Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-dvmhs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-14T02:17:17.791Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Overcoming Kleindeutschland: The Politics of Historical Mythmaking in the Weimar Republic

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 December 2008

Stanley Suval
Stanley Suval
Affiliation:
North Carolina State University at Raleigh
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

When in 1919 Friedrich Meinecke gave the highest priority to a “union with our Austrian brothers,” he was not alone in the historical profession. Implicit in this demand was a new political role for the Austrians that had been scarcely thought possible before 1918. This political conception quite naturally influenced historical writing. “The Anschluss,” wrote Hans Herzfeld, “was one of the strongest forces in Weimar historical thought.” This was true although the acceptance of Anschluss seemed to violate the heretofore preponderant kleindeutsch tradition in German historiography. This paper traces the attempt of these new forces to undermine the old kleindeutsch history.

Type
Articles
Information
Central European History , Volume 2 , Issue 4 , December 1969 , pp. 312 - 330
Copyright
Copyright © Conference Group for Central European History of the American Historical Association 1969

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Meinecke, Friedrich, Nach der Revolution (Munich, 1919), pp. 63–64.Google Scholar

2. Herzfeld, Hans, “Staat und Nation in der deutschen Geschichtsschreibung der Weimarer Zeit,” Veritas-Justitia-Libertas. Festschrift zur 200-Jahrfeier der Columbia Universität (Berlin, 1954), p. 141.Google Scholar

3. Max Lenz applied this term to Ranke, in Kleine historische Schriften (Munich, 1922), II, 295Google Scholar; his neo-Rankean colleague Erich Marcks, surprisingly, awarded this accolade also to Ranke's severest critic, Treitschke, , in Männer und Zeiten (Leipzig, 1911 ), I, 310–11Google Scholar. The best single introduction to the nineteenth-century problem is still Fueter, Eduard, Geschichte der neueren Historiographie (Munich, 1936), pp. 535–49.Google Scholar In addition to the standard works, see Langsam, Walter, “Nationalism and History in the Prussian Elementary Schools,” in Nationalism and Internationalism, ed. Earle, Edward Meade (New York, 1950), pp. 242ff.;Google ScholarSchallenberg, Horst, Zum Geschichtsbild der Wilhelmischen Ära und der Weimarer Zeit (Ratingen bei Düsseldorf, 1964), pp. 55ff.;Google ScholarKrill, Hans-Heinz, Die Ranke Renaissance (Berlin, 1962), pp. 80ff.Google Scholar For the political role of Wilhelmian historians, see Hofer, Walther, Geschichte zwischen Philosophie und Politik (Stuttgart, 1956), pp. 42–43;Google ScholarIggers, Georg, “The Dissolution of German Historism,” in Ideas in History, ed. Richard, Herr and Harold, Parker (Durham, N.C., 1965), pp. 293–96;Google ScholarKohn, Hans, The Mind of Germany (New York, 1960), pp. 309–11;Google ScholarDehio, Ludwig, Germany and World Politics in the Twentieth Century (New York, 1959), p. 66.Google Scholar

4. Marcks, Erich, “Auf-und Niedergang im deutschen Schicksal,” Archiv für Politik und Geschichte, VIII (1929), 13.Google Scholar Meinecke's enthusiasm for the same future was expressed in Strassburg-Freiburg-Berlin (Stuttgart, 1949), p. 267.Google Scholar See the discussion of Austria's importance for German historical writing in von Srbik, Heinrich, Geist und Geschichte (Munich, 1951), II, 15ff.Google Scholar, and Hans Herzfeld, op. cit.

5. Spahn, Martin, “Die Anschlussfrage und die Zukunft des Reichs,” Volk und Reich, II (02 1926), 50.Google Scholar

6. Willy Andreas wrote prolifically on the Anschluss; see his 1922 essay in Kämpfe um Volk und Reich (Stuttgart, 1934), pp. 216–41Google Scholar; Reichspost (Vienna), June 6, 1930; and Österreich und der Anschluss (Berlin, 1927), pp. 14–18.Google ScholarOncken's, Hermann 1924 essay was reprinted in Nation und Geschichte (Berlin, 1935), pp. 15–42Google Scholar. Meinecke's works are cited throughout the present article. In this paper a symbol is defined as an artificial representation of an idea or object. Alfred North Whitehead believes that symbols can “elicit consciousness, belief, emotions, and usages,” that promote “the cohesion, the progress, and the dissolution of human societies”; Symbolism, Its Meaning and Effect (New York, 1959), pp. 8, 59.Google Scholar

7. von Srbik, Heinrich, Gesamtdeutsche Geschichtsauffassung (Leipzig, 1932), p. 5.Google ScholarKeyser, Erich, Die Geschichtswissenschaft, Aufbau und Aufgaben (Munich, 1931), p. 167.Google Scholar Srbik's views had already been articulated by von, Georg Below in Die deutsche Geschichtsschreibung von den Befreiungskriegen bis zu unsern Tagen (Munich, 1924), p. 114.Google Scholar

8. For Mitteleuropa see Heuss, Theodor, Friedrich Naumann (Stuttgart, 1949), pp. 307ff.;Google ScholarMeyer, Henry Cord, Mitteleuropa in German Thought and Action (The Hague, 1955), pp. 196–205;Google ScholarSweet, Paul, “Recent German Literature on Mitteleuropa,” Journal of Central European Affairs, III (1943), 1–24.Google Scholar

