LUTHER’S NINETY-FIVE THESES, OCTOBER 31, 1517*
On October 31, 1517, the thirty-four-year-old Martin Luther posted hs famous Ninety-Five Theses on the doors of the Schlosskirche at Wittenberg. This event marked the first great step in the rupture of the Church and gave the signal for the beginning of the Reformation. Extracts from the document follow.
Disputation of Dr. Martin Luther Concerning Indulgences
In the desire and with the
purpose of elucidating the truth, a disputation will be held on the underwritten
propositions at Wittenberg, under the presidency of the Reverend Martin
Luther, monk of the Order of St. Augustine, Master of Arts and Sacred Theology,
and ordinary lecturer in the same at that place. He, therefore, asks
those who cannot be present and discuss the subject with us orally to do
so by letter in their absence. In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Amen.
5. The Pope has neither
the will nor the power to remit any penalities except those which he has
imposed by his own authority, or by that of the canons....
6. The Pope has no
power to remit any guilt, except by declaring and warranting it to have
been remitted by God; or at most by remitting cases reserved for himself;
in which cases, if his power were despised, guilt would certainly remain.
7. Certainly, God
remits no man’s guilt without at the same time subjecting him, humbled
in all things, to the authority of his representative, the priest....
27. They preach mad,
who say that the soul flies out of purgatory as soon as the money thrown
into the chest rattles.
28. It is certain
that, when the money rattles in the chest, avarice and gain may be increased,
but the suffrage of the Church depends on the will of God alone....
32. Those who believe
that, through letters of pardon, they are made sure of their own salvation,
will be eternally damned along with their teachers.
75. To think that
the Papal pardons have such power that they could absolve a man even if
– by an impossibility – he had violated the Mother of God, is madness.
76. We affirm on the
contrary that Papal pardons cannot take away even the least of venal sins,
as regards its guilt....
94. Christians should
be exhorted to strive to follow Christ through pains, deaths, and hells.
95. And thus trust
to enter heaven through many tribulations, rather than in the security
of peace.
*Source: Louis Snyder, Basic History
of Modern Germany, (NY: Robert E. Krieger Publishing Co, 1980), pp.
104-105.
FREDERICK THE GREAT ON THE DUTIES OF A PRINCE, 1781*
In 1781 Frederick the Great of Prussia (1712-1786) wrote “An Essay on Forms of Government and on the Duties of Sovereigns,” from which the extract below is taken.
The sovereign is attached
by indissoluble ties to the body of the state; hence it follows that he,
by repercussion, is sensible of all the ills which afflict his subjects;
and the people, in like manner, suffer from the misfortunes which affect
their sovereign. There is but one general good, which is that of
the state. If the monarch lose his provinces, he is no longer able
as formerly to assist his subjects. If misfortunes have obliged him
to contract debts, they must be liquidated by the poor citizens; and, in
return, if the people are not numerous, and if they are oppressed by poverty,
the sovereign is destitute of all resource. These are truths so incontestable
that there is no need to insist on them further.
I once more repeat,
the sovereign represents the state; he and his people form but one body,
which can only be happy as far as united by concord. The prince is
to the nation he governs what the head is to the man; it is his duty to
see, think, and act for the whole community, that he may procure it every
advantage of which it is capable. If it be intended that a monarchical
should excel a republican government, sentence is pronounced on the sovereign.
He must be active, possess integrity, and collect his whole powers, that
he may be able to run the career he has commenced. . . .
*Source: Louis Snyder, Basic History
of Modern Germany, (NY: Robert E. Krieger Publishing Co, 1980), pp.
106
Frederick the Great: Political Testament*
Politics is the science
of always using the most convenient means in accord with one's own interests.
In order to act in conformity with one's interests, one must know what
these interests are, and in order to gain this knowledge, one must study
their history and application....One must attempt, above all, to know the
special genius of the people which one wants to govern in order to know
if one must treat them leniently or severely, if they are inclined to revolt....to
intrigue....
[The Prussian nobility]
has sacrificed its life and goods for the service of the state; its loyalty
and merit have earned it the protection of all its rulers, and it is one
of the duties [of the ruler] to aid those noble families which have become
impoverished in order to keep them in possession of their lands; for they
are to be regarded as the pedestals and the pillars of the state. In such
a state no factions or rebellions need be feared... it is one goal of the
policy of this state to preserve the nobility.
A well conducted government
must have an underlying concept so well integrated that it could be likened
to a system of philosophy. All actions taken must be well reasoned, and
all financial, political and military matters must flow towards one goal,
which is the strengthening of the state and the furthering of its power.
However, such a system can flow but from a single brain, and this must
be that of the sovereign. Laziness, hedonism and imbecility, these are
the causes which restrain princes in working at the noble task of bringing
happiness to their subjects....A sovereign is not elevated to his high
position, supreme power has not been confined to him in order that he may
live in lazy luxury, enriching himself by the labor of the people, being
happy while everyone else suffers. The sovereign is the first servant of
the state. He is well paid in order that he may sustain the dignity of
his office, but one demands that he work efficiently for the good of the
state, and that he, at the very least, pay personal attention to the most
important problems...
You can see, without
doubt, how important it is that the King of Prussia govern personally.
Just as it would have been impossible for Newton to arrive at his system
of attractions if he had worked in harness with Leibnitz and Descartes,
so a system of politics cannot be arrived at and continued if it has not
sprung from a single brain ... All parts of the government are inexorably
linked with each other. Finance, politics and military affairs are inseparable;
it does not suffice that one will be well administered; they must all be...a
Prince who governs personally, who has formed his [own] political system,
will not be handicapped when occasions arise where he has to act
swiftly, for he can guide all matters towards the end which he has set
for himself...
Catholics, Lutherans,
Reformed, Jews and other Christian sects live in this state, and live together
in peace. If the sovereign, actuated by a mistaken zeal, declares himself
for one religion or another, parties spring up, heated disputes ensue,
little by little persecutions will commence and, in the end, the religion
persecuted will leave the fatherland, and millions of subjects will enrich
our neighbors by their skill and industry.
