[bapimporb]

Does this equate to Germany at the time? In my ignorance of world history, I couldn't tell whether Mann was referring to Germany as "the country" or not.

My suspicion is that he was thinking along rather more general terms of the Germanic countries: it probably fits more easily as an analysis of the state of Austro-Hungary at the time. The decay of that was later to be one of the weaknesses in the alliance of Austro-Hungary and Germany in WWI. Indeed, perhaps he was making a call for Austro-Hungary to modernise, to industrialise more? Germany – ruled at the time effectively by Prussia – was far more advanced in terms of industrialisation: that was a vital part of the development of the dreadnought fleet that so upset Britain.

I haven't seen anything obvious about imperialism in the first two chapters, but it was obviously at the heart of the causes of WWI – all the Great Powers racing for colonies etc. Germany was way behind in that because, under Bismarck, Prussia had had no interest in outside colonies. Indeed, Bismarck even tried to give one of their very few colonies away, as a present to British prime minister Gladstone. Imperialist ambition was at the heart of major changes to German/Prussian foreign policy when Bismarck was effectively sacked from his position as Chancellor in 1890 by the new Kaiser, Wilhelm II. Unlike Wilhelm I, the new Kaiser was ambitious for colonies and wanted to join the imperial race.

Another thing that the issue raises – although I'm not sure that this was remotely in Mann's mind when writing – is the question of an absolutely (or pretty much) monarchy requiring a very talented individual to be on the throne. It happened in Prussia three times – under the Great Elector (Margrave Frederick William of Brandenburg), Frederick William (the 'Soldier King', who was an arse as a father, but was a brilliant administrator) and then his son, Frederick III – Frederick the Great. If you look at both of Prussia's most troubled periods, during the Thirty Years War and the Napoleonic era, ineffective and nervous rulers at the time opted for disastrous policies of neutrality, which saw the state seriously damaged (in the former, Brandenburg Prussia was appallingly badly affected, possibly worse than anywhere else; in the 19th century, when there was a rise in German 'Volk' culture, there was a desire to collect folk tales etc from all parts of the empire. But in Prussia, there was almost nothing from before the Thirty years War: so much had been eradicated and whole populations had fled or been destroyed.

But the point is that, if you have a monarch with a great deal of power, he has to be special if the country is not to decay – to be constricted in one way or another.

Interesting... do you know what Heinrich's problem with it was? Is there an online reference somewhere?

Heinrich didn't see monarchy as a desired or reformable system of government, while Thomas did. Until after WWI, Thomas was very much a conservative and supporter of Kaiser Wilhelm II, while his brother was already something of a political radical. His political development leftwards didn't start until later – arguably the early 1920s when he started vocally supporting (and garnering support for) parliamentary democracy in the form of the Weimar Republic. My knowledge is largely from a collection of the brothers' letters and Anthony Heilbut's biography of Thomas.