The Third Reich

[Night]

If it was the third, what was the second?

[Comrade Trapp]

I think the Kasier was the second (prob around the mid 1800's was the First Reich).

Comrade Trapp

[JerseyJohn]

Excellent Question.

The First Reich was the Old Prussian Dynasty most well known for it's King Frederick the Great.

The Second Reich was Germany unified under Prussian Leadership and kicking ass against Denmark (1860?), Austria (1866) and France (1870-71), all under Kaiser Wilhelm I and his Iron Chancellor, Otto von Bismark.

-- a neck and neck response. Essentially Comrade is right.

[ April 27, 2003, 05:13 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[somerandomguy]

The first was Charlemagne's Roman Catholic Empire, the second was Bismarck's rule.

[Carl G. E. von Mannerheim]

i know the 2nd was Bismarck's

but was the First Charlemagne or Friedrich Barbarossa's Empire?

[JerseyJohn]

somerandumguy

You may be right, it matters not to me if it were assigned to Aleric , but I've always seen it referred to as laid out above.

If it's Charlemagn that's fine with me. It just seems a bit distant and virtually irrelevant to the later German entities. I've always read of the Reich's as being successors to one another, same as the French Republics -- or was the first one led by Vercenjeterix? :confused:

[ April 27, 2003, 06:36 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[jon_j_rambo]

Here's a better question: Who will be the 4th? Will they be part of the 5th Babylon? Will they have new images of Baal? Are the 10 nations of Europe the Kings of the North? When will Israel build their 3rd temple?

Hollywood.

[JerseyJohn]

General Rambo,

Good to see you again.

I don't know the answers to the second part of your question -- though I'd like to find out.

But I think the post-World War II German Goverenment has been referred to as the Fourth Reich. I've seen it referred as such, especially in an economics book entitled, "The Fourth and Richest Reich" the author of which I forgot a couple of decades ago. He may have used the term tongue-in-cheek, I really don't know.

[JerseyJohn]

I've copied the following from a website

Part One of Other Reichs Article

Part Two of Other Reichs Article

Apparently we aren't the only ones confused by this issue.

The Other Reichs

Part 2: Three German Reichs?

When using the standard definition of the term, The Holy Roman, Kaiserreich and Nazi states were certainly reichs: however, the phrase 'three reichs' refers to something more than simply three empires. Specifically, it refers to the three empires of German history.

The history of modern German is often summarised as being 'three reichs and three democracies'. This is broadly correct, as modern Germany did indeed evolve out of a series of three empires - as described on the previous page - interspersed with forms of democracy; however, this does not automatically make the institutions German. While 'The First Reich' is a useful name for historians and students, applying it to the Holy Roman Empire is largely anachronistic. The imperial title and office of the Holy Roman Emperor drew, originally and in part, on the traditions of the Roman Empire, considering itself as an inheritor, not as the 'first'.

Indeed, it is highly debatable at what point, if ever, the Holy Roman Empire became a German body. Despite a near continuous core of land in northern central Europe, with a growing national identity, the reich extended into many of the modern surrounding territories, contained a mix of peoples, and was dominated for centuries by a dynasty of emperors commonly associated with Austria. To consider the Holy Roman Empire as solely German, rather than an institution within which there was a considerable German element, might be to lose some of this reich's character, nature and importance. Conversely, the Kaiserreich was a German state - with an evolving German identity - that partly defined itself in relation to the Holy Roman Empire. The Nazi Reich was also built around one particular concept of being 'German'; indeed, this latter reich certainly considered itself a descendant of the Holy Roman and German Empires, taking the title 'third', to follow them.

The summaries given on the previous page may be very brief, but they are enough to show how these three empires were very different types of state; the temptation for historians has been to try and find some sort of linked progression from one to another. Comparisons between the Holy Roman Empire and the Kaiserreich began before this latter state was even formed. Historians and politicians of the mid 19th century theorised an ideal state, the Machtstaat, a "centralized, authoritarian and militarized power state" (Wilson, The Holy Roman Empire, Macmillan, 1999); this was, in part, a reaction to what they considered weaknesses in the old, fragmented, Empire. The Prussian led unification was welcomed by some as the creation of this Machtstaat, a strong German Empire which focused around a new emperor, the Kaiser. However, some historians began to project this unification back into both the 18th century and the Holy Roman Empire, 'finding' a long history of Prussian intervention when 'Germans' were threatened. Different again were the actions of some scholars in the aftermath of the Second World War, when attempts to understand how the conflict occurred led to the three reichs being seen as an inevitable progression through increasingly authoritarian and militarised governments.

