Although the "revolutionaries" of this chapter of German history were forward-thinking in their efforts to unify Bavaria and become a nation, can one site a lack of compromise between both sides of revolutionaries as the primary cause of failure?
The radical, university-educated liberals of the 1830s wanted change. They strove for a new, more democratic order and wanted more participation within the government. Still, they were not open to universal suffrage, questioning whether the public is mature enough to vote. Also, despite their desire to change the state, many of these individuals work for the government.
Furthermore, radicals and liberals were divided in their methods of gaining momentum. While liberals wanted more association with the democratic process, radicals were ready for a government that was by the people, for the people. And, while liberals were nervous in attracting attention, radicals were anxious to organize full-on protests in the streets.
Collectively, one can blame the failure of Germany's would-be revolution in the nineteenth century on the divisions among the revolutionaries, not forming specific goals to lead to the unification of Germany, religious conflict, and the unspecified role of the middle class. However, given the great influence of technology on communication (i.e. newspapers and telegraphs that brought news regarding the success of the French revolution), a revolution was possible.
Given the advancements of communication, had the liberals and radicals sat down to make compromises and lay down specific goals, could Germany's unification have happened as a result of these revolutionaries?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Good point. You don't see the consensus conservatives seemed to have among liberals and radicals. Perhaps that's why Bismarck was such a force. He harnessed the unified body on the right while making important concessions to the left. I don't see why individuals working for the government should not desire reform, however. In my view, it is that very perspective that legitimizes their stance.
ReplyDeleteVery true although their failure to unite could also be tied to the fact that they really did have different interests. You could almost argue that in American terms the liberals would be more Hamiltonian to the radicals as Jacksonian. They didn't have much in common other than their opposition to the conservative establishment.
ReplyDeleteMainly though I think the government was not quite abusive enough and there was some level of competence. There was discontent but I don't think most citizens were disconent enough to overthrow the government.
Excellent points all around. The disunity seen at Frankfurt certainly played into the 'failure' of the Frankfurt Parliament. However, this disunity had very real causes and represented economic/ social conflicts that hindered the ability to compromise. Perhaps things could have been 'talked out' but advances in communication may not have been enough to overcome the very real differences of interest and opinion expressed by the different groups. Take our modern healthcare debate. Even if we could get the entire class to agree that health care should be reformed (a tricky proposition), deciding what form that reforn should take would present an even greater challenge that uniting people behind the idea that something needs to change.
ReplyDelete