust.
2. a person who commits treason by betraying his or her country.
This is only one definition and we all do know that definitions usually vary depending on the dictionary. Nevertheless, no where in this defintion is the word intentional stated, so I think (obviously ignoring all other possible definitions) that I can say that one can be a traitor even if it that was not the foremost or overall intention. This statement would be true in relation to the case of German liberals of the second reich. It appears that they initially had good intentions and meant well, but their failures and their giving up to many of their causes in the long run draws me to believe that they were traitors. The Bielefeld argument highlights that the German liberals made concessions with the German aristocracy in order for the liberals to gain economic prosperity and economic modernity, while the arisocracy maintained relative political and social status quo. "In exchange for a free hand in the economy, the bourgoisie had been prepared to abandon its political liberalism and resign itself to the role of 'junior partner' to the aristocracy." (Beyond Good and Evil, 732) The Bielfeld argument argues for a "feudalized bourgoisie". On the other hand the Neo-Marxist perspective argues for a "bourgois aristocracy" which means that the bourgois class, while not noble by birth, were aristocratic in their economic intentions. Whether or not you believe that the liberals were feudalized by concessions made with the aristocracy or if you believe the liberals themselves were the emerging aristocracy, one can be led to believe that once the liberals that consisted of the bourgoisie class began to see things looking a little better for them they began to neglect their founding principles. Therefore becoming weaker and a relatively minute presence in the end of the second reich.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
It is an interesting question on whether the liberals betrayed their cause, and I've come to the conclusion that there is not a simple yes or no answer to that. Probably a week or two ago I would have said yes, but the more I look at it the more I realise that the liberal label is a very big tent, and what their cause was would have varied greatly depending on who you asked.
ReplyDeleteFor many of what became the National Liberals their central goal was a unified Germany. Bismarck gave them their biggest goal. It's also legitimate to say that the formation of the Reichstag, and universal suffrage (which incidentally not all liberals wanted) were granted. Then there were the Progressive liberals which in many ways did not go along with Bismarck.
It's clear to me that hte liberals could not have taken power on their own. The conservative hand was too strong and they were going to lose a battle. To me it seems like many of them used a sort of realpolitik of their own to work with Bismarck to get what they wanted when possible. I think there was only a certain group of them who were ever after lofty ideals but instead had their own vision of a modern Germany and were willing to compromise to get what was most important to them. There was a certain group of true believers who didn't play ball with the Indemnity Bill.
I do agree with you though that it probably was the case with some liberals, but I also think that it's important to break it down and look at different groups of liberals, and whether they were really idealists to start with.
On the one hand, liberal is far too wide a category in German history to desnigate them the role of traitor. Also, the Second Reich had far too many nuances (Nipperdey) to single out a particular group. If you look at liberal movements elsewhere, it is easy to say Germany liberals failed to live up to their title. But they could not agree on some fundamental issues, like whether or not to support their chancellor. Had they not been polarized, a movement in Germany to grant greater power to the parliament or take certain limbs into control (the military) may have occurred. It's hard not to hold a little contempt for their stagnancy, though, so I see where you're coming from- I just think they're failures.
ReplyDeleteYour argument is definitely valid. I can not say whether I agree that the liberals are or are not traitors. People believe what they what they want to believe. I strongly feel that the liberals were doing only what they believed best for their country.
ReplyDeleteI'm going to go with the majority here and agree, yeah, it's hard to put finger on the question of liberals being traitors or not. On one hand, they thought they were doing what they thought was best for Germany, but others could see what they were doing as exactly the opposite, detremental to the country. And you're exactly right, they could have been harming the country without meaning to. The word liberal is a vague word anyway, and I think the word doesn't properly describe them, as they were divided over their beliefs anyway. It's not surprising they eventually faded out of relevance.
ReplyDeleteI like how you make the point that betrayal can be unintentional and that liberal failure can be a betraying of principles whether they intended to or not. It certainly makes you rethink your judgement. However, I also think that, as the commentators point out, 'liberal' remains such a broad category that encompasses so many people that it is hard to really talk about traitors unless we are going to specify who is betraying which principles.
ReplyDelete