widthIs empire just a dark and militarized chapter in German history?Or it has a bright side that has not been discovered for a long time, because German historians have been interested in previous seminal monographs Hans-Ulrich Wellers Focus on the continuity of authoritarianism and national socialism? Even though the German special road argument has been scientifically obsolete for more than two decades, the historian Hedwig Richter (Demokratie) who teaches at the Bundeswehr University in Munich has written “Demokratie”. . A German event “initiated a fierce debate in historical research because it embedded the development of the empire in a positive narrative since at least 1900: Parliament became more influential, the women’s movement developed, and society Democracy, along with the politicization of the masses, laid the foundation for the subsequent development of democracy.
Richter was pleased with this controversy, which is often carried out through Twitter, which led to an article published with Bernd Ulrich at the time, in which both claimed that Sonderweg’s arguments led German politicians to The obvious fear of one’s own people. Therefore, “any compelling climate policy”, “sustainable immigration policy” and other unreasonable requirements, such as strict blockades, cannot be implemented in Germany. Every modern popular party in Europe makes today’s politics depend on mood and opinion polls.
Pickelhause as an empire metaphor
At the invitation of the Federal President Theodor Haus House Foundation, Heidewig Richter and one of her opponents, Marburg historian Eckart Konzer, met at a public event at the Stuttgart State Art Museum . Thomas Hertfelder, the host and managing director of the foundation, did not start this historical and political deviation, but strictly stayed in the period from 1870 to 1918, and proposed a striking point to Richter and Conze Question: “Let’s start with the spiked hood. The Kaiser represents Prussian-German militarism?”
Both scientists can say a lot about this. Richter’s argument was more defensive—perhaps because her book was extremely severely criticized by influential colleagues such as Andreas Vilsing and some reporters. “No one says that empire is a peaceful democratic nation-state,” Richter said, before spreading her argument on the bright side of the times: militarism and colonialism are international issues. Although the government does not rely on the Capitol, it has played an important role as a forum for discussion. Real wages have increased, active discourse has appeared at party meetings, mass movements have been clarified for the first time, and civil society has emerged. One problem with Richter’s interpretation of empire may be this overly modern term. Because the civil society in the operation of parliamentary democracy cannot be compared with the emerging civil society in the dictatorship.
Eckart Conze opposed the contempt of the empire, repeatedly refuting Richter on the main points, and drew attention to the “dark side”: the spire can be used as a metaphor for the empire, which is constitutionally an authoritarian nation-state. Until the final stage of the First World War, the lack of parliamentaryization was still a shortcoming. Although society outside the parliament has been politicized, if this is emphasized, then people should not remain silent about nationalist mass organizations-such as the Pan-German Association, the German Fleet Association, or the German Wehrmacht.
Kongze also pointed out two fundamental differences with other constitutional monarchies at the time: The tradition of citizen nationalism in 1848 was reshaped by imperial national nationalism, which clearly distinguished Germany from other nation-states. The “genocide intentions” in suppressing the Herero and Naama uprisings are also characteristic of Germany. “We can’t say that the empire ended in 1918. No, the empire continues to operate. This is not a precursor to National Socialism, but you must see the vitality of development,” Kongze said. At the end of the discussion, Richter interpreted imperial nationalism as more inclusive, while Kang Ze interpreted it as exclusion, which is not surprising.
6.30 am on weekdays
