I would like to respond to a comment made to my previous entry to this one. The comment was...

"I think the possibility of a 4th Reich is directly proportional to the economic health of Germany. I have always understood nationalistic feelings in the German public was easily manipulated given high unemployment and poor standard of living."

You make a very valid point, and its human nature to repeat our mistakes, so economic trouble in Germany may very well give rise to a 4th Reich of sorts, but at the same time it could give rise to a very peaceful, and helpful regime...history will tell. Historically though, you are right; the war reparations (some 33 billion dollars American) and other economic restrictions imposed upon Germany in the Treaty of Versailles basically crippled its economy to point where peacetime economic functions could never save it. Hitler took advantage of the low morale in Germany and used nationalist feelings to muster support in the public and in political circles such as with Army officials. The Army was a very powerful institution in Germany at the time and has been described as "a state within a state"(The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, Shirer).

Added to the economic woes of Germany were the wounds to its pride due to the Treaty of Versailles. The restrictions on its military, navy, and the complete dismantalling of its air force struck a huge blow to the German pysche. As well, the exile of Kaiser Wilheml II seemingly ended the practical nature of the old German Order and replaced it with the imposition by the allies of the Weimar Republic, which was never a popular governmental system post ww1. The Parliamentary system on which the Weimar Republic was based was an utter failure from its conception and implementation.

Hitler took full advantage of the woes of Versailles and the loopholes of Parliamentary procedure to gain control in Germany. Its interesting to note that Hitler was never voted into office by popular vote. He swindeled his was into power by using backdoor parliamentary politics and using loopholes in procedure. Once in power though he brought the parliament under only Nazi control. Hitler took power almost completely legally and constitutionally, though very unethically.

That's all for now. Frig...I love history!

-A History Student

Hello, again I don't have much to write about but I thought I'd give it a try. Lets see, I'm trying to make my way through a couple of books but, keeping in mind that I have the attention span of a field mouse on speed, it may take a while. The book that I really really want to get finished this summer is "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich", by William Shrier. It's apparently a very famous book and it's very very interesting in parts. The only problem with it is that IT'S 1000 PAGES LONG!

So far I've read about the rise of Hitler, the history and rise of nationalism in Germany, the philisophical roots of the Nazi party (that part was confusing...ya you try comprehending all the German philosophers names! haha).The book is a bit above my level of knowledge, for example it is hard to keep track of some of the names of different people involved in German politics in the years leading up the takeover of power by the Nazi's. Also, I'm in the middle of a section that is dealing with how Hitler constitutionally took over power circa 1932 (following his unsuccesful coup de'tat in 1923). This is difficult to understand because I don't understand how the governmental system of Germany worked at that time. It was a parliamentary system, but seems to be quite different from the British style, which is what the Canadian parliamentary system is based upon and is therefore what I am familiar with. It's just confusing to me what the duties of the different offices were, how people were elected or appointed into those offices and how much power each office held. Particularly confusing to me are the offices of the President and the Chancellor in the government of Germany during the time of between the two world wars, the Weimar Republic.

I can understand some of the book. There was one particular point that the author makes about German nationalism that I found very interesting and had never considered. He basically that even if Hitler had not been in the picture in post ww1 Germany there still probably would have been a similar rise of nationalistic feelings and policy in Germany eventually. He states that the rise of nationalism in Germany was an inevitable and natural move for Germany based upon its political history.

To sum it up he goes through German history and shows how nationalism has played a vital role in the shaping of the country and the attitude of its people. His statements on early German history are a little foggy to me but there was one point that he made that really struck out. He showed the history of the German Reich ( meaning empire/realm/government in english), and that there have been 3 in its history that have embodied nationalistic views. The first Reich was the establishment of the medieval Holy Roman Empire under Charlemagne, its power was lost with the division of Germany into a plethura of states with the Peace of Westphalia which ended the 30 Years War. The second Reich being the confederation and occupation of states which was led Otto von Bismarck and culimated into the North German Confederation in 1871, the power of this reich ended with the defeat of Germany in WW1 in 1918. The third Reich of course being Germany under Adolph Hitler, which lasted only from 1933 to 1945. This may be a simple concept and probably very well known among historians but I hadn't pieced it together and therefore found it very interesting to see this progression of German history. I don't fully understand it because it seems a somewhat complicated issue when you delve into it. Hitler and the Nazi Party used this theme of "continuation" of German history in their propogana. The reason for this is that under each of these Reichs Germany had grown powerful and had become a leading nation in Europe at the time of their establishments. Hitler was conveying that under his 1000 year Reich Germany woul grow to not only be a leading nation, but THE leading nation, and he nearly succeded. To get a more detailed account of this point it is located in "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" in a section of the chapter "The Mind of Adolph Hitler and the Roots of the Thrid Reich" entitled "The Historical Roots of the Third Reich". Essentially, the author claims that based upon this establishment of nationalistic "Reichs" in Germany, eventually there was bound to be a "Third Reich".

It can be argued that the time of the Weimar Republic is a "Reich", and in a sense of the word it is. Yet, a true German Reich it seems must have the characteristic of strong and even violent nationalism to be considered an historically true "German Reich".

I wonder myself then if that means that Germany is not finsihed with its establishment of a "Reichs",and that a "Fourth Reich", one possibly more nationalistic than the previous ones might rise up. At the present time this seems very unlikey given the semi-unified nature of Europe in todays world (the United Nations, the European Union), and simply the fact that nation states today it seems there is more a feeling of there being the "human family" or "human race" where everyone is equal and it does not matter what nationality you are. Now, nationalism still very much exists, this is evident for example in the political and social spurs between Canadians and Americans, but I must say that now because we are out of the age of Imperialsim that isloationist nationalistic feelings are at an all time historical low. This I believe though only applies to Western, democratized countries. Strong nationalism is still very much alive in such places as North Korea, India, Pakistan, Israel, Palestine and others. Going back to my point, I do not believe there will be a "Fourth Reich" anytime soon but I will not rule out the possibility, history will tell.

Well, holy crap, I didn't think I was going to write that much. I guess I'll have to tell you about my other books in another entry. Frig..I love history!

-A History Student