Students Again

German History Since 1848 Homework

 

Thesis Statement #1 -

Pete-Christian Witt: The Prussian Landrat as Tax Official 1891 – 1918

Peter-Christian Witt evaluates the role of the Prussian Landrat as an official during the Wilhelmine Empire as a corrupt position maintained by political figures in fear of political consequences. Witt exposes examples of tax evasion, aided by the Landrat, perpetrated by large estate owners. Witt also exposes why the politicians avoided removing the Landrat from their duties as tax assessors. Witt challenges the position of Otto Hintze who sees the German professional civil servants as having outstanding qualities, expertise, and regard for the public good. Witt wishes to expand on Preradovich’s study of the problems of administrative activity beyond the mere percentage of bureaucrats with an elite background.  Witt’s thesis claims that the Prussian Landrat empowered with the duty as tax assessor was an inherently flawed system. This flawed system was in position to further the benefit of the wealthy and it remained in place due to political self interest.

 

Witt cites four examples from commissioner reports of how large estates engaged in tax evasion and how the Landrat’s violated their public duty. First, large estate owners deducted a sum of money from their taxable income and accounted for the money as a salary for management of their estate. This rendered the sum avoidable to taxation. Second, a legally convoluted system for determining an estate owner’s estimated income was commonly manipulated. The large estate owner declared the same income each year and the Landrat never verified these estimates as their position required them to verify. Third, large estate owners frequently estimated income of their leased properties at many time of their self-managed properties. Finally, large estate owners reported a larger amount of their growth in income from capital assets rather than agricultural income. These practices by large estate owners became so common that the Landrat, in dereliction of their duty, avoided viewing them as violations.

 

The fraudulent practices of the Landrat and the large estate owners remained in tact due to political self interest. In light of the examples of fraud and dereliction of duty exposed in the commissioner reports, politicians were reluctant to remove the Landrat as tax assessor. If these fraudulent practices were exposed it would bring into question equality before the law which was supposed to be afforded by all citizens. This would inevitably result in political fallout. Due to this reality, politicians did not push the issue of replacing the Landrat as tax assessor. Without the element of political pressure, the large estate owners secured their positions as political and social leaders. The large estate owners manipulated their country’s system of governance and violated tax regulations with the aid of the Landrat which was at the expense of the majority of the population.

 

Witt’s thesis claims that the Prussian Landrat empowered with the duty as tax assessor was an inherently flawed system. This flawed system was in position to further the benefit of the wealthy and it remained in place due to political self interest. Witt supports his thesis through the use of examples of how large estate owner’s cheated the governmental tax system through the assistance of the Landrat. Furthermore, Witt shows that this system was not replaced after its flaws were exposed due to political self interest. Witt’s research is a challenge to previously accepted research conducted on the subject of the Landrat by Hintze which claimed that the German professional civil servant had outstanding qualities, expertise, and regard for the public good. Witt aims to expand the findings of Preradovich which exposes the problems of administrative activity.

 

Thesis Statement # 2 -

Franz J. Brüggemeier and Lutz Niethammer: Lodgers, Schnapps-Casinos and Working-Class Colonies in a Heavy Industrial Region

And

Klaus Tenfelde – The Herne Riots of 1899

In their article, Brüggemeier and Niethammer refute the claim that the industrial revolution was not responsible for poor housing. Their thesis is that the industrial revolution was the direct result of poor housing resulting in the oppression of mine workers. Oppression endured even after the implementation of colonies. In Tenfelde’s article, he introduces the idea of ethnic struggle during the industrial revolution. Tenfelde’s thesis claims that during the industrial revolution, ethnic divide was the most contributing factor in the difficulties of mine workers. These two articles have conflicting views regarding the root cause of the angst felt by mine workers. In Brüggemeier and Niethammer article they attribute the mine workers frustration to housing oppression while Tenfelde’s article attributes worker frustration to ethnic oppression.

