Pros And Cons Of Enlightened Absolutism

Instead of revolutions, much of their reforms came from “above” – from the ruling class. They did not have a party system. The fellowship of being German was depicted in the photograph of Suddeutcher Verlag at the beginning of the World War I in Munich. Germans were very proud to belong to this nation. A particular class of the German people that strongly contributed to the Sonderweg theory were the “elites”. The control of the elites stood in the way of liberal democratization and a truly representative government. The elites included the Junkers, the large agrarian landowners who possessed much power and influence because of their wealth.

The Weimar Republic would have continued to be a functional government far longer than achieved if not for the defeat of WWI, the economic burdens imposed by the Versailles Treaty, and the flawed Article 48 which all contributed to the down fall of Germany’s first attempt at a legitimate Democracy. This paper will argue that the societal, economical, and constitutional aspects all played a role in the hopeless Democracy Germany attempted which ultimately lead Germany into a totalitarian state that would further shake the world with the rise of the NSDAP and Adolf Hitler.

Most of the military factors that led to the rise of Prussia came from Fredrick William ‘The Elector’. He was the first leader in Prussia to create and

On The 30th of January 1933, President Hindenburg appointed Hitler as Chancellor. In the 18 months succeeding this, Hitler became, essentially, a dictator. This essay will look at what a dictatorship is and how it operates, how the population is brought to a point where they accept a dictatorship, and examine and analyze the vital events that took place in Germany which lead to Hitler assuming dictatorial power: the Reichstag fire, the Emergency Decree, the Enabling Act, the banning of trade unions and other political parties, the Night Of The Long Knives, the death of President Hindenburg, and the German army’s oath of loyalty to Hitler. It will

In addition to the damaging consequences of the First World War with the requirements of the Treaty of Versailles, certain features of Germany caused the state to be susceptible to the influence of this dangerous ideology. Along with the damage to the national ego as a result of the First World War, Germany had co-existing and conflicting highly modern strands of development forced to integrate with powerful remnants of archaic values and social structures, and had a deeply fractured parliamentary political system, and the weaknesses of this system reflected the social and political differences within the population. This shame and failure after World War I was superimposed onto a modern country which once had an advanced economy, a sophisticated state

Within Germany, a country torn between the rise of a totalitarian party that determined a superior race, Nazism, and the survival of the oppressed, young Germans face a test between a sense of self and society. Individuality would be suppressed within this new type of society, and being different would be the deadliest obstruction to life. The violations of the rights to life, religion, and speech are relived through the stories of the German youth that lived through this haunting time, whose name would be tarnished in their struggle to survive. In their fight, their morals would be challenged and influenced until the Nazi regime ended, and the violation of human dignity would leave them wondering if life was worth living after all. The Nazi Party grew under its leader, Adolf Hitler, which struggled not to use violence against those that disagreed with their views, starting with armed groups known as the Strum Abteilung, who pledged to be ready to sacrifice their life in the aims of the Nazi Party and absolute loyalty to their leader. Their cruel intolerance began by their strong nationalism and their hatred of democracy and communism, and they gained power through the economic depressions around the world, controlling the media by instilling fear and propaganda that influenced a strong belief in their leaders. This belief in the leaders would soon seem to override Church influence when the official body of the Church failed to do anything significant

Frederick diminished the power of the Junkers, who were the nobility of Brandenburg and Prussia that threatened his power. He did so by giving them reconfirmation of their own privileges, which included authority over serfs in exchange for their acceptance of taxation. The “Great Elector’s” son, Frederick I, became the first Prussian king by helping the Habsburgs and Holy Roman empire in the War of Spanish Succession. He later passed the throne down to his son, Frederick William I. Frederick William I, known as “the Soldiers’ king”, is considered to have truly consolidated Prussian absolutism by eliminating the “last traces of parliamentary estates and local self-government.” [1] In addition, Frederick William I turned Prussia into a military estate by forcing conscription, which became lifelong in 1713. Instead of destroying the Junkers, he appeased them by allowing them to lead his growing army in which peasants were forced to serve in. In addition, he abused the Junkers’ acceptance of taxation, which allowed him to create such a well-trained army and an educational system that was under state control. Therefore, he created a “rigid and highly disciplined” [1] civil society that consisted of a

1) Germany before the Fuhrer. Germany’s defeat at the end of World War I left the nation socially, politically, and economically shattered. The reparation agreements inflicted upon Germany without its’ consent at the end of the war meant that the nation was in complete financial ruin. In the wake of Germany’s defeat, public decent climaxed on the 9th November 1918 during the revolution that took place on Berlin’s Postdamer Platz. This revolution transpired as a result of the public’s culminating discontent towards the imperial monarchy, and lasted up until August 1919, which saw the establishment of the Weimar Republic. In attempts to guide Germany out of economic

Before the Enlightenment, every law and every decision was made and accepted, only by the King. There was a traditional social structure consisting of the monarchy on the top, followed by the nobles and clergy, and then all of the lower class on the bottom, which included peasants, merchants, and craftsman. When the people of the Western a Society began to receive ideas from Enlightenment scholars and thinkers, the began to realize how wrong the ways of the King were. They began to revolt against and disagree with these ways of the King. These people, motivated by the ideas of the Enlightenment, challenged the traditional social and political structures of the Western society to eventually lead to human rights for everyone.