It is of no concern
in politics whether the ruler has a religion or whether he has none. All
religions, if one examines them, are founded on superstitious systems,
more or less absurd. It is impossible for a man of good sense, who
dissects their contents, not to see their error; but these prejudices,
these errors and mysteries, were made for men, and one must know enough
to respect the public and not to outrage its faith, whatever religion be
involved.
*Source: "Frederick II, Political Testament,"
in Europe in Review, eds. George L. Mosse et al. (Chicago: Rand
MacNally, 1957), pp. 110-112. Reprinted in Dennis Sherman, ed., Western
Civilization: Sources, Images, and Interpretations, Vol. II, (New York:
McGraw-Hill, 1995) pp. 41-42.
Frederick the Great: Instructions to his officers (1753)*
Of Prussian Troops, Their Excellencies, and Their Defects
The strictest care and the
most unremitting attention are required of commanding officers in the formation
of my troops. The most exact discipline is ever to be maintained, and the
greatest regard paid to their welfare; they ought also to be better fed
than almost any troops in Europe.
Our regiments are
composed of half our own people and half foreigners who enlist for money.
The latter only wait for a favorable opportunity to quit a service to which
they have no particular attachment. The prevention of desertion therefore
becomes an object of importance.
Many of our generals
regard one man as good in effect as another, and imagine that if the vacancy
be filled up, this man has no influence on the whole; but one does not
know how on this subject to make a proper application of other armies to
our own.
If a deserter be replaced
by a man as well trained and disciplined as himself, it is a matter of
no consequence; but if a soldier who for two years has been accustomed
to arms and military exercise should desert and be replaced by a bad subject
or perhaps none at all, the consequence must prove eventually very material....
By accidents of this
kind, the army becomes weakened at the very period when its completion
is most essentially necessary, and unless the greatest attention be paid
to this circumstance, you will lose the best of your forces, and never
be able to recover yourself.
Though my country
be well peopled, it is doubtful if many men are to be met with of the
height of my soldiers: and supposing even that there was no want of
them, could they be disciplined in an instant? It therefore becomes one
of the most essential duties of generals who command armies or detachments,
to prevent desertion....
An army is composed
for the most part of idle and inactive men, and unless the general has
a constant eye upon them and obliges them to do their duty, this artificial
machine, which with greatest care cannot be made perfect, will very soon
fall to pieces, and nothing but the bare idea of a disciplined army
will remain.
Constant employment
for the troops is therefore indispensably necessary. The experience of
officers who adopt such a plan will convince them of its good effects,
and they will also perceive that there are daily abuses to be corrected,
which pass unobserved by those who are too indolent to endeavor to discover
them....
But as it is not alone
sufficient that the troops be good and as the ignorance of a general may
be the means of losing every advantage, I shall proceed to speak of the
qualities which a general ought to possess and lay down such rules as I
have either learned from well-informed generals or purchased dearly by
my own experience....
Of Sutlers, Beer, and Brandy
It may be added that
the soldier receives gratis during a campaign two pounds of bread per day
and two pounds of flesh per week. It is an indulgence which the poor fellows
richly deserve, especially in Bohemia, where the country is but little
better than a desert.....
Of Our Own Country and That Which Is Either Neutral or Hostile; of
the Variety of Religions and of the Different Conduct Which Such Circumstances
Require
War may be carried
on in three different kinds of country: either in our own territories,
those belonging to neutral powers, or in the country of an enemy.
If glory were my only
object, I would never make war but in mine own country, by reason of its
manifold advantages, as every man there acts as a spy, nor can the enemy
stir a foot Without being betrayed.
If the enemy have
the disadvantage, every peasant turns soldier and lends a hand to annoy
him as was experienced by the Elector Frederick William after the battle
of Fehrbellin, where a greater number of Swedes was destroyed by the peasants
than fell in the engagement.....
When war is carried
on in a neutral country, the advantage seems to be equal, and the object
of attention then is to rival the enemy in the confidence and friendship
of the inhabitants. To attain this end, the most exact discipline must
be observed, marauding and every kind of plunder strictly forbidden, and
its commission punished with exemplary severity. It may not be amiss also
to accuse the enemy of harboring some pernicious designs against the country.
If we are in a Protestant
country, we wear the mark of protector of the Lutheran religion and endeavor
to make fanatics of the lower order of people, whose simplicity is not
proof against our artifice.
In a Catholic country,
we preach up toleration and moderation, constantly abusing the priests
as the cause of all the animosity that exists between the different sectaries,
although, in spite of their disputes, they all agree upon material points
of faith....
*Source: T. Foster, translator. Military Instructions
from the Late King of Prussia to His Generals and Particular Instruction
to the Officers of His Army. (London: 1797).
THE PRUSSIAN REFORM EDICT OF OCTOBER 9, 1807*
The legislative reforms carried out in Prussia in 1807-08 were to some extent similar to the Napoleonic reforms. The following edict of Frederick William III was concerned with the land problem.
WE, FREDERICK WILLIAM,
BY THE GRACE OF GOD KING OF PRUSSIA, ETC.
Hereby make known
and proclaim that:
Since the establishment of peace, we have been concerned above all with the care for the depressed condition of our loyal subjects and with the quickest possible revival and greatest possible improvement of the situation. We have considered that because of the widespread want, the means at our disposal would not be sufficient to assist each individual, and even if they were sufficient, we could not hope to accomplish our purpose. Moreover, in accordance with the imperative demands of justice and with the principles of a wise economic policy, we should like to remove every obstacle which in the past has prevented the individual from attaining that prosperity he was capable of reaching....It is our desire, therefore, to reduce restrictions [on ownership of land and status of the agricultural worker] so far as the common welfare demands. Therefore, we proclaim the following:
#1. FREEDOM OF EXCHANGE OF PROPERTY. Every inhabitant of our States shall have the right, without any limitation upon the part of the State, to own or mortgage landed property of any kind. It follows that the noble, therefore, may own not only noble, but also non-noble, citizen, or peasant lands of any kind, and the citizen and peasant may own not only citizen, peasant, or other non-noble, but also noble tracts of land without the necessity, in any case, of acquiring special permission for any acquisition whatsoever....*Source: Louis Snyder, Basic History of Modern Germany, (NY: Robert E. Krieger Publishing Co, 1980), pp. 109-111.
