German national monuments in the German Empire

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Niederwald monument near Rüdesheim

Many German national monuments of the 19th century were created after the German Empire was founded in 1871. However, some of them had already been planned beforehand. A uniform symbolism for the nation could not prevail. Often they are war memorials or representations of rulers , and they often depict the establishment of an empire as the conclusion of a long historical process.

definition

It is difficult to classify a monument as a German national monument. Even contemporaries spoke of a "monument rage" or "monument plague", which caused an inflation of the term "national monument". The historian Michael Klein speaks of a German national monument when a monument claims to be a national monument and it has been accepted as such by the public. Furthermore, the Reichstag should have come to a formal decision on the financing and the emperor should have a "substantive" right to decide . According to Michael Klein, the following eight monuments can bear this name:

He also counts some particular monuments that have a national claim for themselves. The initiators of these monuments wanted to avoid the accusation of particularism within their own and the entire German public, although they obviously wanted to honor their own territorial state. The Bismarck monuments are also a special feature. They formed the largest group of personal monuments in the German Empire. Thomas Nipperdey stated: "A national monument is what counts as a national monument". He divided the resulting large number of monuments into various ideal types:

  • National-monarchical or national-dynastic monument
  • National Cathedral (never built)
  • Historical-cultural national monument
  • National monument of the democratically constituted nation
  • National Concentration Monument

The historian Reinhard Alings describes that a national monument was initially only a national monument, which could only implement its claim through public debate. The fact that a national monument does not “is” but “becomes” is also made clear by the little researched use of German symbols. This diversity in the German area shows what “nation” could be, because neither before 1871 nor afterwards had a uniform symbol prevailed. The monuments of the 19th century were based on the basic idea of ​​symbolizing the monarchical-dynastic representation and the new national identification. Ultimately, the decisive factor is the claim to be a national monument and the reaction of the public as to whether it accepts a monument as a national monument. This means that the monument is less dependent on external features. The German national monuments allow many conclusions to be drawn about the particular and national national consciousness, since the monument serves as a symbol of the nation as well as a symbol of national identity. The function of these monuments was to give the public a patriotic mood. However, most of the national monuments were erected far away from major metropolitan areas. One explanation for this is that no real center was formed in the German area. Thus they were built in “typically German” locations, with which the national monuments experienced an increasing mythical and historical transfiguration.

requirements

Hermannsdenkmal near Detmold

The construction of monuments in the 19th century was strongly influenced by a number of political and social factors, e.g. B. through the Enlightenment , the dwindling absolutism , the French Revolution , the liberation wars against Napoleon as well as the resulting national consciousness in Germany. Until the end of the 18th century, the glorification of fame, power and rank were at the center of a monument, the Enlightenment changed this monument idea to a patriotization and moralization. From then on, people no longer wanted to honor their innate position, but rather the services rendered and the role model function associated with them. Nevertheless, the prince monument was able to establish itself as a monument of the state. In addition to the interests of the rulers, there was a civil and national interest in general identification. In monument construction, the aim of the monarchical-dynastic tradition was pursued, but also self-determined national identification. In the second half of the 19th century, for example, the monuments were no longer exclusively a matter of the state in the sense of the aristocratic authorities, but of broad strata of the people. Every city and every municipality wanted to own a monument that emphasized their affiliation to the new empire. In contrast, other art forms and building traditions also had an impact on monument construction. The various forms of expression served the purpose of producing an appearance that represented the entire nation. The German national monuments play a special role in comparison to many other countries in that the German Empire in the 19th century could not look back on a long national history. In order to create national monuments for the young nation, various information and ideas were brought together to confirm the image one had of the nation. The monument building tried to create a reference to the past in order to legitimize the current situation.

The German national monuments from 1871

With the establishment of the empire, the historical-cultural monument of the educational nation experienced a decline. There was no longer any room for monuments that called for the unity of nation, spirit and culture. On the other hand, the monument was used for political purposes, with the establishment of an empire being the dominant theme. One used different elements such as B. the eagle and the oak leaves to represent the elusive, complex realm. The founding of the empire was not bound by time, and it was viewed as a fulfillment of all-German history. The focus was placed on antiquity and the Middle Ages , e.g. B. at the Kyffhäuser monument and the Hermann monument . The recent past, such as the German Revolution of 1848/1849 , was completely disregarded. Rather, an attempt was made to stabilize and legitimize it by building on this distant past.

German national monuments in imperialism

Kyffhäuser Monument around 1900

The mood in the young German Reich changed very quickly. B. by the Great Depression of 1873 . To counteract this negative trend, the number of monuments increased rapidly; under Kaiser Wilhelm II there was a real monument boom.

