From the 1750s onwards there was continued discussion about the identity, history and future of the Empire and the German people. This was a result of various Imperial crisis's of 1740, wars such as the Seven Years' War, in addition to economic factors. Many intellectuals complained bitterly about the political situation and put forward ideas and visions of future society which clashed violently with the current one. However they also admitted the positive achievements of the Empire since the Middle Ages. It was not only intellectuals however who were considered this problem as awareness also spread to educated people. Thus for many people it was an important theme of everyday life. By the 1760s this discussion had enhanced the idea of a collective cultural identity. This identity was one which embodied what it was to be German. As well as this the discussion created a broader sense of patriotism, and a will to reform society for the better.
The will to reform can be seen in various writers, all with different political view points. Friederich Carl von Moser explained in his book, Vom deutschen Nationalgeist, 1765,
"Wir sind ein Volk von Einem Nahmen und Sprache unter Einem gemeinsamen Oberhaupt, unter Einerley Gesetzen, zu Einem gemeinschaftlichen grossen Interesse der Freyheit verbunden."
Here we see that he is pro-Imperial and for a reform of the Empire, though he is still for freedom of the people and not for repression. Justus Möser countered this pro-Imperial argument by saying reforming the Empire was not the key, but rather regenerating German political and cultural life from below was. In his opinion, freedom had been repressed and the Empire abused by despots. Herder too shows this tendency, although of a different political opinion to Möser, in his work Auch eine Philosophie die Geschichte. To Herder the thinking of his day is unnatural and mechanical when compared to the Romans or the Greeks, who were more natural,
"Ist's nun besser, ist's für die Menscheit gesunder und tüchtiger, lauter leblose Räder einer großer, hölzernen, gedanklosen Maschine hervorzubringen, oder Kräfte zu wecken und regen?"
This is a direct attack on the rationalism of his day, which he sees as stifling true thinking and cultural life. Herder continues this attack on the German Enlightenment by attacking the Absolutism of his day. He believes smaller groups enable more use of independent, individual reason, thus like Möser he is for a regeneration of German life from below and not above. Thus we see he is indicating that the German people must find themselves again, and change the absolutist system into one which again allows independence and true free thought. Herder does not however want to destroy the Empire. This is evident in Herder's plans for awaking the German people by planning a "patriotisches Institut für den Allgemeingeist Deutschland" in the centre of the Empire, independent from yet funded by the princes for the improvement of cultural life within Empire. What Herder hoped to achieve by this was evolution through education using the framework of the Empire to ground it in. We see that Herder wants to use the concept of German identity to embody positive change, and a reawakening of the German people to enable them to run their own lives in a democratic fashion. From all these writers we see that there is a mood for reform within the Empire, though at the base of it all still lies the structure of the Empire. They also had no wish for the creation of one national German state. For many of these reformers, like Herder, they hoped to create a more democratic system by using the Empire as a means to an end. This mood creates the backdrop to the jubilation which many thinkers like Herder greeted the French Revolution. With the events in France they felt that their leaders must take note and implement reforms for the people. They saw the French Revolution as the beginning of a new age, and a chance to realise their dreams: Every race in every country would take direct control of its destiny instead of having it controlled by an absolutist monarch. Here the people would have the power and the ability to choose their government. These ideas of freedom contrast greatly with the Führerprinzip developed later by Hitler.
The reality of the French Revolution soon disappointed many of its believers in Germany. The reality of the Terror, and the imperialistic ambitions of France were the complete contrast to what the progressive thinkers had hoped for. However it confirmed their view of a specific German mission, which would be achieved through evolution rather than revolution. The whole reason a revolution had not taken place in Germany was, they claimed, because the situation was better than in France.
Napoleon's invasion of Germany brought about the end of the Empire, and the division of Germany into three main power blocks: Prussia, Austria, and the Confederation of the Rhine under Napoleon's protection. Under French occupation a strong feeling of resentment began to grow against the French as people were no longer allowed to do things in a German way. This lead eventually to a massive swing of support for the idea of the Volk and Vaterland which fuelled the Befreiungskrieg. This increase in support for state patriotism was mainly orchestrated by politicians and statesmen, however writers like Fichte also contributed. There was not a nationalistic patriotism however but rather a state patriotism in existence in Germany. This state patriotism was very different to the nationalist patriotism which later accompanied the defeat of France in 1871 and the foundation of the new Reich. Here again we see that German nationalism has not fully emerged, and that it is state patriotism that is the driving force in the Wars of Liberation not a will to be unified under one ruler.
A scene from the Befreiungskrieg with the title "Whoever has a true Prussian heart follow me!" This shows the feeling of a state patriotism rather than a national patriotism.