#2. FREE CHOICE OF OCCUPATION. Every noble is allowed, from this time on, without any derogation from his status, to engage in citizen occupation, while every citizen is permitted to pass from the citizen into the peasant class or vice versa. . . .
#12. From Martinmas, 1810, all serfdom shall end throughout our entire realm. From Martinmas, 1810, there shall be only free individuals, such as is already the case on the royal domains in all our provinces – free persons, but still subject, as a matter of course, to all the obligations which bind them, as free persons, because of the ownership of an estate or because of a special contract....
FREDERIC WILLIAM IV’S REFUSAL OF THE IMPERIAL CROWN, MAY 15, 1849*
On March 28, 1849, the Frankfort Assembly offered “the hereditary imperial dignity” to Frederick William IV of Prussia. Following are excerpts from an imperial proclamation refusing the offer.
TO MY PEOPLE!
Using the pretense
that they are working in the interests of Germany, the enemies of the Fatherland
have raised high the standard of revolt, first in neighboring Saxony, and
then in several districts of South Germany. . .
I was not able to
submit a favorable reply to the offer of a crown by the German National
Assembly, because that body does not have the right, without the consent
of the German Governments, to bestow the crown they have offered me, and,
in addition, because they tendered the crown upon the condition that I
would accept a constitution which could not be reconciled with the rights
and safety of the German States....
A party now dominating the Assembly is in
league with the terrorists. While they urge the unity of Germany
as a pretense, they are really fighting the battle of godlessness, perjury,
and theft, and arousing a war. .
While such crimes
have put an end to the hope that the Frankfort Assembly can achieve German
unity, I have, with a fidelity and persistence suitable to my royal position,
never given up hope. My Government has taken up with the more important
German States the work on the German constitution begun by the Frankfort
Assembly.
That is my method.
Only madness or deception can dare, in view of these facts, to maintain
that I have given up the cause of German unity, or that I am untrue to
my earliest convictions and promises. . . .
Charlottenburg, May 15, 1849 FREDERICK WILLIAM
*Source: Louis Snyder, Basic History
of Modern Germany, (NY: Robert E. Krieger Publishing Co, 1980), pp.
115-116.
THE EMS DISPATCH, JULY 13, 1870*
Below are the original text of the Ems Dispatch as sent by Heinrich Abeken, German Councillor of Legation at Paris, to Bismarck on July 13, 1870, and the revised version which the latter submitted to the press. In its abbreviated form the dispatch gave the impression of an ultimatum. Both the French and German people interpreted it as an insult. France declared war on Prussia on July 19th.
The Abeken Text
EMS, JULY 13, 1870.
TO THE FEDERAL CHANCELLOR, COUNT BISMARCK,
NO. 27, O. 61 EOD. 3:10 P.M. (STATION EMS: RUSH!) His Majesty the
King writes to me:
“M. Benedetti intercepted
me on the Promenade in order to demand of me most insistently that I should
authorize him to telegraph immediately to Paris that I shall obligate myself
for all future time never again to give my approval to the candidacy of
the Hohenzollerns should it be renewed. I refused to agree to this,
the last time somewhat severely, informing him that one dare not and cannot
assume such obligations a tout jamais. Naturally, I informed him
that I had received no news as yet, and since he had been informed earlier
than I by way of Paris and Madrid he could easily understand that my Government
was once again out of the matter.”
Since then His Majesty
has received a dispatch from the Prince [Charles Anthony]. As His
Majesty iniformed Count Benedetti that he was expecting news from the Prince,
His Majesty himself, in view of the above-mentioned demand and in consonance
with the advice of Count Eulenburg and myself, decided not to receive the
French envoy again but to inform him through an adjutant that His Majesty
had now received from the Prince confirmation of the news which Benedetti
had already received from Paris, and that he had nothing further to say
to the Ambassador. His Majesty leaves it to the judgment of Your
Excellency whether or not to communicate at once the new demand by Benedetti
and its rejection to our ambassadors and to the press.
[Signed] A[beken] 13.7.70
Bismarck’s Edited Version
After the reports
of the renunciation by the hereditary Prince of Hohenzollern had been officially
transmitted by the Royal Government of Spain to the Imperial Government
of France, the French Ambassador presented to His Majesty the King at Ems
the demand to authorize him to telegraph to Paris that His Majesty the
King would obligate himself for all future time never again to give his
approval to the candidacy of the Hohenzollerns should it be renewed.
His Majesty the King thereupon refused to receive the French
envoy again and informed him through an adjutant that His Majesty has nothing
further to say to the Ambassador.
*Source: Louis Snyder, Basic History
of Modern Germany, (NY: Robert E. Krieger Publishing Co, 1980), pp.
121-122.
THE ANTI-SOCIALIST LAW, OCTOBER 21, 1878*
Following his unsuccessful
attack on the Catholic Church in the Kulturkampf, Bismarck turned on the
Socialists – from “the black to the red international.” His opportunity
came in 1878, when two attempts were made on the life of the venerable
William I by men who were accused of being Socialists. Following
is the text of the Anti-Socialist Law of 1878.
1. Organizations which through Social Democratic, Socialist, or Communist activities aim to overthrow the established State or social order are hereby forbidden. The same ban holds for organizations in which Social Democratic, Socialist, or Communist influence appears to be dedicated to the overthrow of the established State or social order, by breach of the public peace and especially by endangering the harmony of the classes. Such organizations include fraternities of all kinds....*Source: Louis Snyder, Basic History of Modern Germany, (NY: Robert E. Krieger Publishing Co, 1980), pp. 131-132.
3. Independent trade unions (not registered) which, according to their statutes, aim for mutual benefits for their members are, for the time being, not to be banned, but are to be placed under special State control....Such assemblies include public festivals and parades....
11. All publications in which Social Democratic, Socialist, or Communist influence appears to be dedicated to the overthrow of the established State or social order by breach of the public peace, especially by endangering the harmony of the classes, are forbidden. This ban on periodicals extends to all past issues, as soon as, on the basis of this law, one single issue is forbidden....
16. The collection of contributions on demand by Social Democratic, Socialist, or Communist organizations for the purpose of overthrowing the established State or social order, as well as public demands for payment of such contributions, are contrary to police regulations. This ban will be made public. Complaints may be made only before the board of control.