With the death of Wilhelm I and the dismissal of Bismarck, a break in superficial continuity arose in the empire. In order to counter this rupture, the monument construction reflected on the two "founders" of the empire, Wilhelm I and Otto von Bismarck . The Bismarck monuments were much better accepted by the people than Wilhelm I. The reason for this was that Kaiser Wilhelm II, who was criticized for his politics, used his grandfather to consolidate his own rule. Nevertheless, there was a real Kaiser Wilhelm I boom, which produced gigantic monuments, such as B. the Kyffhäuser monument in Thuringia.

literature

  • Reinhard Alings: Monuments and Nation. The image of the nation-state in the monument medium - On the relationship between nation and state in the German Empire 1871–1918 . In: Bernd Sösemann (ed.): Contributions to the history of communication, Vol. 4. Berlin / New York 1996.
  • Michael B. Klein: Between Empire and Region. Identity cultures in the German Empire (1871–1918) . In: Jürgen Schneider, Markus A. Denzel, Rainer Gömmel, Margarete Wagner Braun (eds.): Contributions to Economic and Social History (BWSG), Bd. 105. Stuttgart 2005.
  • Thomas Nipperdey: National Idea and National Monument in Germany in the 19th Century . In: Historische Zeitschrift (HZ), Vol. 206, 1968.
  • Stephan Spohr: The German monument and the national idea in the 19th century . In: Ludwig Tavernier (ed.): Studies in european culture . Weimar 2011.

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ Michael B. Klein: Between Empire and Region. Identity cultures in the German Empire (1871–1918). In: Jürgen Schneider, Markus A. Denzel, Rainer Gömmel, Margarete Wagner Braun (eds.): Contributions to economic and social history (BWSG), vol. 105. Stuttgart 2005, p. 191.
  2. ↑ Michael B. Klein: Between Empire and Region. Identity cultures in the German Empire (1871–1918). In: Jürgen Schneider, Markus A. Denzel, Rainer Gömmel, Margarete Wagner Braun (eds.): Contributions to economic and social history (BWSG), vol. 105. Stuttgart 2005, pp. 191–192.
  3. ^ Thomas Nipperdey: National Idea and National Monument in Germany in the 19th Century. In: Historische Zeitschrift (HZ) 206. 1968, p. 532.
  4. ↑ a b c Stephan Spohr: The German monument and the national thought in the 19th century. In: Ludwig Tavernier (ed.): Studies in european culture. Weimar 2011, p. 17.
  5. ↑ Reinhard Alings: Monuments and Nation. The image of the nation-state in the monument medium - On the relationship between nation and state in the German Empire 1871–1918. In: Bernd Sösemann (ed.): Contributions to the history of communication, Vol. 4. Berlin / New York 1996, p. 37.
  6. ↑ Reinhard Alings: Monuments and Nation. The image of the nation-state in the monument medium - On the relationship between nation and state in the German Empire 1871–1918. In: Bernd Sösemann (ed.): Contributions to the history of communication, Vol. 4. Berlin / New York 1996, p. 34.
  7. ↑ a b Michael B. Klein: Between Empire and Region. Identity cultures in the German Empire (1871–1918). In: Jürgen Schneider, Markus A. Denzel, Rainer Gömmel, Margarete Wagner Braun (eds.): Contributions to Economic and Social History (BWSG), vol. 105. Stuttgart 2005, p. 47.
  8. ↑ Stephan Spohr: The German monument and the national thought in the 19th century. In: Ludwig Tavernier (ed.): Studies in european culture. Weimar 2011, pp. 24-25.
  9. ↑ Stephan Spohr: The German monument and the national thought in the 19th century. In: Ludwig Tavernier (ed.): Studies in european culture. Weimar 2011, p. 75.
  10. ↑ Michael B. Klein: Between Empire and Region. Identity cultures in the German Empire (1871–1918). In: Jürgen Schneider, Markus A. Denzel, Rainer Gömmel, Margarete Wagner Braun (eds.): Contributions to Economic and Social History (BWSG), vol. 105. Stuttgart 2005, p. 189.
  11. ↑ Stephan Spohr: The German monument and the national thought in the 19th century. In: Ludwig Tavernier (ed.): Studies in european culture. Weimar 2011, p. 95.
  12. ↑ Stephan Spohr: The German monument and the national thought in the 19th century. In: Ludwig Tavernier (ed.): Studies in european culture. Weimar 2011, p. 127.