Simultaneously as resistance grew against the French, the debate continued about what form the new German lands would take. To nearly everyone the idea of a reformed model of the Empire was the best solution, and not a national state under one government. Even Prussia and Austria, who both sought to dominate the Empire, agreed that the Empire was the best German solution. As Wilhelm von Humboldt put it,
"Auch lässt sich das Gefühl, dass Deutschland ein Ganzes ausmacht, aus keiner deutschen Brust vertilgen, und es beruht nicht bloss auf Gemeinsamkeit der Sitten, Sprache und Literatur [...] sondern auf der Erinnerung an gemeinsam genossene Rechte und Freiheiten, gemeinsam erkämpften Ruhn und bestandene Gefahren, auf dem Andenken einer engeren Verbindung, welche die Väter verknüpfte, und did nur noch in der Sehnsucht der Enkel lebt."
Whatever your political alignment at the base of your thinking was the want for all Germans to belong together as one people because of a shared language, history, and experience. Fichte shared this view that language was important, and that the Germans had a right to be united and do things in their own fashion. This is apparent in his Reden an die deutsche Nation. Although this book has a very nationalistic basis, Fichte can not be called an early Nazi. It is true that he is for the survival of the German race, but this is as he sees it as a liberating influence in the world against the dead culture of the Latin countries such as France. Fichte's comments on language show this attitude. To him the German language is an Ursprache. It is this because the Germans have remained,
"in dem unterbrochenen Fortflusse einer aus wirklichem Leben sich fortentwickelnden Ursprache geblieben."
and although German has developed and changed it still retains the original essence of the people who spoke it. In other words German, "bleibt auch die Sprach immer die selbe Sprache" The Latin languages, such as French, have only copied the Roman tongue and so have no real language or identity of their own. This means they are limited by their language, whereas everything in the German language has been experienced and given a name by the German people itself thus uniting the people through a common bone. Followingly Latin languages are dead languages which,
"Obwohl eine solche Sprache auf der Oberfläche durch den Wind des Lebens bewegt werden, und so den Schein eines Lebens von sich geben mag, so hat sie doch tiefer einen toten Bestandstil, und ist durch den Eintritt des neuen Anschauungskreies, und die Abbrechung des alten, abgeschnitten von der lebendigen Wurzel."
Meaning that although the language may appear to be alive it is really dead, and can not be used for a vehicle to deal with free thought as it does not have the capacity, whereas German does. This means that the people of the Latin-language speaking countries are incapable of true freedom, and will not have any creative ideas for they do not have the capacity. This is indeed very nationalistic and he is praising the Germans, however it is the emphasis which he puts on freedom of thought which opposes him to the Nazi idea of subjugation to the will of the Führer. Also it is this free thought in the German language which he considers to be one of the principle points of the German identity.
Above: Johann Gottlieb Fichte (1762-1814)
Fichte also presents in this work several images of freedom in this work, and to this end he calls on the common German history of the Empire. The first is the idea of the German people against oppression, such as Luther against the Catholic Church showing the German love of freedom. He praises the freedom of the Middle Ages where people were free to move within the Holy Roman Empire. In this way they were able to all educate themselves to a common level, which gives rise to the idea of a German people who share a common bond and are not separated by class like in other countries. In this example especially he agrees with Humboldt that the Germans have a common knowledge and history, as well as a language. Finally he reminds the Germans they have maintained their freedom by doing things the German way, and he casts the fight against the Romans as an emotional example reminiscent of the earlier remark by Humboldt,
"ein wahrhafter Deutscher nur könne leben wollen, um eben Deutscher zu sein, und zu bleiben, und die Seinigen zu eben solchen zu bilden."
From this we see that Fichte connects the very idea of being German with the idea of both physical and mental freedom. In connection to this is the Holy Roman Empire which allowed this German diversity, and freedom to develop. Also Fichte does not advocate a new nation state, as a true nationalist might have done, but rather a return to the Empire which allowed German freedom within it. We see also that there is no way Fichte can be called an early Nazi. His emphasis of both physical and mental freedom are directly opposed to Nazi ideology. It is true that he is for the German people, as the Nazis also claimed, but only so they can continue to exist in a free and diverse German way. It is this belief in freedom which separates him from the Nazis.
In conclusion then we see that the Befreiungskrieg is not the start of early nationalism, it is a fight for the return of the Holy Roman Empire and its ideals: A return to German unity and German liberty. What the years before and during the Befreiungskrieg did is create an awareness of a German identity and culture contained within the Empire, which was later to be used by nationalist for their own ends. At that time though we can see this identity had a far from negative quality to it. The influence put on freedom of thought and action distances it from later forms of nationalism with its racial overtones or obedience to the Führer. The first examples in Herder being his criticism of absolutism, and mechanical thinker, then later these are expanded upon by Fichte into an all encompassing idea of the people and freedom being inextricably linked together as it is in their blood.
| <<<Back | Forwards>>> |