FREE ESSAY ON GERMANY

GERMANY

The essays which this paper is based on, Liberalism and society: The Feminist Movement and
Social Change, The Politics of Demagogy in Imperial Germany, The Mythology of the
Sonderweg, and A Bonapartist Dictatorship were enlightening, but tended to repeat a
central theme, the unwillingness of the Junkers of Germany to give up even the smallest
bit of their power over the lower classes. I suppose there will always be many opinions
on what influenced the formation of Germany, but it really can be laid at the feet of
Otto von Bismarck. He ran Germany from Prussia in the way he saw fit, through the eyes of
a Junker.
Junkers and heavy industry are what controlled Germany during its formation years and the
Industrial Revolution, trying to keep independence while Bismarck tried to bind the many
city-states together. The Junkers had the money and the power and were not willing to
give up their vast influence. This meant they were naturally conservative, giving the
government more influence in the running of the regions would mean less power and money
in their pockets. Each Junker in every small province wanted to keep their independence
and traditional way of life. They felt the need to keep the power over the poor and
uneducated.
The three party voting system helped to insure that the rich elite would keep their
power. This system divided the population into three sections; the poor bourgeoisie,
Junkers and industry, and the elite. With the votes being even for each faction, the
rich, with two thirds of the vote, would always have the advantage over the poor. This
sammlung of Junkers and heavy industry feared government socialism, which would take away
from their power, and did all they could to block any democratic reform, which would give
the poor more power in the form of voting ability as well.
As far as women having an added influence in Germany at this time, I believe they were
only slightly influential. Prior to the advent of the industrial revolution, the only
place for a woman in Germany was in charitable positions on the bare fringes of public
life. Their lot was to tend to the home and family. With the coming of the industrial
revolution to Eastern Europe, there were more jobs available outside the home, and women
joined the workforce more and more. They were needed and necessary in the workforce, but
their effect in bringing about democratic reform was minimal. The Feminist Movement
itself was reasonably effected by the new middle class and not so much the lower.
Even with the rising rate of women in the workforce, the conditions of work were
extremely restrictive. While being indispensable to the growing industries and service
jobs that were now appearing, women could never hope to teach at a boy's school, and to
teach in any case, they had to be single and prepared to resign if they got married.
These movements were more conservative as well, and tended to not indulge in politics,
with the exception of trying to break into the medical professions and to try and get
better education in the girl's schools. More women found jobs in the growing roles of
secretaries or line workers in newly industrialized factories.
The Woman's Movement, while having some parallels with the suffrage movement in America,
was a lot slower. Making a comparison between the suffrage movements in Germany and
America is not exactly a fair evaluation though, since the roles of women in these two
cultures differed so completely. The women in Germany did eventually get the right to
vote, and petitioned for equal pay for equal work as well as attempt to get a more equal
education for young girls. 
It has been proposed that because of the votes of women in Germany, Hitler eventually
came to power. I give this proposition little credence, for the actions of Bismarck and
following Chancellors paved the way for the eventual rise of Nazism. The militarization
of the bourgeoisie did more to bring about a greater acceptance of socialism and Nazism
than anything the Woman's Movement could have done.
Basically, I do believe that these essays coincide with each other, with just a few areas
where they do not quite meet. No matter what the poor did, no matter the opinions of the
growing Women's Movement or feelings of the new middle class, Junkers would still control
Germans and influence the economy.
The mittelstand and bourgeoisie, while being in far greater numbers than the Junkers and
other ruling elite, could not hope to sway the government. This is where we can find the
failure of the German government and what led the rulers of Germany into wars. I cannot
help but believe that if there were a true democratic reform, where every man's voice was
heard, that we would have seen a very different history of Germany. The Junkers might
have lost some of their power, but would still have retained everything else. They were
still the landowners and would still hold great sway over the lower classes.
Because of the industrial revolution, the economy did flourish, and most were well off.
This was not necessarily due to the Junkers or other elite though, but because of the new
mittelstand, the managers of new corporations created by the new industry. As the new
middle class climbed the ladders of success, they reasonably thought they should have a
greater say in their own future and the workings of the government.
While it was indeed the non-elite who were helping to build up the economy of Germany,
and in numbers that would grow daily, we still see that they were not given an equal
voice in their government. I definitely believe this was a big mistake on the part of the
ruling elite of Germany at this time, but as was said before, the ruling elite did not
want to take the chance of losing any of their power. They feared losing the three party
voting system that had given them the edge for so long. One way that was found to get the
bourgeoisie minds off the voting and democratic reform was to militarize them, turn their
thoughts to problems outside Germany, setting them into a war with the Dutch. I saw no
sense in this, but obviously Otto von Bismarck did. 
This militarizing of the mittelstand did create more unity in the German populace. Many
different regions could now see that they were all German, and not just a conglomerate of
different peoples. National pride grew from this new unity, which is another factor in
the growing desire to expand the German Empire. I also cannot help but think that these
new thoughts of nationalism were also a primary reason that Hitler could grow in power.
It amazes me how quickly national pride can grow to a hate of other races.
Bismarck, an agrarian Junker, is credited with doing what no one else could. The
city-states of Germany were at one time bound together with the thought of never being
unified, but Bismarck changed all this, bringing a multitude of small provinces under the
rule of Austria and Prussia, Bismarck ruling both from his seat in Prussia.
Bismarck saw all the small provinces as not being Hamburgs or Hapsburgs, but as all being
German, and he brought it all together under his iron rule. He supposedly was bringing
about the wishes and desires of William I, but even Wilhelmine scholars know that
Bismarck is the one who called the shots. He kept the Junkers in power, and suppressed
the complaints of the German people with making war against others, in the effort to get
their minds off the troubles at home. 
I believe Bismarck succeeded in accomplishing what he set out to do, and it might have
worked better, had the Chancellors who followed after him had the same will and
determination as he. No one, it seems, was able to match Bismarck's will in this, and
Germany suffered as a result. There lies the failure of Bismarck as well. He made the
assumption that what he accomplished would outlast him, but instead, it led to more
destruction and pain for Germany.