Often, we find that history is written about the winners and the more powerful citizens. Because of this, the day to day lives and feelings of the lower class or peasants are often very poorly documented and recorded. This leads to the generalizations that we have about the lower class sort of being a group of static farmers, or lower class artisans who did not have much influence and presumably do not have opinions, political views, or special interests. Blackbourn's article goes against this concept of a cookie-cutter image for the peasants and expands on it declaring that they were living very dynamic lives which influenced them enough to gain and act on their political views.

At this time, the peasantry were facing economic pressures due to economic depression in the 1870s, falling grain prices, and tariffs. This led them to have a resentment and misunderstanding of the market because they were not able to peak their heads above the walls of their small community to see the national economic problems that trickled down and affected them. They see the three enemies of the school, military, and railroads as the enemy coupled with the distrust they had for the city.

In protest of tough times around them, the peasants began to vote protestingly against the main political parties not because they supported the smaller interest groups, but largely because they blamed the major political parties for the issues that affected their daily lives. By losing this mass of support, the main political parties were forced to adopt platforms that the masses would support so that they could remain in office.

In short, the powerful political parties were unfocused on the peasantry interests and its policies eventually angered the peasantry. In response, the peasantry voted against these political parties in hope that their protests would force the parties to adopt more favorable platforms. This is a perfect example of changing politics from the ground up.

During the 1960s to 1970s theories began to emerge about the German Songerweg period of 1871 to 1945 in regards to the creation of the Third Reich of Nazi Germany. Two historians, Wehler and Kocka, emerged first with their interpretation attributed to the Belielefeld school. At the heart of their interpretation is that this period was marked by an absence of political modernization, particularly democratization and parliamentarization in the liberal sense, in conjunction with rapid economic modernization with a capitalist market economy. Power over the army and civil and diplomatic services was concentrated in the hands of the monarchs and aristocracy and it was presumably the German bourgiosie's responsibility to overturn these norms, but instead accepted a "free hand in the economy" and "abandon(ed) its political liberalism. This also contributed to the relative weakness of the liberals among other reasons such as their lack of a sufficient regional support, 'narrow' political views, the split of liberals because of Bismarck's tariff policy in 1873. Bismarck's Bonapartist tactics suppressed the liberals by essentially preoccupying the country with 'social imperialism' of defusing domestic tensions with foreign concerns and 'negative integration' of uniting Germans together by creating a presumed enemy, specifically against Catholics, socialists, and Poles. Wehler and Kocka see him as an evil Bonapartist who caused liberal failure and whose policies prevented the overturn of their unintegrated government.

Eley and Blackbourn criticize this theory because it assumes that the "aristocracy is inherently feudal" and that the "bourgeoisie by nature liberal" and that the bourgeoisie missed their chance for revolution and therefore the fate of Germany was more closely associated with "the non-occurrence of a bourgeois revolution and the absence of a parliamentary democracy." They also criticize that there is an "insufficient distinction" between the parliamentary system in politics and capitalist modes of production. They also argue that Bismarck successfully manipulated the masses and therefore actually enacted political mobilization earlier than other European countries. Though Eley and Blackbourn are not greatly accepted, the fact that they challenged the Bielefeld schools interpretations and saw Bismarck's actions as successful and viewed the latter events on the lack of elements opened the door for more historians to analyze and critique others or create their own interpretations.

Culture, Religion, and Division

Under Bismarck, the German states were unified into a nation with more centralized power and greater unity among the different ethnic states. Though there was general unity, divisions became more evident in aspects of life, particularly the cultural divide of the Bourgeoisie and working class, and even between the unskilled and quasi-skilled laborers. The Bourgeoisie began to move towards apparent cultural enlightenment by having cultural elements, such as going to the opera or botanical gardens, become a part of their everyday lives. They found the need to not only be bourgeois by social standards, but also by the way they lived their lives... "I don't drink and gamble but engage in cultural activities, and therefore I am part of the Bourgeoisie and hang out with others who do the same." This separated them from the working class because they saw them as a burden to society while they were the ones who were enlightened and important to society. With the onset of industrialization, we also see a divide between semi-skilled and unskilled laborers.

Religious issues emerge as the battle between reformist movements and Orthodoxy rages as society grows more secular. With the onset of scientific reasoning, citizen became skeptical of religion as an absolute faith. Repressive laws are removed against the Jewish faith allowing them to be a revered member of society more so than while they were oppressed. Similar to the way the Bourgeoisie integrated cultural elements into their life, Protestants shifted towards cultural Protestantism which integrated religious elements into their daily lives. As this occurs, Catholics achieve a "victory of Orthodoxy" bringing them closer to the Roman church and more separated from their Protestant counterparts.

In short, though Germany had become a united nation, divisions inside the nation were still very evident between classes and religions.

Germany was ultimately unified under Bismarck even though his methods and tactics were quite manipulative of the population and government. By operating on his own agenda and only revealing what was necessary for his particular goal at a particular time, he was able to keep much of the leaders and citizens in the dark without them knowing it.

As we talked about in class, he adhered to a "realpolitik" mindset which is revolutionary because it is realistic as opposed to idealistic. By enacting policies such as universal suffrage, he manipulates the middle class into thinking they will be more generally represented while the ones that are actually gaining a vote, the rural peasants, often lean more conservatively. Later, he creates the Reichstag or lower house elected by universal male suffrage. But since this house has no compensation, only the elite are able to accept representative positions. When domestic trouble begins to brew, he wins a quick imperial war to improve moral and end these uprisings. When the Minister of War wanted a larger army, longer servitude and the elimination of local militias, etc..., Bismarck was able to sidestep the parliament, collect taxes, and reallocate them towards the military.

In foreign affairs, Bismarck is just as manipulative. He leads Austria to declare war on what they think is a weak Prussian force, just to let them fall to the improved Prussian army (which he had bolstered through the Constitutional Conflict) and ultimately, takes them out of the German problem of what Germany will soon become.

In short, Bismarck stuck to a "realpolitik" policy to get done what he wanted to without care for misleading, manipulating, or representing those who were initially discontent. Through his manipulation of the people and government, he guided their perception to believe he was the one who was improving and unifying Germany when what he was really doing is manipulating certain parts of government and the people to create the Germany that he envisioned. Granted that he is revered as the father and unifier of Germany, his methods were far from straight-forward.