17. Anyone who takes part as a member in a forbidden organization, or anyone who exercises any activity in the interests of such an organization, shall be punished with a fine up to 500 marks or with imprisonment of three months....
30. This law goes into effect on the day of its proclamation and remains in effect until March 31, 1881.
Worker Moritz
Bromme Describes his Family's Living Conditions (c. 1905)*
With the youngest children
she always had little sleep. The children always slept over day and at
night they cried for hours, so that the mother got unwilling, upset and
nervous, and she let herself get carried away and used foul language, cursed
and confounded the children. Unfortunately she could breast-feed the children
only for 6 to 8 weeks; then she had no more milk to give. How often did
she then lament that she was caused to have too many children. Every time
when she read in the newspaper, that in one or another family with only
a few children a baby had died, and then exclaimed : 'No, these people
are lucky, they are fortunate, again one of their children has died, it
would be the sixth, if they had all survived; they can join in many activities;
we are burdened, the children are in the center of everything, we can afford
absolutely nothing", it felt like a cut into my heart. "Not even an honest
shabby dress can we purchase, the children cost too much, only last week
I have paid two Marks to the cobbler, this week Heddel's shoes will be
soled, Ernst's soles are worn down, they have to be done, and Walter does
not even have shoes. Then all of them need indoor shoes, and we urgently
need a bed. I would rather stop eating, but to sleep with three persons
in one bed is no sleep at all." In-between imprecations, hard words directed
at the children, curses, and in the end tears."
*Source: www.psm-data.de/index18_19.html
*Source: www.psm-data.de/index18_19.html
Friedrich Harkort on the Social Question (c. 1870s?)*
The state has to interfere,
to prevent further ruin, so that the flow pauperism will not, ceaselessly
growing and ominously, inundate the blessed eyes of the fatherland. ...
We demand from the fatherland that it will not only interfere in form of
regulations, but also in form of assistance and of demands.
At first the government
has to establish a law, that no child may be employed in a factory before
it has absolved its mandatory schooling, and enforce it. The parents have
to be deprived of the right to sell their children to the industry as slaves.
... As it is the practice now, children are used to lower the wages of
adults; take the minors out of the circle of employment, and the older
ones will find better pay for their manual labour. Myself I belong to the
employers; I wholeheartedly despise any creation of values at the expense
of human dignity, based on degradation of the working classes. It is the
purpose of the machine to liberate man from animalistic service, not to
create even baser forms of labour ...
Then the state provides
for elementary education which is as it is supposed to be; it shall not
be thrifty with intellectual seed, shall not have serfs plow the field,
and a new generation will rise, nobler than the old one.
In the near future,
for the working hours, at least a maximum has to be established by law,
a blessing which is granted even to the American slaves. ... As well as
the law determines Sunday as the day of rest it can establish the knock-off
time. ... That such a legal norm is possible and necessary to preserve
a productive working class is shown by the German mining industry. Working
hours are fixed at 8 to 12 hours a day. ... The Knappschaftsverband provides
financial assistance in case of illness or invalidity. Because of this
simple organisation this craft of miners stands better and freer than the
mass of wage-labourers in other trades. This way, the miners are
not turned into proletarians.
We have already earlier
pointed out that it is not practicable to hold the factory owner responsible
for the livelihood of his employees. But the responsibility could be urged
on them to introduce the system of mutual assistance ... as well in the
case of illness as in the case of invalidity among them and to support
it with appropriate subsidies. If the state is protecting the Junkers by
import duties, something has to be done for the servants.
The poor man, buying
in the smallest quantities, has to pay the highest prices. In order to
challenge this, the employer could unite his workers in an organization
which acquires the most elementary commodities in large quantities and
distributes them among them. Only, in case of such a useful organization,
the worker should not live hand-to-mouth, but acquire a sense of prudence
and thriftiness, which is only gained by a better education ...
At current conditions
the worker provides certain services for a certain wage, under close supervision;
beyond that he is interested neither in the success of the factory nor
of his employer. The force of the worker appears yet too raw and uneducated,
so that a closer connection with capital would not be possible. If we,
instead, imagine a morally educated mass of individuals, a better relation
could be formed. Then the workers would be given, in addition to their
wages, a share in the profit; diligence and activity would perform miracles.
... The relation would not be as difficult as it may seem to some. The
employer figures as the monarch, the workers as advising estates, called
to assemble every year....
The capital or the employer would not sacrifice
anything, because the thus better placed assistant would work more and
better....In such a way it would be possible to break the monopoly of wealth
which can only bring ruinous fruits to the land. The time will come when
our suggestion will find acceptance in some crafts, for the steep antagonism
between abundance and deficiency is increasing from day to day. The population,
which will engage in such an experiment, must have gone through a more
humane education as the present-day proletarians of the great industrialists.
*Source: Schaepler, E., Quellen zur
Geschichte der sozialen Frage in Deutschland. Göttingen 1955,
(engl. Übersetzung: Alexander Ganse). Found at www.psm-data.de/index18_19.html
Excerpts of speeches by steel mill owner Carl Ferdinand Freiherr von Stumm-Halberg to his workers in the years 1889-1895*
"Myself, I could
not stand to be one moment more in your presence, if my personal relation
to each and every one of you would be replaced by negotiations with a workers'
association under alien leadership. ... Both my moral sense of duty and
my Christian conviction would prevent me from entering in such a relation
with such an alien power. ... Should it ever come otherwise and I prevented
from supervising the worker, also in his actions outside of the factory,
I would not continue another day at the helm of the enterprise, because
I would no longer be capable (p.14) to fulfil the moral obligations prescribed
to me by my conscience in front of God and my fellow human beings. An employer
who feels indifferent about his workers' actions outside of the factory,
in my view violates his foremost duties. ... I could ... specify a number
of ... actions of workers outside of the factory, in the case of which
I regard it the duty of the morally conscious employer to step in, and
not merely to take the comforting position that it does not concern him
what his worker does outside of his factory, he is merely interested in
the workers' labour in the factory. I do not list this to claim a
merit; I do it to fulfil my duty as a human being, a Christian and the
head of a large Neunkirchen worker family. ... I believe I can say with
good conscience that I do not take second place to any of my colleagues
when it comes to welfare institutions, in any case not in striving, to
the best of my knowledge and conscience, to care for your material and
spiritual well-being and to practice practical Christianity, for which
I hold myself responsible in front of God. In this way I hope to care,
far beyond my own days, that you will be immune to the temptations of the
Social Democrats and other false prophets, that is the best welfare institution
I can grant and pass on to you. Stand firm for all times in your unshakable
loyalty to our majestic monarch, stand firm in your Christian love of your
neighbour and in our true fear of God, no matter what your confession may
be, then, according to human experience, you will continue to fare well
....
