The history
of Germany in the past hundred and forty years or so makes it very difficult to
revisit famous characters and events from before this period, free of the
ghastly ideological accretions which occurred during this time. From the
unification of Germany
under the dominance of the Prussian House of Hohenzollern in 1871 onwards,
German history was interpreted to serve contemporary purposes, most completely
and insidiously during the thirteen years of Nazi rule. But the worldwide
consequences of Germany ’s
attempts to dominate Europe and the world also led to widespread ideological
interpretations of German history by those who succeeded in defeating these
aspirations, from the USA to
France and from Britain to Russia .
It is, in
all events, a chimera to seek for some kind of “objective” history, beyond a
dry chronicle of events – and even such chronicles are the result of
“subjective” selection of events seen as significant enough to be recorded and
included. History is always at least as much about the attempt of contemporary
generations to understand themselves in the multidimensional aspect of what
went before and what is currently happening as it is about “what really
happened.” We constantly create our own versions of significance and meaning in
order to dynamically define our own identity. In this sense, whole memes,
themes, concepts and categories are constantly coming into existence which then
extend themselves into our understanding of our histories, giving rise to whole
new chains of meaning, significance and, frequently, complete stories.
The events
of the first half of the 20th Century have given rise to a unique
and very difficult situation for Germans in with respect to their relationship
with the past (and the present as the organic development of this past) and the
whole way they regard and do history.
One of the consequences of the disaster of the Nazi period is that many
categories which are unquestionably accepted by most other societies have
become deeply suspicious in the German context. No-one has any problems, for
example, in speaking of le Nation Français
or the American People. But use
the expression das Deutsche Volk, and
already the echoes of Hitler’s Nuremberg
harangues start to sound faintly in the background.
One of the
themes in which the problem of the prism of subsequent events becomes most
apparent in German history is that of Prussia . It is the fascinating
story of two small principalities – the Margraviate of Brandenburg (within the
Holy Roman Empire) and the Duchy of Prussia (outside the Empire on the Baltic) –
and a couple of even smaller counties in the Rhineland and Westphalia, united
under the control of the Hohenzollern dynasty in the early 17th
Century, which, by a combination of clever dynastic alliances and successful wars
and diplomacy became the second great power agglomeration (along with the
Austrian Habsburgs) within Germanic central Europe by the second half of the
18th Century, going on to unite almost all of German-speaking Europe (with the
exception of Austria) under its control a hundred years later. It continued to
exist as a component part of Germany
until it was formally abolished by the Allied Control Council on February 25,
1947.
In our
general way of thinking, Prussia
has become synonymous with militarism, authoritarianism, blind obedience to
superiors, uniforms, the goose-step, bushy moustaches and spiked helmets. Jawohl, mein Herr! Even in contemporary Germany , the
adjective “Prussian” is often used as a description for mindless, exaggerated
organisation and discipline. And there is an historical orthodoxy which sees a
direct line running from Frederick
the Great to Bismark to the Kaiser and his oath-bound generals (responsible for
World War I) directly to Hitler and his Nazi brutes. It was, indeed, a line
which Hitler himself accepted and embraced.
I don’t
want to carry on a discussion over historical interpretations of German
history, its meaning and the lessons which may be drawn from it, interesting
though the arguments over a possible German Sonderweg [special way] may be, though I
have a feeling I won’t be able to avoid it completely. But, so far as possible,
I would like to step back beyond the interpretative floodlights of the
intervening years in the next few paragraphs to consider a man who was regarded
by his contemporaries and many of their descendants as one of the most
important figures of the 18th Century.
Frederick II
von Hohenzollern – Frederick
the Great, der Alte Fritz – was born
three hundred years ago today (January 24). A shy, sensitive and artistically
inclined boy, the story of his childhood and youth is one of persistent
brutalising by a father with a drastic militaristic fetishist streak who was
determined to bring him up as a soldier. The young Frederick fought his father for the survival
of his own identity throughout his youth, culminating in an attempt, at the age
of eighteen, to flee his father’s kingdom and achieve his freedom. The attempt
failed and Frederick
was forced (under a sentence of death imposed by his royal father, which the old
bastard probably never seriously considered having carried out) to watch the
execution of his beloved tutor who had been the organiser and his chief
accomplice in the escape attempt.
The
drastic, sadistic measure worked. Frederick submitted to his father’s wishes
and plans; accepting the overarching concept expressed by the Prussian/German
word Pflicht [inadequately translated
into English by the word “Duty”] as the organising principle of his life. It
also twisted, perhaps even broke, something essential within him. Frederick remained, as he
had been, a convinced child of the Enlightenment. He retained his interest in
music, playing the flute in an accomplished manner and composing music. As
king, he supported freedom of thought, toleration, reason. Yet all of these
were now subordinated to an iron understanding of his Pflicht, his duty, to serve Prussia . In the execution of this
duty, as he saw it, he fought and schemed to make Prussia secure in the most certain
fashion possible – to make it so great and powerful that it was unassailable. This
meant, in practice, establishing Prussia
as the fourth great power in Europe, alongside France ,
Russia
and the Habsburg Empire. (Spain, in the 18th Century was going
through a long decline and England, though an important player, was, by virtue
of its insular nature, somewhat removed from the perpetual rivalry, expressing
itself in constantly shifting alliances, which defined the domination of the
continent by the aforementioned powers.)
