Then why was Asquith crying when he learnt war was inevitable?
From the memoirs of Prince Lichnowsky (here after referred to as The Prince).
" Mr. Asquith also, when I called on him on the 2nd August to make a last effort in the direction of expectant neutrality, was quite broken, though absolutely calm. Tears were coursing down his cheeks. "
Hardly sounds like a man eager for war, nor does the fact that members of the British cabinet resigned over the matter indicate the government was chomping at the bit.
That's why I am suprised that they are ignoring such a wealth of information and primary sources when they make textbooks and lectures. I doubt the professors have some hidden agenda. It makes me think there has to be some catch to it. But, Pirmary sources are usually more accurate than secondary, unless something's wrong with them.
And all this supports your notion that Imperial Germany would have been as bad as Nazi Germany... how, exactly? Do please present your evidence that the Imperial government was planning a systemised racial extermination programme and national serfdom in the East.
I think this depends upon how one interprets what he is saying. Obviously, I don't think he is saying they are as bad as Nazi Germany. I even think he stated directly the opposite. He is saying Nazi Germany was worse, but it's evil lasted shorter than the evil of being under the consistant heel of the German Empire.
The word anti-Semitism was coined about 1879 to denote hostility toward Jews only. This hostility is supposedly justified by a theory, first developed in Germany in the middle of the 19th century, that peoples of so-called Aryan stock are superior in physique and character to those of Semitic stock.
Many explanations of the phenomenon of anti-Semitism have been advanced. One theory, widely accepted by social scientists, suggests that anti-Semitism is nurtured in periods of social instability and crisis, such as those existing in Germany in the 1880s
Although legal reforms put an end to discrimination on religious grounds, hostility, falsely based on racism, grew. Racist theories that had been formulated during the preceding decades provided the basis for a new grouping of anti-Semitic political parties after the Franco-Prussian War and the economic crash of 1873. The German political scene was marked by the presence of at least one openly anti-Semitic party until 1933, when anti-Semitism became the official policy of the government under National Socialism (Nazism).
It's not like racism, hatrened, and anti-semitism were unique to Nazi Germany, The German EMpire also harboured these feelings, but it wasn't economic, PC, or political possibly at the time to enforce en mass, especially because they were defeated. Losing pissed them off more and gave them a reason to exploint scapegoats for their problems.
All in all, I
don't think they would have gone into the mass-exterminations like the Nazis unless something serious happened. IF, however, they tried to revolt or rebell under German Imperial domination, they might very well have used that as an exuse. They would be seen as evil agitators causing problems for the Empire. That's speculative, however, because we don't know how Germany would have delt with isurgents, rebels, and trouble makers in the occupied areas, while it is known directly what the Nazis did.
Neither would have been good, but Nazis definitly worse.
There were growing problems in Germany, like there were in many other nations; Germany, however, was fairly stable according to the author, but if triggered, bad things would happen.
Already before 1914 the country's "militaristic" character and its assumed desire for expansion created concern in Europe. No wonder historians have tried to find continuities in German political culture and foreign policy, something linking the violent form of German unification in 1864-1871, the undemocratic character of the Bismarckian constitution (in force 1871-1918), the failure of democracy (1918-1933), and the orgy of crime and violence unleashed by the "Third Reich" between 1933 and 1945.
The authoritarianism of the imperial government (in power 1871-1918), the stress on order, the veneration of war and all things military, the reigning antiliberalism, and the presence of racism have served to compare Germany unfavorably with its western neighbors. Why did Germany not choose the path to parliamentary democracy, which France adopted in the 1870s and which Britain developed step by step in the nineteenth century? Did the anti-liberal character of Bismarck's constitutional settlement as well as his violent management of German unification predispose Germany toward repression, foreign aggression, and violence?
They weren't some passive lame-duck. They were hard, calculated, and militaristic, and they wanted you to do what they said, how they said it, and when they said it. If they had won, they probably would have gone and done whatever suited their social order or political desires.
Note: The lecture notes DO say it was not eveyone in germany, but primarily the elite and the government officials.
Visit Edu
To sum it up, people all over Europe identified more strongly with their nation and its prestige and started to watch the foreign policy of the diplomats more carefully than before. Impressed by Darwinist ideas they came to see the situation of their nations as a crude alternative of expansion or decline, hegemony or submission, and this ideology increasingly shaped foreign affairs.
Some radical nationalists got so infuriated about the loss of land in Africa that they formed a new organization to propagate colonial expansion. The Pan-German League, as the new organization was called, soon started to put forward integrative nationalism. Although its membership remained unimpressive (20-40,000 members, mostly industrialists, businessmen, lawyers, teachers, and some Protestant ministers), it became an influential pressure group for foreign political success and expansion. Several powerful industrialists funded the Pan-German League and helped it to conquer a strong position in the press. Teachers tried to instill a new generation of students with arrogant nationalism. From now on every foreign political failure and every half-hearted diplomatic initiative was sure to be extensively criticized by this small but vociferous group.
The radicals weren't directly a threat, but they stirred the pot and agitated for nationalism. In addition, they used a trickle-down method to spread their ideas through government education and foreign policy. The small groups had power.
This has more to do with an earlier topic. Darwinism (social brand) and it's impact on leading to ww1.
visit edu 2
Well then. That's settled. I forgot the French were holding a grudge. That seems very silly.