That distress and
misery exists among workers, no one will contest less then myself, who
thrives on a daily basis to reduce it, if it appears among you. But this
is not an indication of the so-called fourth estate; because many farmers
and craftsmen, even many belonging to the so-called educated estate live
much worse as most factory workers, just because capital, because of its
expansion in Germany in the last decades, is capable to care for its workers
better than it has been possible in past years. ... It is incomprehensible
to me how the educated men define the fourth estate. There are many
steps between myself and the lowest day-labourer : the director, the manager,
the factory engineer, the master, the foreman - and I want to know where
the third estate ends and the fourth estate begins! No, my friends,
we all belong to one estate, that is the old, honourable estate of the
hammersmiths, and I have always and everywhere proudly professed to belong
to this estate ...
*Source: www.psm-data.de/index18_19.html
Bismarck and the "Polish Question."*
Speech to the Lower House of the Prussian Parliament, January 28, 1886.
The motion with which
we deal today relates to a passage from the [kaiser's speech] expressing
the government's conviction that the principles by which Polish-speaking
areas of the state have been governed since 1840 stand in absolute necessity
of change. We have received this inheritance from history. You will forgive
me, when addressing a question with roots in the past, if I examine that
past. We have received the inheritance of being accustomed to living,
as well as we can, with two million Polish-speaking subjects within
the boundaries of the Prussian state. We have not created this situation....
The proclamations
by which King Friedrich Wilhelm III took possession of the south Prussian
territories that fell to him [after 1815] contained the announcement of
his intentions and of the principles according to which he thought to rule.
[But] one obligation the king did not undertake was never to alter these
principles, no matter how his Polish subjects behaved themselves. (Interjection
from the Polish deputies: "Aha!") These promises, given honorably by the
king, and perhaps not understood in exactly the same way by his servants,
have since that time become completely untenable, null and void, because
of the behavior of the inhabitants of this province. (Lively opposition
from the Poles. "Quite right!," from the right side of the House.) For
my part, I don't give a hoot for any sort of appeal to the proclamations
of those times. (Great unrest among the Poles and in the Catholic Center
Party.)
[Bismarck notes the
changes in official attitude after the Polish uprising of 1830-31, which
took place mostly in Russian Poland but also affected Posen. He does not
mention the specific changes, however. Polish was discarded as an official
language, and Polish district administrators were replaced by Germans.
The new chief administrator of the Province of Posen, von Flottwell, made
several other policy recommendations to Friedrich Wilhelm III.]
...King Friedrich
Wilhelm III was open to [von Flottwell's] ideas. The king and his finance
minister budgeted rather small funds with which estates could be bought
from Polish hands in order to increase the German population of the province.
Even though these operations were not in every case carried out with skill
or subsequently maintained with the original determination, they nonetheless
created a sizable increase in the German population, as long as the system
prevailed in the administration.
However, the system
was abandoned in 1840 when the king, [Friedrich Wilhelm IV, 1840-58] of
blessed memory, came to power. He was of the opinion that the well-meaning
attitude which he had toward his Polish-speaking subjects, the confidence
which he had in them, would be fully reciprocated by the other side...
The king, of blessed
memory, was disturbed in his trusting perceptions in certain unpleasant
ways by the insurrections which took place in the most varied phases in
the years 1846 to 1848. In 1848, he had to experience the alliance concluded
between Prussian and foreign democrats and the Poles on the Berlin barricades.
One of the immediate consequences of this was that thousands of Prussian
subjects, German-speaking and Polish-speaking, were shot or wounded in
battles with each other in the Grand Duchy of Posen. The outcome of those
events was a legal condition. The Poles strove for the same legal and constitutional
freedom of movement guaranteed to German subjects. The freedom of movement
the Poles gained in the right of association, the press, and constitutional
matters, however, in no way contributed to increasing good will toward
Germany or cooperation with it. On the contrary, we see only a sharpening
of national antagonisms, that is, a one-sided sharpening from the Polish
side. The peculiarity of the German character contributed to this development
in many ways. The Germans' good nature and admiration for all things foreign,
a kind of envy with which our countrymen regard those who have lived abroad
and who have adopted certain foreign allures, and then also the German
tradition of battling their own government for which they were always certain
to find willing allies among the Poles ("hear, hear" on the right). Finally,
[there was] the peculiar capacity of Germans, not found among other nations,
to not only get out of their own skin but to get into that of a foreigner
(laughter) and completely to become, in a word, something like a Pole,
Frenchman, or American....
[Bismarck details
the high-point of pro-Polish sympathies in Germany during the Prussian
constitutional crisis of the early 1860s.]....
The person who drew
me into the Kulturkampf was Herr Kraetzig, the chairman of the Catholic
department, which was formed in the Prussian bureaucracy to protect the
rights of the king and the church. However, it developed under the king's
authority and seal an exclusive activity in the direction of protecting
the rights of the Roman church as well as Polish machinations against the
king. And for that reason it had to be dissolved. ("Aha!" from the Center
Party and the Poles.)
A second explanation
for the progress of the Poles lies in the introduction of the national
constitution and the laws regarding the press and the right of association
which facilitated the agitation. The Polish gentlemen have not been shy
about exploiting all the laws introduced in the German Empire and Prussia.
On their side they do not recognize [these laws]. They recognize their
membership in Prussia only conditionally, and to be sure [feel free to
terminate membership] on twenty-four hour notice. Today, if they had the
opportunity to proceed against us and were strong enough to do so, they
would not even give us twenty-four hour notice but simply let loose, without
any notice. (Great unrest among the Poles.) Yes, gentlemen, if any
of you can give his word of honor that this is not true (great merriment),
that all the gentlemen will stay at home if the opportunity presents itself
to march out with your guerilla bands, then I shall take back my assertion...But
I demand your word of honor. (Hilarity.) And giving it to me would be an
error, gentlemen. We are not really so stupid; at least I am not. (Hilarity.)