In this he
very largely succeeded. Turning his keen intelligence to military matters, he
was regarded by his fellows – and indeed by Napoleon, the greatest military genius
of all – as the paramount general of his century, both in a tactical as well as
a strategic sense. As an enlightened absolutist ruler, he reorganised his
realm; professionalising public administration, introducing a basic code of
law, abolishing torture and corporal punishment, guaranteeing religious
freedom, encouraging trade, industry and modernisation, establishing
rudimentary general education, being a continuous patron of the arts, science
and philosophy.
To achieve
his military aims he spent the lives of hundreds of thousands of his soldiers
(and caused the deaths of many hundreds of thousands more Austrians, Poles and
Russians), yet he was respected and even generally loved by his subjects. Still,
spiritually deformed and damaged by his youthful experience, he grew increasing
cynical about human nature. It is possible that he was homosexual – shy as a
boy, as a man he wanted as little as possible to do with women, never fathering
a child and consistently preferring male company. As he grew older, his
misogyny developed into an even more general misanthropy. In later life he
preferred, when possible, to withdraw to his palace of Sans Souci ,
which he himself had designed, in the
company of his beloved greyhounds, which, he claimed, was better than that of
most people. It was his wish that he be buried there – a wish which would not
be fulfilled until 1991.
While
Prussian intellectuals (and even the elites in general in the kingdom)
generally sympathised with ideals of the French Revolution, there was little
practical agitation in the Prussian territories to follow the concrete path
taken by the French. It seemed so unnecessary, after all, most of what the
French Revolutionaries were agitating for in their country had already been
achieved in Prussia
under the Alte Fritz, with his encouragement
and blessing. In this, perhaps, can be seen some of the inspiration for the
historical theory of the German Sonderweg
in its earliest stages. Prussia had no need to abolish its monarchy and
introduce republican democracy in order to guarantee most of “the rights of man”
– its absolute rulers, Frederick the Great above all, had been reasonable and
enlightened enough to implement them practically in their own realm. It was an
example that freedom and enlightenment could be imposed from the top down,
rather than be (often bloodily) struggled for from the bottom up. Perhaps this did have some role to play in the late,
and comparatively weak, development of a democratic tradition in Germany ;
a circumstance which may have made it easier for Germans to accede to, and generally
enthusiastically embrace a ghastly dictatorship in the 20th Century.
Pictures retrieved from:
What a fascinating man. He must have suffered terribly and yet he gave to his kingdom that which he himself was denied by his father.
ReplyDeleteIt can only be imagined (I don't know much more than what I've read here) how difficult it must have been for him to wages wars and sacrifise the lives of so many people. He must have been very strong. Many in his position would perhaps have taken their own life.
I always learn new things here. Thank you.
:-)
Ah Gina, you've seen through to some of the core of Frederick, as I see him. He was frequently a tortured soul.
ReplyDeleteAnd yes, he too did contemplate suicide - the execution of his beloved tutor, Katte (on orders from his father, Frederick was forced to watch the beheading from the window of his cell), drove him into temporary madness. Following his greatest military defeat, at the Battle of Kundersdorf in 1759, during the Seven Years War (a real World War, fought on three continents, Europe, India/Asia and North America) he wrote:
" This morning at 11 o'clock I have attacked the enemy. ... All my troops have worked wonders, but at a cost of innumerable losses. Our men got into confusion. I assembled them three times. In the end I was in danger of getting captured and had to retreat. My coat is perforated by bullets, two horses of mine have been shot dead. My misfortune is that I am still living ... Our defeat is very considerable: To me remains 3,000 men from an army of 48,000 men. At the moment in which I report all this, everyone is on the run; I am no more master of my troops. Thinking of the safety of anybody in Berlin is a good activity ... It is a cruel failure that I will not survive. The consequences of the battle will be worse than the battle itself. I do not have any more resources, and - frankly confessed - I believe that everything is lost. I will not survive the doom of my fatherland. Farewell forever!"
Fortunately for Fritz, his Austrian and Russian enemies failed to take advantage from that particular victory and Frederick and his kingdom survived to fight on, eventually fighting his powerful enemies (France, Austria and Russia) to a standstill.
The only real victors of the Seven Years War were Frederick's British allies, who managed to throw the French out of India, Canada and the American Colonies - where one of their best commanders was a young Major of the Virginia Regiment, a certain George Washington. The war forms the background for The Last of the Mohicans
I have a problem with the overall premise of your article but I still think its really informative. I really like your other posts. Keep up the great work. If you can add more video and pictures can be much better. Because they help much clear understanding. :) thanks
ReplyDeleteYour comment to Gina was as fascinating to me as the original article so I'm very glad I arrived when I did and not a little earlier. Now I'm aware of a part of history I hadn't seen in that particular way before and I'm grateful for your reintroduction to Frederick the Great as a portal to understanding the conflicts of the 20th century.
ReplyDeleteI had another thought about this article and perhaps it goes without saying...
ReplyDeleteFrederick's father was probably quite aware of Frederick's "sensitive" tendencies as being unmanly and he tried to force it out of him by turning him into a soldier; a "real man".
Not unlike what still sometimes happens today when a father notices a son who is perhaps into dance or acting and takes great pains to force that kid to play football or join the armed services.
Yes, Gina and usually at the same ghastly price - the destruction of parts of the personality and creation of a desperately unhappy individual.
ReplyDeleteI have a feeling that modern schooling started under this Fred. It was for boys only, highly regimented and produced model students for a Model Army.
ReplyDeleteThanks for your information!
ReplyDeleteOn a lighter side, I just discovered a distant cousin in Berlin Thomas Vargas von Rentzell who uses a variation on that same portrait of Frederich the Great for his profile picture on facebook.
ReplyDelete