 

In Brüggemeier and Niethammer article poor housing is evidenced in many ways, including the fact that the industrial revolution caused a population explosion which in turn created a housing shortage. Due to the housing shortage, an era of temporary housing flourished. As a result of temporary housing practices, workers frequently moved from job to job. The change in this condition ceased to be solvable until new housing was available. Another problem that persisted was the lack of public or private services which added to the problems of the mine workers. Eventually, mining companies built colonies to house their employees. However, this was for selfish reasons. Some of the reasons include recruiting workers, worker retention, and keeping workers in the vicinity of the pits. Even with housing colonies, mine workers remained oppressed; however, the oppression was no longer due to poorly structured dwellings. This new form of oppression came in the form of restrictions. One restriction associated with colony housing is that it was linked to employment. If a worker decided to gain employment at another mining company that worker was forced to move out of the colony. The restriction solved the mining companies’ employee retention problem, but added to the difficulties of the mine worker. Another restrictive measure involved the way the colonies were built. The colonies were built in such a way that it secluded workers and their families from interaction with the cities and politics. This new form of oppression aimed at creating a sheltered life for mine workers that would be solely devoted to the mining company based on dependence.

 

Tenfelde describes the difficulties of Polish Catholic mine workers.  Tenfelde focuses on the ethnic division between the German and Polish mine workers. In his article, it becomes evident that Polish Catholic mine workers were treated in an inferior manner. Polish workers were placed in overcrowded housing colonies isolated from the towns. The indigenous mine worker tended to congregate in the towns, according to Tenfelde, and did not welcome Poles. This exclusion created animosity between the German workers and the Polish worker within the colliery and beyond its gates. This rift instituted the rigid differences between these groups in religion, customs, and language. In an attempt of the Poles regaining their dignity they began to form clubs which were subsequently banned.  Through utter frustration with their oppression the Polish workers resorted to walkout striking tactics on 23 June 1899. The striking erupted into a violent outrage.

 

The authors of these two articles agree that there is a deep-rooted problem within the working-class miners during the industrial revolution. However, these authors are divided as to the root cause of these problems. Brüggemeier and Niethammer claim that the industrial revolution was the direct result of poor housing, which in turn caused oppression of mine workers. Oppression continued even after the construction of housing colonies. Tenfelde claims that during the industrial revolution ethnic divide was the most contributing factor in the oppression of mine workers.

 

Thesis Statement #3 – Germans into Nazis by Peter Fritzsche (pps. 3 – 82)

 

Peter Fritzsche’s thesis statement is that the German people had reached an unprecedented level of unity during World War I. The unprecedented nature of this unity is based on the increasing role of the proletariat. This thesis shows a change in German perception arising from the war. The changing perception was the notion that the German people were now believed that they were all in the fight together. This brought about a sense of German nationalism that the German people had long been anticipating. During this time, class status became less important that supporting the war effort.

 

Fritzsche’s method of developing his thesis is based on the description of examples. Many of these examples are illustrated in the realm of politics, employment, and social activities. These examples show a different type of Germany than had ever existed in the past.

 

In the beginning of the war, the Kaiser appeared on his royal balcony and made a statement that would shape the German attitude during the war. He stated that “[he] no longer recognized parties or confessions…today we are all German brothers, and only German brothers.” This statement marks a change in the attitude of the leadership which granted approval in the changing attitude of the people. The business of war had linked the state and the people. In the past, the Kaiser controlled displays of nationalism which had changed during this new era. As people read the German newspapers documenting the crowds on Unter den Linden they began to see their nation based less on hierarchy. This was the first movement towards the peoples’ version of nationalism. This version of German nationalism had a new and deeper meaning implementing social reform and political entitlement. In August of 1914 a process of national unification had finally been completed. The war had inspired a refreshing sense of patriotism. This patriotism was celebrated on all levels of the German people negating class division. The grief of the horrors of war was felt by everyone. This grief was met with war relief by the people. War relief included social help, the comforting of wounded and crippled soldiers, and morale boosting. These war relief efforts were orchestrated in an unprecedented manner; collaboration between labor and industry. The war was indiscriminate, it belonged to everyone. During the entire war nearly twenty-percent of the total population and nearly eighty-five-percent of eligible males were organized to fight. As a result the war became public institution. Patriotism was so prevalent that millions of pieces of mail were sent daily, poems were created in honor of German soldiers, and German soldiers were household icons to be found printed on a range of products. The urge to adopt German-only language was encouraged to the avoidance of French, Russian, English, and Italian. German neighborhoods were riddled with civic activism. People felt a sense of duty regardless of their previous social status. These civic groups headed a range of activities to help families whose main provider had been sent off to war.