*Source: Eugen Kalkschmidt (ed.), Bismarcks
Reden (Berlin, n.d.), pp. 173-86. Translated by Richard S. Levy.]
Found at www.psm-data.de/index18_19.html
Excerpt from a letter directed at Roon, Minister of War (1868)
"On one hand the advantages for trade and industry of the motherland, which are expected from the possession of colonies, for the most part are based on illusions. Because the costs caused by the establishment, support and maintenance of colonies, often exceed the benefit enjoyed by the motherland, as the experiences of England and France prove. Furthermore it is difficult to justify to make the entire nation pay, via taxation, for the benefit of certain branches of trade and industry. Based on its experience, England has given up the policy of colonial acquisitions, and France equally seems little interested in establishing new colonies ... On the other hand our navy is not yet sufficiently developed to take responsibility for the protection in distant states. Finally, the attempt to found colonies in regions claimed by other states, no matter if with or without legitimation, would cause manifold, undesired conflicts."
*Source: Hans Spellmeyer, Deutsche
Kolonialpolitik im Reichstag (German Colonial Policy in the Reichstag
(1)). Stuttgart 1931, p. 3; Translator: A. Ganse. Found
at www.psm-data.de/index18_19.html
THE “URIAH LETTER,” JUNE 9, 1892*
The bitterness between William II and Bismarck continued after the Chancellor’s fall. In June, 1892, when Bismarck desired to go to Vienna to attend the wedding of his son Herbert to an Austrian princess, an official dispatch was addressed to the German Ambassador in Vienna. This so-called “Uriah Letter” stigmatized Bismarck as persona non grata.
REICHSCHANCELLOR CAPRIVI
TO THE AMBASSADOR IN VIENNA, PRINCE REUSS
June 9 (To Prince Reuss,
Vienna. IMMEDIATE.)
After an audience with His Majesty, I inform Your Excellency of the following concerning the forthcoming marriage of Count Herbert Bismarck. The rumors of a reconciliation of Prince Bismarck and His Majesty do not take into account the indispensable presumption of a first step upon the part of the Prince. But even if this did take place, the reconciliation could never go so far that public opinion would take it that the Prince had won any kind of influence in the leadership of national affairs. His Majesty requests Your Excellency that, should the Prince or his family make any approach to Your Excellency’s house, you limit yourself to the conventional forms, and avoid accepting any invitation to the wedding. His Majesty will not accept any notice of the wedding. You are instructed to inform Count Kalnoky of this fact in whatever manner may seem best to you. These indications as to behavior apply to the staff of the embassy as to yourself.
*Source: Louis Snyder, Basic History
of Modern Germany, (NY: Robert E. Krieger Publishing Co, 1980), pp.
137.
THE DAILY TELEGRAPH INTERVIEW, OCTOBER 28, 1908*
On October 28, 1908, The Daily Telegraph of London published an account of an interview between Kaiser William II and an unnamed British subject – one of the most significant interviews of the century. While appearing to present himself as a lover of peace, the Kaiser, through his own words, showed himself to be an advocate of the iron-fist policy in international relations. His faux pas was an incredible mistake that raised a storm of protest in both England and Germany and nearly led to the Kaiser’s abdication. Historically, the Daily Telegraph interview marked a culminating point in Anglo-German political, economic, and naval rivalry that was to contribute to the outbreak of the catastrophe of 1914.
As I have said, His
Majesty honored me with a long conversation, and spoke with impulsive and
unusual frankness.
“You English,” he
said, “are mad, mad, mad as March hares. What has come over you that
you are so completely given over to suspicions quite unworthy of a great
nation? What more can I do than I have done? I declared with
all the emphasis at my command, in my speech at Guildhall, that my heart
is set upon peace, and that it is one of my dearest wishes to live on the
best of terms with England. Have I ever been false to my word?
Falsehood and prevarication are alien to my nature. My actions ought
to speak for themselves, but you listen not to them but to those who misinterpret
and distort them. That is a personal insult which I feel and resent.
To be forever misjudged, to have my repeated offers of friendship weighed
and scrutinized with jealous, mistrustful eyes, taxes my patience severely.
I have said time after time that I am a friend of England, and your press
– or, at least, a considerable section of it – bids the people of England
refuse my proffered hand and insinuates that the other holds a dagger.
How can I convince a nation against its will?”
“I repeat,” continued
His Majesty, “that I am a friend of England, but you make things difficult
for me. My task is not of the easiest. The prevailing sentiment
among large sections of the middle and lower classes of my own people is
not friendly to England. I am, therefore, so to speak, in a minority
in my own land, but it is a minority of the best elements as it is in England
with respect to Germany. That is another reason why I resent your
refusal to accept my pledged word that I am the friend of England.
I strive without ceasing to improve relations, and you retort that I am
your archenemy. You make it hard for me. Why is it?”
Thereupon I ventured
to remind His Majesty that not England alone, but the whole of Europe had
viewed with disapproval the recent action of Germany in allowing the German
consul to return from Tangier to Fez, and in anticipating the joint action
of France and Spain by suggesting to the Powers that the time had come
to Europe to recognize Mulai Hafiz as the new Sultan of Morocco.
His Majesty made a
gesture of impatience.
“Yes,” he said, “that
is an excellent example of the way in which German action is misrepresented.
First, then, as regards to the journal of Dr. Vassel. The German
government, in sending Dr. Vassel back to his post at Fez, was only guided
by the wish that he should look after the private interests of German subjects
in that city, who cried for help and protection after the long absence
of a consular representative.” . . .
I suggested to His
Majesty that an important and influential section of the German press had
placed a very different interpretation upon the action of the German government,
and, in fact, had given it their effusive approbation because they saw
in it a strong act instead of mere words, and a decisive indication that
Germany was once more about to intervene in the shaping of events of Morocco.
“There are mischief-makers,”
replied the Emperor, “in both countries. I will not attempt to weigh
their relative capacity for misrepresentation. But the facts are
as I have stated. There has been nothing in Germany’s recent action
with regard to Morocco which runs contrary to the explicit declaration
of my love for peace which I made both at Guildhall and in my latest speech
at Strasbourg.”