An understanding of the nature, and relationship, of these three reichs is necessary for more than historical study. Despite a claim in the Chambers Dictionary of World History that "The term [Reich] is no longer used" (Dictionary of World History, ed. Lenman and Anderson, Chambers, 1993), politicians and others are fond of describing modern Germany, and even the European union, as a fourth Reich. They almost always use the term negatively, looking to the Nazi's and the Kaiser rather then the Holy Roman Empire, which might be a far better analogy for the current EU. Indeed, there are other interpretations: Loren Petrich has argued on his web-site that Europe has seen nine reichs! Clearly, there is room for many differing opinions on the three 'German' reichs, and historical parallels are still being drawn with this term today.

[ April 27, 2003, 08:29 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[xwormwood]

Please stop talking about "Reichs ".

In german we know "Reich", of course (ich bin reich = i am rich / Reich mir mal die Butter=please give me the butter / mein Reich ist besser als deine zwei Reiche zusammen=my Kingdom[my country] is better than both of your kingdoms [countries] together). But what the heck are "Reichs"?

[JerseyJohn]

xwormwood

Okay -- so, uh, -- in German, Third Reich means, third slab of butter?

[ April 28, 2003, 07:38 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Shaka of Carthage]

There is "Spanglish" out here in LA, so I guess Reichs would be "Gerglish" ?

[6thAirborne]

Reich, means "Empire" in the context of this thread.

i.e. The Third Reich (The Third Empire)

[JerseyJohn]

Empire was always the meaning I supposed it to be as well. Which means, if the old adage is true that The Holy Roman Empire was neither Holy, Roman nor an Empire, it works against Charlemagne's place as the First Reich's leader.

While Prussia before 1860 was not an Empire but a Kingdom, it did exert considerable control over other German States making it more than a Kingdom but less than an Empire.

Under Wilhelm the First and his dynamic Chancellor Bismarck, Prussia unites Germany and aquires overseas colonies, forming the first true German Empire or Reich; but everyone agrees on referring to them as the Second Reich.

Charlemagne, if that's the present convention, is as valid as Frederick's Prussia, though much more distant and with little in common with the other two. Also, wasn't Charlemagne, also crown head of the Kindom of the Franks, just the slightest bit French? :confused:

[ April 29, 2003, 04:11 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Moon]

Actually wasn't it Hitler who started calling it Das Dritte Reich with the very calculated intention to link his legitimation of power (and vision for the future) back to the (late) roman empire? The term "stuck" so to speak. At least that was my understanding so far. Did I make a dumbass out of me now?

Martin

[JerseyJohn]

Martin,

No you didn't, I'm pretty sure you've got it right. He wanted to establish the legitimacy of the Germans as an ancient great race (Nazi's use of the word).

But by the same token he was very senistive about the ancient Mediteranean Empires. When the SS had a 2,000 year old archeological dig in the Ukraine and put artifacts on display Hitler went through with a grim expression and was later very angry because Count Ciano had spent so much time smiling around Himmler. He told one of his other sidekicks, I think it was either Goebles or Goering, "Of course Ciano was overjoyed. All Himmler has done is show we lived in mud huts while they were building marble temples!"

As Germany left the Ukraine they demolished the site and to the best of my knowledge it has remained that way.

[ April 29, 2003, 05:15 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Handsup]

Its tricky:

The first ("Reich") Empire was the first mordern german state: 1871-1918 (Kaiser Wilhelm I + II).

The new republic("Weimarer Republik") was named also "Deutsches Reich". 1918-1933 (Reichspräsident Ebert + Hindenburg).