 

The German people had reached an unprecedented level of unity during World War I. The unprecedented nature of this unity is based on the increasing role of the proletariat. This is evidenced by the intertwining of the class hierarchy in the activities of politics, employment, and social activities. Politics had witnessed an unprecedented effort of the Kaiser to recognize all Germans. Employment showed a new working relationship between labor and industry in the implementation of war relief. Social activities brought about high levels of civic activism in an effort to help families of war. All of these activities realized a new national solidarity regardless of past class struggles.

 

Thesis Statement #4 - Detlev J.K Peukert: Inside Nazi Germany (Pgs. 21 – 100)

 

The rise of the National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP or Nazi Party) is a complicated history filled with opportunistic actions and deceit.  Peukert analyzes this complicated matter with a focus on the German people.  This analysis begins with the NSDAP attempting to appeal to all voters.  Then Peukert explains the opportunistic nature of the party where they capitalize on the shortcomings of other parties during a time of political and economic crisis. The NSDAP gained support through avocation of unity and successful foreign policy.  However, there was a large disbanded community filled with popular dissent.  Through the use of intelligence reports, Hitler (the Führer) controlled popular dissent through a concept known as the Führer myth.  Peukert's thesis states that the NSDAP rose to power through the mistakes of opposition parties during a time when the German people most wanted change.  Then, after the NSDAP gained power it built a complicated web of deceit to retain that power without ever gaining majority support from the people.  In fact, a fair amount of dissent was present in the people.  The party proved to have little substance when it came to solving the problems of the German people; this led to the party's failure.

 

The NSDAP worked very hard to employ a system of propaganda that would eliminate the lines between supporters and opponents.  The NSDAP achieved this by concerning itself with the life of ordinary people.  This concern was the backbone of the Nazi fascist system of governance. This is to say that the NSDAP interfered in nearly every facet of life creating mass suppression.  The NSDAP was allowed to do this by capitalizing on the failures of other parties.  Prior to the rise of the NSDAP an economic depression was underway and the people disparately needed change.  The inability of the other parties to set aside differences enabled the NSDAP to seize power.  During this time the NSDAP's effective use of propaganda allowed it to gain support from a wide range of the population.  The NSDAP also addressed the economic crisis.  This was accomplished through the natural nature of a fascist regime. This natural nature consisted of state mechanisms of intervention and regulation, the creation of state war readiness, and the repression of the working class through the use of terror to gain surplus value.  These successes of the NSDAP are also attributed to the ability to create a sense of unity.  The Nazi movement created an uplifting sense of significance for its members.  This movement also created a true national community in which everyone had a roll where they could feel secure and respected.  Hitler also made headway in foreign policy by succeeding in the undoing of discriminatory provisions of the Versailles Treaty.  In the end, all of these perceived positives by the German people would not cause them to turn a blind eye forever.  This concept of do-no-wrong Social Nationalism would face popular dissent mainly arising from the older generations.  This dissent would come in the form of refusing to participate in Eintopf (the cooking of an inexpensive Sunday stew and contributing the savings to the party) to giving shelter to victims of persecution.  In order to avoid excessive dissent, the NSDAP employed the Gestapo to outline public morale in a series of secret reports.  A dissenter's uprising failed to come to fruition because of the passive nature of the German people and the fact that the root of dissent came from every group of society and these groups failed to achieve a collective identity as an opposition.  This popular dissent was controlled through a concept known as the Führer myth.  The  Führer myth was the belief that Hitler would be as tough on lower level Nazi leaders as he was on political opposition if he only knew how those leaders treated the people.  This myth preserved the popularity of Hitler with the people despite the documented complaining about the NSDAP in the secret Gestapo reports.  It also helped to reconcile the people's need for uplift, security, and a positive outlook on the future versus the difficulties of everyday Reich life.  The Nazi regime disguised the problems of society through lies and control rather than providing real solutions.  This leads to the fact that the regime had very little substance as an effective political party.  The excessive police forces, surveillance systems, and plans for reorganization were reduced to chaos.  This chaos forced the regime to implement reckless policy until they ultimately perished.