His Majesty then reverted
to the subject uppermost in his mind – his proved friendship for England.
“I have referred,” he said, “to the speeches in which I have done all that
a sovereign can do to proclaim my good will. But, as actions speak
louder than words, let me also refer to my acts. It is commonly believed
in England that throughout the South African War Germany was hostile to
her. German opinion undoubtedly was hostile – bitterly hostile.
But what of official Germany? Let my critics ask themselves what
brought to a sudden stop, and, indeed, to absolute collapse, the European
tour of the Boer delegates, who were striving to obtain European intervention?
They were feted in Holland, France gave them a rapturous welcome.
They wished to come to Berlin, where the German people would have crowned
them with flowers. But when they asked me to receive them – I refused.
The agitation immediately died away, and the delegation returned empty-handed.
Was that, I ask, the action of a secret enemy? . . .”
Such was the purport
of the Emperor’s conversation. He spoke with all the earnestness
which marks his manner when speaking on deeply pondered subjects.
I would ask my fellow countrymen who value the cause of peace to weigh
what I have written, and to revise, if necessary, their estimate of the
Kaiser and his friendship for England by His Majesty’s own words.
If they had enjoyed the privilege, which was mind, of hearing them spoken,
they would doubt no longer either His Majesty’s firm desire to live on
the best of terms with England or his growing impatience at the persistent
mistrust with which his offer of friendship is too often received.
*Source: Louis Snyder, Basic History of Modern
Germany, (NY: Robert E. Krieger Publishing Co, 1980), pp. 138-142.
Hugo Haase on SPD reaction to outbreak of WW I*
"On behalf of my parliamentary
group I have to announce the following : We face a fateful hour. The consequences
of an imperialistic policy, which have been caused by an era of an arms
race and during which the antagonisms between the nations have been increased,
now came down like a flood upon Europe. It is the supporters of such a
policy which sign responsible for it; we refute it. The social democrats,
with all their strength, have fought this fateful development, and until
hours ago have held powerful demonstrations in all lands, in particular
in close understanding with our French brethren, where we promoted the
preservation of peace. Their attempts were fruitless. Now we face the harsh
reality of war. We are threatened by the horrors of hostile invasions ...
For our people and its future in liberty. in case of a victory of Russian
despotism, which has smeared itself with the blood of its own people, much,
if not all, is at risk. This danger has to be averted, the culture and
independence of our nation to be secured. Here we deliver what we always
have emphasized : we will not abandon our own fatherland in the hour of
danger ..."
*Source: www.psm-data.de/index18_19.html
Abdication Proclamation of Wilhelm II*
I herewith renounce for all time claims to the throne of Prussia and to the German Imperial throne connected therewith. At the same time I release all officials of the German Empire and of Prussia, as well as all officers, noncommissioned officers and men of the navy and of the Prussian army, as well as the troops of the federated states of Germany, from the oath of fidelity which they tendered to me as their Emperor, King and Commander-in-Chief. I expect of them that until the re-establishment of order in the German Empire they shall render assistance to those in actual power in Germany, in protecting the German people from the threatening dangers of anarchy, famine, and foreign rule. Proclaimed under our own hand and with the imperial seal attached.
Amerongen, 28 November, 1918
(Signed )
WILLIAM
*Source: www.psm-data.de/index18_19.html
THE WEIMAR CONSTITUTION OF THE GERMAN REICH, AUGUST 11, 1919*
The first draft of the Weimar Constitution was prepared by a Dr. Hugo Preuss, a political-science teacher, and this was, in the main, adopted. Passed on July 31, 1919, at its third reading, it was signed by Ebert and the Reich Cabinet on August 11 and published three days later. The National Assembly then elected Ebert president of the Reich – without the formality of a popular vote.
PART I: STRUCTURE AND FUNCTION OF THE REICH
Chapter 2: The Reichstag
ARTICLE 22.
The delegates are elected by universal, equal, direct, and secret ballot
by men and women over twenty years of age, according to the principles
of proportional representation. The voting day must fall on a Sunday
or a public holiday.
ARTICLE 25.
The President of the Reich may dissolve the Reichstag, but only one time
for the same reason. The new election must take place at the latest
on the sixtieth day after its dissolution. . . .
Chapter 3: The Reich President and the Reich Cabinet
ARTICLE 48.
If a Land fails to fulfil the duties incumbent upon it according to the
Constitution or the laws of the Reich, the Reich President can force it
to do so with the help of the armed forces.
PART II: FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF THE GERMANS
Chapter 1: The Individual Person
ARTICLE 109.
All Germans are equal before the law. In principle men and women
possess the same civil rights and duties. Public legal privileges
or disadvantages due to birth or rank are to be abolished. Titles
of nobility shall be regarded only as part of the name, and shall no longer
be bestowed. Titles shall be bestowed only to indicate an office
or profession; academic degrees are not thereby affected. Orders
and decorations shall not be conferred by the State. No German shall
accept titles or orders from a foreign government.
ARTICLE 110.
Citizenship in the Reich and in the Lands shall be acquired and lost according
to the provisions of a Reich law. Every citizen of a Land is at the
same time a citizen of the Reich. Every German has in every Land
of the Reich the same rights and duties as the citizens of that Land.
ARTICLE 111.
All Germans enjoy freedom of travel and residence throughout the whole
Reich. Everyone has the right to live and settle in any place in
the Reich, to acquire real estate, and to pursue any means of livelihood.
Any restrictions shall require a Reich law.
ARTICLE 114.
The freedom of the person is inviolable. Any curtailment or deprivation
of personal freedom by a public authority shall take place only on a legal
basis. Those persons who have been deprived of their freedom shall
be informed, at the latest on the following day, concerning by whose authority
and for what reasons they have been deprived of their freedom; they shall
have the opportunity without delay of submitting objections to their loss
of freedom.
ARTICLE 115.
The dwelling of every German is his sanctuary and is inviolable.
Any exceptions may be made only by law.
ARTICLE 116.
An act can be punished only if the penalty has been stated by law previous
to the commission of the act.
ARTICLE 117.
The secrecy of letters and all postal, telegraphic, and telephone communications
is inviolable. Exceptions can be made only by Reich legislation.