Hitler counted his new "Reich" as the third in the line. 1933-1945 (Reichskanzler Hitler, Hindenburg died 1934, then Führer)

M. Thatcher was afraid of a new 4.Reich after the unification 1991... But nothing happend.

cu hands

[Liam]

The Prussians outmatched the Austrians with there improved bolt action rifles. Fired much faster! I believe that is why they beat them, at all. With France, it's merely the fact that the German's were determined. They lost many men in the Franco-Prussian War and were bombarding Paris I believe in the 1800s??? Interesting anyone who thinks that they were any less harsh than the French in WW1??? An eye for an eye

Prussians are most famous<Otto who got the States together finally since Charlemagne> but for their showing at Waterloo and Franco-Prussian

2nd Reich I assume... Bismark is afterall the name of the great Super Ship of WW2. Shame that all that German Pride and honour went down the toilet with Fascism

[JerseyJohn]

Months after this Thread was spent, I was doing a search for Nazis in Brazil as part of a project I was earlier asking assitance on -- a part of which is running a similar search on each Western Hemisphere nation. And I accidentally found the following site on how the Third Reich came to be named, filled with related information.

Hope it is of use to anyone still interested, as I am, in this topic.

< Article on this Topic >

[Night]

WoW strange to see this after all this time ;0)

Thanks JJ

[Iron Ranger]

The first was Charlemagne's Roman Catholic Empire, the second was Bismarck's rule.

Yes this is right, though the First was the Holy Roman Empire the in one way or another ran from Charlemagnes time till the late 1800s.

The second was the German Empire, united under the Prussian King (Willhelm I) by Bismarck.

The third was Hilers idea.....

[JerseyJohn]

Night

Glad to be of service, sometimes info pops up completely by accident; for me the Internet is more pot luck than a deliberate search.

Iron,

Yes. I've never thought much of the Holy Roman Empire, it always seemed like a ceremonial prop for the Papacy to extend control throughout Northern Europe. Consequently I thought the first two were Frederick the Great and Wilhelm the First. In the end Frederick's great accomplishment wasn't so much creating an empire as keeping Prussia in existence; which was due more to an insane German Czar than his own actions (though they were considerable) so I guess the Holy Roman's are more deserving.

Despite one of it's Emperors having to kneel in the snow and beg the Pope to lift his excomunication!

[ErrantRecce1]

JJ, I think that the first Reich was the Holy Roman Empire - as much a farce as it was, it gives all the other incarnations their claim to legitimacy. Fredick was great, and all, but he never aspired to do more than gather up the assorted territories into some semblance of order. The HRE, Wilhelm, and then * h'um* Hitler were all aspiring to more.

A 'reich' in my limited understanding of the concept of the word, was more than just another empire, but more of a 'dynasty' type thingy.

So the question is, do we welcome or fear the idealists? :cool:

BTW, loving that article and all the quotes, crazy people really are everywhere aren't they?

[ December 28, 2003, 07:38 PM: Message edited by: ErrantRecce1 ]

[JerseyJohn]

"So the question is, do we welcome or fear the idealists?

BTW, loving that article and all the quotes, crazy people really are everywhere aren't they?"

Errant

Ahhh -- you've done it again!

Two profound questions in a row and I can't think of a decent answer for either.

To the first I can only say my gut feeling is always to fear Idealists much more than welcoming them. They've got a bad habit of starting one way and ending another! It reminds me of that quote from Boris Pasternack's Doctor Zhivago, "He's the sort of fine young man people claim to admire but actually despise!"

Crazy people, these days, are in such overwhelming abundance they set the standards for sanity!

I've got to agree on the Holy Roman Empire being the First Reich. At the time this topic first came up I stopped thinking of it as anything more than a name, but perhaps there was more substance to it than I realized. Then again, perhaps not?

[ErrantRecce1]

I don't think it is the crazy people who abound, they certainly stand out, but i don't think abound. I think we are awash in drones, is who and what I really think abound. Crazy people just have the mic, like 'alternative' lifestyle types, they have never been more than 5% of the population, but they are the new 'cool'. And so all the drones trundle along with silly happy smiles on their faces never giving it two thoughts.

A good point for drones is the situation in yugoslavia, Milosevic supporters took a good hunk of the serb parlaiment. PARDON. but yes, the drones were told what 'cool' was and did what they were told.. the few crazy's just held the leashes the right way.

Look at the anti-semetic sentiment in Europe these days, or for the last 1000 years. a few crazy's leading a continent of drones, for the most part.

Or any major nation, you can even see the crazy's pulling the strings, look at Chretien's Liberals in Canada. He lied and admitted it.. and the drones took it.. and grumbled some... that was all. We send a out an embassador, after the man is implicated in millions in misplaced funds.. He has even been implicated as an embassador, and what do the drones do? NOt a damned thing.

If I could just get 'their' permission I would do something about it all.. :confused:

There's nothing like a good rant in the morning to start your day..