 

The rise of the NSDAP is a complicated history filled with opportunistic actions and deceit.  The NSDAP attempted to appeal to all voters through a sophisticated system of propaganda.  Then the party seized the opportunity to capitalize on the shortcomings of other parties during a time of political and economic crisis. The NSDAP gained support through creating a sense of unity and a successful foreign policy.  However, there was a large disbanded community filled with popular dissent.  Through the use of secret Gestapo reports, Hitler controlled this popular dissent through a deceit known as the Führer myth.  The NSDAP rose to power through the mistakes of opposition parties during a time when the German people most needed change.  Then, after the NSDAP gained power it built a complicated web of deceit to retain that power without ever having any real substance in effectively helping the German people.  This fatal flaw ultimately led to the demise of the Führer and the NSDAP.

 

Thesis Statement #5 – Uta G. Poiger: Jazz, Rock, and Rebels: Cold War Politics and American Culture in a Divided Germany (Pgs. 1-70)

 

In the first seventy pages of Uta G. Poiger’s book Jazz, Rock, and Rebels: Cold War Politics and American Culture in a Divided Germany, she examines the response of German leaders and German citizens to the influence of American popular culture.  During this examination it is clear that young German people embrace American popular culture while German leaders feel threatened by its presence.  In the decade after World War II (WWII), the German people were trying to disassociate themselves with the atrocities of the Third Reich.  However, the threat of American popular culture felt by the German leadership reiterated some of the most grievous mistakes of the Third Reich.  The leadership’s response to American popular culture in both Eastern and Western Germany invoked anti-black, anti-Semitic, and misogynistic attitudes in an effort to reject American influences.  Poiger’s thesis statement for this section of her book is that the German leadership’s feeling of being threatened by the impact of American popular culture on their young population helped to continue an era of racial and class politics. This was during a time when both Germanys were striving to define themselves as classless and raceless in the aftermath of the Third Reich. In the latter part of the decade after WWII, the divergence of East and West Germany on this issue was a defining moment in the emerging of the Cold War.

 

In the decade after WWII, many East and West Germans believed that American popular culture was shaping young Germans.  This instilled a fear that young German men were being influenced towards increased aggression, even being prepared for war, and young German women were influenced towards heightened sexuality.  This fear was rooted during the Weimar and Nazi years and the experiences of the United States (U.S.) and Soviet occupation.  The events during occupation including fraternization, rape, denazification, and economic policies shaped hostile East and West German attitudes about American influences.  During the 1940s and 1950s the U.S. government sanctioned many programs in an effort to convince Germans that the U.S. was a land of high culture.  However, East and West German officials, like during the Weimar Republic and the Third Reich, worried about the impact of American movies, music, and dance on German youth.  This fear spawned anti-black sentiment in relation to jazz music, anti-Semitic sentiment in relation to movies, and misogynistic sentiment in relation to dancing.  Youth protection efforts were levied in both Germanys to contain the impact of American-style consumer culture.  At the same time, East German authorities made efforts to publicize the hostility that existed toward American culture in both East and West Germany.  This was done through exposing incidents such as the trial of the Gladow gang’s crime spree in East and West Berlin and the East German uprising of 1953 as being tied to the impact American popular culture had on juvenile delinquency and political deviance.  This exposure by East Germany put West Germany in an awkward position as they were allying with the U.S.  However, some officials from both Germanys used American cultural products to entice young people towards their political causes.  In the midst of the diverging Germanys, these political efforts gained some force in West Germany.   By the late 1950s, West German officials no longer fought against American cultural influence while East Germany continued to repress it well into the 1960s.  This marked a defining moment in the emergence of the Cold War.

 

The German leadership’s feeling of being threatened by the impact of American popular culture on their young population helped to continue an era of racial and class politics.  This was during a time when both Germanys were striving to define themselves as classless and raceless in the aftermath of the Third Reich and emerging of the Cold War.  This is evidenced by the anti-black, anti-Semitic, and misogynistic linking to American jazz, movies, and dance styles by German authorities in both the East and the West during the decade after WWII.  However, in the later years of the decade after WWII the diverging nature of West Germany’s association with the United States and East Germany’s association with the Soviets in relation to cultural influence became a crucial difference during the emergence of the Cold War.

