<Some German liberals and intellectuals, reflecting after the failure of 1848–49, argued that unlike the French, Italians, or Hungarians, Germans were too cultured, too educated, too law-abiding, and too civilized to sustain a violent, popular revolution. Instead of embracing decisive insurrection, they relied on parliamentary debate, legalistic resolutions, and appeals to monarchs’ goodwill.
<This idea appeared in memoirs and commentary of the time. For example:
<Heinrich von Gagern, president of the Frankfurt Parliament, lamented that Germans preferred discussion over action and were unwilling to accept the “barbarism” of street violence.
<Some liberal writers suggested that Germany’s strong tradition of philosophy and obedience to authority made people hesitant to risk disorder, claiming that their very “civilization” had paralyzed revolutionary will.
<Historians often cite this as a self-serving rationalization. A way for failed revolutionaries to save face, suggesting they lost not from weakness or division, but because they were too refined to fight effectively.
Why are Germs like this?
>>2480117They literally cited France, Italy, and Hungary here.
The invocation of "material conditions" as a term in order to "understand" the failure of x or y movement is, merely, a non-response; not because it is "wrong" but because it is vague. Voluntarism-Determinism is, after all, a false dichotomy, and to say that something failed because of "material conditions" entails a post-hoc determinism that remains, methodological, unconvincing.