ARTICLE 118.
Every German has the right, within the limits of the general law, to express
his opinions freely in speech, in writing, in print, in picture form, or
in any other way. From this right there shall be no condition or
work or employment to detract him, and no person shall be placed in a position
of disadvantage if he has made use of this right. Censorship is forbidden,
but deviations may be made from this rule by law in the special case of
moving pictures. Legal provisions may be made for counteracting pornography
and obscene publications and for protecting youth at public plays and entertainments.
. . .
Chapter 2: The General Welfare
ARTICLE 123.
All Germans have the right to assemble peacefully and unarmed without giving
previous notice and without any special permission. Previous notification
for open-air assemblies may be required by a Reich law; such a law may
prohibit these meetings when there is a present danger to the public welfare.
ARTICLE 124.
All Germans possess the right to form associations or societies for any
purpose not contrary to criminal law. This right shall not be curtailed
by preventive measures. The same provisions apply to religious associations
or societies. Every association has the right to become incorporated
according to the provisions of the civil law. This right shall not
be denied to any association on the ground that its aims are political,
socio-political, or religious.
ARTICLE 125.
The liberty and secrecy of the vote are guaranteed. . . .
ARTICLE 135.
All inhabitants of the Reich enjoy full freedom of religion and conscience.
. . .
*Source: Louis Snyder, Basic History
of Modern Germany, (NY: Robert E. Krieger Publishing Co, 1980), pp.
160-166.
THE NUREMBERG LAWS ON CITIZENSHIP AND RACE, SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER, 1935*
The most spectacular and immediate consequence of the Nazi triumph was the reign of anti-Semitism. From September to November, 1935, Hitler introduced the so-called Nuremberg, or Ghetto Laws, which placed anti-Semitism in the category of legal legislation. This was the first time in history that prejudice and intolerance were deliberately incorporated into the laws of a nation.
I. The Reich Citizenship Law of September 15, 1935
The Reichstag has adopted by unanimous vote
the following law which is herewith promulgated.
ARTICLE 1. (1)
A subject of the State is one who belongs to the protective union of the
German Reich, and who, therefore, has specific obligations to the Reich.
(2) The status of
subject is to be acquired in accordance with the provisions of the Reich
and the State Law of Citizenship.
ARTICLE 2. (1)
A citizen of the Reich may be only that subject who is of German or kindred
blood, and who, through his behavior, shows that he is both desirous and
personally fit to serve loyally the German people and the Reich. . . .
ARTICLE 3. The
Reich Minister of the Interior, in conjunction with the Deputy to the Fuehrer
will issue the required legal and administrative decrees for the implementation
and amplification of this law.
Promulgated: September
16, 1935.
In force: September
30, 1935.
1. a. First Supplementary Decree of November 14, 1935
II. The Law for the Protection of German Blood and Honor, September 15, 1935On the basis of Article 3 of the Reich Law of Citizenship of September 15, 1935, the following is hereby decreed:
ARTICLE 1. (1) Until further provisions concerning citizenship papers, all subjects of German or kindred blood who possess the right to vote in the Reichstag elections when the Law of Citizenship came into effect, shall, for the present, possess the rights of Reich citizens. The same shall be true of those upon whom the Reich Minister of the Interior, in conjunction with the Deputy to the Fuehrer, shall confer citizenship. . . .
ARTICLE 2. (1) The provisions of Article 1 shall apply also to subjects who are of mixed Jewish blood.
(2) An individual of mixed Jewish blood is one who is descended from one or two grandparents who, racially, were full Jews, in so far that he is not a Jew. . . . Full-blooded Jewish grandparents are those who belonged to the Jewish religious community.
ARTICLE 3. Only citizens of the Reich, as bearers of full political rights, can exercise the right of voting in political matters, and have the right to hold public office. The Reich Minister of the Interior, or any agency he empowers, can make exceptions during the transition period on the matter of holding public office. These measures do not apply to matters concerning religious organizations....
ARTICLE 7. The Fuehrer and Chancellor of the Reich is empowered to release anyone from the provisions of these administrative decrees.
*Source: Reichsgesetzblatt, 1935, No. 100, September 15,
1935, I 1142-47.
Hitler's Political Testament, April 29, 1945*
Although before his death Hitler denounced the German people as not worthy of his leadership, he left a political testament, urging them to carry on his ideals.
More than thirty years have
passed since I made my modest contribution as a volunteer in the First
World War, which was forced on the Reich.
In these three decades,
love and loyalty to my people alone have guided me in all my thoughts,
actions, and life. They gave me power to make the most difficult
decisions which have ever confronted mortal man. I have spent all
my time, my powers, and my health in these three decades.
It is untrue that I or anybody
else in Germany wanted war in 1939. It was wanted and provoked exclusively
by those international statesmen who either were of Jewish origin
or worked for Jewish interests...
After six years of war,
which in spite of all setbacks, will one day go down in history as the
most glorious and heroic manifestation of the struggle for existence of
a nation, I cannot forsake the city that is the capital of this state....
I have therefore decided
to remain in Berlin and there to choose death voluntarily at that moment
when I believe that the position of the Fuehrer and the Chancellery
itself can no longer be maintained. I die with a joyful heart in
my knowledge of the immeasurable deeds and achievements of our soldiers
at the front, of our women at home, the achievements of our peasants and
workers and of a contribution unique in history, of our youth that bears
my name....
Before my death, I expel
the former Reich Marshall Hermann Göring from the party and withdraw
from him all the rights that were conferred on him by the decree of 29
June, 1941, and by my Reichstag speech of the first of September, 1939....
Apart from their disloyalty
to me, Göring and Himmler have brought irreparable shame on the country
and the whole nation by secretly negotiating with the enemy without my
knowledge and against my will, and also by illegally attempting to seize
control of the state.
In order to give the German
people a government composed of honorable men who will fulfill the task
of continuing the war with all means, as the leader of the nation I appoint
the following members of the new Cabinet:
President, Doenitz; Chancellor,
Dr. Goebbels; Party Minister, Bormann; Foreign Minister, Seyss-Inquart
(et al)...
*Source: Louis Snyder, Basic History of Modern Germany, (NY: Robert E. Krieger Publishing Co, 1980), pp. 180-181.