 

Rise of the Modern Irish Nation Homework

The Treaty

 

The executions following the 1916 Rebellion caused such horror among the ordinary people that even those removed from politics became sympathetic to the Rebel cause. This enabled the Irish to conduct the War of Independence in a way that convinced Lloyd George that he was dealing with an international problem. Thus the return of DeValera from America, whom the British regarded as a true and able politician, persuaded the prime-minister that it was time for a truce and negotiations. Delegations were sent to London between the months of October and December 1921.

 

On leaving for England, the delegation, who were notably without DeValera, were given strict instructions that any decisions made had to be referred to Dublin for ratification. Lloyd George, a vary able diplomat, as was the young Winston Churchill, foiled DeValera's plan by handing down an ultimatum on the 5th of December ; sign or be responsible for total war in Ireland. The men signed the treaty on the 6th December 1921.

 

They returned to find DeValera, the president of the Dail in total opposition to the Treaty, specifically with the Oath of Allegiance to the Crown. The Dail debate on the document was extremely bitter and abusive towards the signatories. During the debate Griffith outlined some of the achievements; "We have brought back the flag, we have brought back the evacuation of Ireland after 700 years of British troops and the formation of an Irish army."

 

On January 7th 1922 the Dail voted and the Treaty became law. DeValera resigned his post and his supporters boycotted the Dail.

 

The major operation of taking over the administration of the country was now on the shoulders of Michael Collins as Chairman of the Provisional Government. The key question for the new regime was control of the I.R.A.

 

Richard Mulcahy, Minister for Defence and Head of the I.R.A. was determined that "the army will remain the army of the Irish Republic". i.e. the I.R.A. would be loyal to the Provisional Government. The reality was that the army had split. The force from which the I.R.A. sprang, the Irish Volunteers, had only taken the oath to the Republic at the insistence of Cathal Brugha and had always tended to be independent of political authority. On January 12th they demanded that an army convention be held to discuss the Treaty and their allegiances. This was opposed but eventually took place on 26th March 1922.

 

The convention was attended only by dissidents who doubted the authority of Mulcahy. The Convention elected its own new executive as the chief of staff of the anti-treaty I.R.A. Various sections of the army hardened into pro and anti Treaty. Supporters of the Treaty dressed in the new green uniform became known as the Free State Army as opposed to the anti-Treaty I.R.A.

 

The anti-treaty IRA refused to recognize the Dail which in effect meant that the I.R.A. was an illegal army within the Irish Free State. In defiance of the Dail, Rory O'Connor, leader of the anti-Treaty I.R.A., led the occupation of Dublin buildings in a 1916 style rebellion. There was an initial hope that the conflict would remain in the political arena between a Collins / DeValera pact. The British opposed it and shortly before the June elections Collins repudiates the Pact.

 

The results of these elections which showed strong support for the Free State reflected the desire of people to return to normal living conditions. This did not influence the Anti-treaty IRA who was still determined to overthrow the Treaty.

 

The assassination of Sir. Henry Wilson in London by two of Collins' men acted as a catalyst for events in Ireland. The British government blamed Rory O'Connor's garrison. Churchill threatened Collins with war unless these men were removed from their position (the same threat used in the Treaty negotiations). On 26th June an anti-treaty IRA officer was arrested while on a raid so in retaliation the Deputy Chief of Staff of the Free State Army was kidnapped. On 28th June 1922 the Free State government sent an ultimatum to O'Connor to surrender or submit to attack. No answer was given thus the Free State Army bombarded their former comrades over two days. The Irish Civil War had begun.

 

IRA: Terrorists or Freedom Fighters?

The IRA  (Irish Republican Army) is an unofficial, paramilitary nationalist organisation whose purpose is to make British rule in Ireland ineffective by the use of armed force and to assist achieving an independent republic (the entire island) by the  unification of the Republic of  Ireland and Northern Ireland. This objective is pursued on a military level by the IRA.

In this essay, Terrorism will be defined as a systematic use of or threat of physical or mental violence against government, publics or individuals to obtain political objectives, without foundation in legally accepted and publicly known courts of law. The definition of freedom fighters used will be a group or person fighting for independence and freedom, with a supportive majority of the people it is fighting for.