The German Peasants’ War of 1525 has been seen as both the last great medieval peasant revolt and as the first modern revolution. For more than 150 years the War has been the topic of ongoing historical debate. Indeed, it has always been a subject of contention among historians who seek to determine its relation to the Reformation. While most Reformation scholars have arrived at a consensus as to the series of events that transpired during the war, there has not been such agreement regarding the perplexing inner dynamic of the uprising. Set against the backdrops of both the German revolutions of 1848 and the political developments that characterized 1970s Germany, this debate has seen engagement from the historians Friedrich Engels and Max Steinmetz, who provide a Marxist interpretation that attempts to depict the war as the “high point of the early bourgeois revolution”, locating it within a German revolutionary tradition by citing the socioeconomic tensions that arose through the peasants’ oppressive relationship with the feudal lordship of their rural communities. Departing from the Marxist interpretation, Günther Franz has entered into the debate, defining the revolt as a “political revolution of the German peasant estate” that was made possible by the Reformation. Although he acknowledges the troubling nature of the evident economic difficulties, Franz understands the war as a response to the changing political structure of 16th century Germany. Submitting his own

Prince Otto von Bismarck was seen as both a political genius and a power monger, like a German version of Alexander the Great by the people. Bismarck was a conservative, who used the people around him to reach his goals; and in doing so, he pitted people against one another. According to the book 19th Century Germany by John Breuilly, modern historians have found it very hard “to separate the man from his achievements” (Breuilly 172). The historians have run into a roadblock that consists mostly of “Bismarck’s individuality and his responsibility for the political development of the Empire” (Breuilly 172). Bismarck was known to support nationalism and patriotism, and he believed in the Burschenschaften or student organizations. He also believed in the concept of faith in power, more in ideas. Bismarck only cared for two things: Prussia and Prussian power, and he would do anything to obtain Prussian domination. Although Bismarck did not care for Germany, he was all for German Unification. Historians cannot decide if Bismarck’s legacy is positive or negative but they agree that he was a “brilliant and shrewd tactician who succeeded in postponing the problem of political mobilization for 60 years” (Breuilly 172). In Otto von Bismarck, some people saw a great man who was ahead of his time, while others saw nothing more than a bloodthirsty power monger, who wanted a united Germany to

The rise and subsequent take-over of power in Germany by Hitler and the Nazi Party in the early 1930s was the culmination and continuation not of Enlightenment thought from the 18th and 19th century but the logical conclusion of unstable and cultural conditions that pre-existed in Germany. Hitler’s Nazi Party’s clear manipulation of the weak state of the Weimar Republic through its continued failure economically and socially, plus its undermining of popular support through the signing the Treaty of Versailles all lead to the creation of a Nazi dictatorship under the cult of personality of Hitler. This clear take-over of power and subsequent destruction of any

All of these factors made it very difficult for the German people to be trustworthy, faithful and supportive of the regime of the Weimar Constitution. This idea is re-affirmed through German historian Friedrich Meinecke saying that “true loyalty to the Fatherland requires disloyalty to the Republic”, leading to an opening for extremist parties as well as the Republic’s doom.

Third, the false Golden Age of economic prosperity created by the Dawes (1924) and Young (1929) Plans and resulting loans from the US Government the during the 1920s had come to a close as the Great Depression hit, and unemployment rose to over 6 million in Germany. Yet, the Weimar Government has survived the hyperinflation of the early 1920s, and therefore it is easy to over-estimate to impact of the Great Depression on the failure of democracy. The economic situation did help to draw more voters towards the fringe parties, and create an atmosphere more willing to foster extremist views as the Weimar Government was seen as weak and unable to cope with Germany’s problems. Thus, the first major factor attributing to the downfall of democracy in Germany was the preceding failure of the Weimar Government politically, structurally, and economically to take a firm hold over Germany.

When the Germans finally came to dominate Western Europe there was virtually no academics or literacy. The historical record from this point is cloudy. The main source of knowledge comes from the church and its scribe monks. This obviously gives their interpretation of the events of the time a less than secular point of view. The church in fact quickly assumed the reins of a European political vacuum. Churches and monasteries usually were the only centers of knowledge and trade and of community.