Nations are so much a part of our modern world that we tend to see
them as natural phenomena， the historically necessary expression of a
people s political identity. We readily assume that the lines on the map
must run the way they do because they describe deeply rooted ethnic，
cultural， and linguistic communities. Nowhere is this the case. There
is something artificial， contingent， even accidental about practically every
nation-state. From Iberia to the Russian steppes， from Scandinavia to
Sicily， cartographers lines have been drawn in response to particular
historical circumstances， dynastic alliances， political agreements， and
most frequently， the outcome of military conflicts. Why should Catalonia
be part of Spain， while Portugal is not? Why should Nice be a French
city， while Brussels is not? On what ethnic or linguistic community do
states like the Netherlands and Switzerland depend? Similar questions
can be asked about almost every state in modern Europe. Most historians
do not ask such questions because most national history is written by
and for those who finally succeeded in imposing their model of how
the nation should look. Consciously or unconsciously， this winners
history presents the nation as the inevitable product of a natural historical
process. Power over a nation s present and future has always involved
the power to shape the picture of its past.
These general considerations are important to bear in mind when
we consider the German Empire， proclaimed by the princes of its
member states in the Hall of Mirrors at Versailles in January 1871.
This Reich was， its historians have told us again and again， the ultimate
realization of the Germans longing for political unity. After decades of
delays and disappointments， the political genius of Bismarck used the
power of the Prussian state to achieve the will of the Volk. In reality，
however， the Reich proclaimed in 1871 was a very imperfect expression
|
内容加载中，请稍后...
商品评论（0条）