The history of republican violence has a long history. The IRA evolved in 1919 as a successor to Irish Volunteers (founded in 1913).

In the 70s IRA was divided into the «official» wing, working for a united Ireland in a revolutionary, socialist republic, and the «provisional» wing (the Provos)(PIRA) consisting of younger, overtly sectarian Catholic members committing to the use of terror tactics to force British troops out of Northern Ireland to form a unified Ireland.

Their enthusiasm is drawn from a number of historical rebellions, most importantly the Easter Rising in 1916. The Republicans have always had a strong sense of legacy and historical symbolism. That might be why they still use military tactics. They have recognised that it has resulted in their alienation, but they feel that if they give up now it would mean that those who died in the violent struggles throughout the past would have died for nothing. A compromise is equivalent to surrender. The PIRA has illustrated this in public statements. These attitudes show their eagerness of fighting, at any cost, including terrorist acts such as the constant bombings in London.

The IRA seems to have no qualms about the use of terrorist tactics, and destruction in their cause. It is believed by many Republicans that when it is politically costly for the British to remain in Ireland, they'll go...it won’t be triggered until a large number of British soldiers are killed and that's what going to happen.

Another reason for using terrorism is that today terrorism’s public impact has been magnified by the use of modern means of communications. Death, blood, violence and destruction sell, not only as a news report, but today people are attracted to such as mentioned. So any act of terrorism is guaranteed to attract media coverage, which brings the event into millions of people and exposes the public to the terrorists' demands, grievances and political goals. Such acts are used as a mean of pressure towards the British Government, but at the same time it will make it harder to get sympathy from ordinary people. It is these common people the IRA depend upon for fundraising, especially from the Irish community in the U.S. The use of violence also tends to strengthen the resistance from the victims and their authorities. So it can be said that the use of terrorist tactics is a double-edged sword.

In addition to this the IRA uses public attacks, especially in England, to stress the British economy by disrupting daily life. They might feel that England is so strong and resourceful in comparison to themselves that they have to use the strongest mean available: violence in the form of guerrilla warfare.

In an attempt to gain support from both Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland the IRA play down sectarian violence and play up the Irish freedom vs. British tyranny motif. It is difficult to make a clear-cut statement whether the IRA are terrorists of freedom fighters.

The Sinn Fein has only about 15 % of the votes in Northern Ireland, and the rest of the remaining Catholic minority votes (about 40 % of the population) goes mainly to SDLP, which has a much less violent politic than the Sinn Fein has. Thus, only a minority of the minority supports the IRA. Therefore since not having the support of the majority upon whose behalf it claims to fight, neither from the Northern Irish population as a whole or the Catholic minority it weakens the claims from the IRA that they are freedom fighters.

It is not only the IRA who is using terrorism in this conflict. To some extent does the British Government as well, in that sense that they do not follow their own law. Many people have been arrested and imprisoned, without charges or probable cause of suspicion. So it is easy to understand the IRA's feelings that when Britain does not follow the law, why on earth should they?

There are many examples throughout the history of Ireland that Britain has given the IRA excuses to escalate their threats of violence. The latest example is this summer, when the Government allowed Orange Order marches through die-hard Catholic areas. An action such as this is, of course, incredibly provocative for the Catholic population. The British Authorities hereby makes a stand of supporting the Protestants instead of letting the marches go through Protestant and mixed neighbourhoods and make a point of some sort of neutrality. Another example is the division of electoral constituencies in Northern Ireland to secure a Protestant majority as far as possible and as a result to a large extent securing Protestant control of the public offices. The plantation policy and "Bloody Sunday" in January, 1972 are other examples. Instead of perhaps having a one-sided Protestant policy, the Parliament could have been slightly more neutral and gained some hard-needed goodwill.

It is difficult, in which booth to place the IRA, terrorists or freedom fighters? They are not such clear-cut terrorists such as Baader-Meinhof or Black September, which only have (or had) a diminutive support in their respectively countries, but neither are they freedom fighters on the same level as for instance, the resistance force in the German-occupied Norway during World War 2, which clearly had a  majority of the population supporting them.

But the conclusion will be that the IRA will not have, even if Ireland is included, a majority supporting their "war" against Great Britain, and therefore the IRA can not justify the use of terrorist tactics.