9. Gilbert, Felix, Johann Gustav Droysen und die preussisch-deutsche Frage (“Beiheft XX der Historischen Zeitschrift,” Munich, 1931), p. 4.Google Scholar The standard historiographical work referred to is von Below, Georg, Die deutsche Geschichtsschreibung, p. 49.Google Scholar The most thorough discussions of Hintze can be found in Gerhard Oestreich's foreword to Hintze, Otto, Gesammelte Abhandlungen, II (Göttingen, 1964),Google Scholar and Simon, W. M., “Power and Responsibility: Otto Hintze's Place in German Historiography,” in The Responsibility of Power, ed. Krieger, Leonard and Stern, Fritz (New York, 1967), pp. 209–11Google Scholar. For Erich Marcks see n. 4

10. Meinecke, Friedrich, Werke (Stuttgart, 1957–1962), VI, 173.Google Scholar

11. Brandenburg, Erich, Die Reichsgründung (Leipzig, 1923), I, 95.Google Scholar See also von Hofmann, Albert, Politische Geschichte der Deutschen (Stuttgart, 1928), V, 15, 457Google Scholar; Schäfer, Dietrich, “Oesterreich, Preussen, Deutschland. Deutsche Geschichte in grossdeutscher Beleuchtung,” Deutschlands Erneuerung, X (09 1926), 400.Google Scholar

12. Brandenburg, , Die Reichsgründung, II, 463Google Scholar; “Bismarcks Reichsgründung und die Gegenwart,” Süddeutsche Monatshefte, XVIII (01 1921), 262.Google Scholar Similar views were expressed by Hofmann, , “Die Wege der deutschen Geschichte,” Deutschland: Die natürlichen Grundlagen seiner Kultur (Leipzig 1928), p. 328.Google Scholar

13. Kreuzzeitung (Berlin), 07 23, 1927.Google Scholar

14. Der Anschluss (Vienna), Aug. 15, 1927; Münchner Zeitung, Aug. 21, 1927; Österreich-Deutschland, IV (Aug. 1927), 6.

15. Sweet, Paul, “Seipel's Views on the Anschluss: An Unpublished Exchange of Letters,” Journal of Modern History, XIX (1947), 323;Google ScholarBahr, Hermann, Österreich in Ewigkeit (Hildesheim, 1929), pp. 163–64;Google ScholarFiechner, Helmut, “Die Briefwechsel Hofmannsthal-Redlich,” Wort in der Zeit, II (1956), 26;Google ScholarHantsch, Hugo, Österreich, eine Deutung seiner Geschichte und Kultur (Innsbruck, 1934), p. 16;Google ScholarWinter, Ernst Karl, “Vorwort,” Die österreichische Aktion (Vienna, 1925), p. 5;Google ScholarWildgans, Anton, Sämtliche Werke (Vienna, n.d.), VII, 417–23;Google ScholarBibl, Viktor, Der Zerfall Österreichs (Vienna, 1922–1924), I, vii–viii;Google ScholarWolf, Heinrich, Angewandte Geschichte (Berlin, 1920ff.), I, 431–32, V, 250–54.Google Scholar Adolf Hitler held views similar to Wolf's; see Mein Kampf (Boston, 1943), pp. 68–74,Google Scholar and Hitler's Secret Book (New York, 1961), p. 192.Google Scholar

16. Marcks, Erich, Geschichte und Gegenwart (Stuttgart, 1925), p. 153.Google Scholar

17. Meinecke, , Werke, v, 460.Google Scholar See also ibid., II, 304–305; Meinecke, in Neue Freie Presse (Vienna), 09 29, 1927, a.m.Google Scholar

18. Schüssler, Wilhelm, Oesterreich und das deutsche Schicksal (Leipzig, 1925), p. 211.Google ScholarSchüssler, was attacked by grossdeutsch Austrians in Das Neue Reich, VII (08 8, 1926), 1061.Google ScholarRapp, Adolf, Der deutsche Gedanke (Bonn, 1920), pp. 82, 163–64;Google ScholarDas österreichische Problem in den Plänen der Kaiserpartei von 1848 (Tubingen, 1919), pp. 3ff.;Google ScholarGrossdeutsch und Kleindeutsch, p. xxii and passim. Schnabel, Franz, Deutsche Geschichte im neunzehnten Jahrhundert, II (Freiburg, 1933), passim;Google Scholar“Die politische Entwicklung,” Grundzüge der Deutschkunde, ed. Hofstaetter, W. and Panzer, F. (Leipzig, 1925), II, 19–64.Google Scholar

19. Kumsteller, Bernhard, “Fragen der Angleichung, Anschlussarbeit der Geschichtslehrer,” Österreich-Deutschland, VII (07 1930), 9.Google Scholar

20. Schallenberg, Horst, Zum Geschichtsbild der Wilhelmischen Ära und der Weimarer Zeit, pp. 168–76, 195–203.Google Scholar

21. Eggersdorfer, Franz, Das reichsdeutsche und österreichische Bildungswesen im Vergleich zu einander (Munich, 1927), p. 12.Google Scholar For confirmation of lingering Hohenzollern nostalgia in the German schools see Samuel, R. H. and Thomas, R. Hinton, Education and Society in Modern Germany (London, 1949), pp. 80–81.Google Scholar

22. Heuss, Theodor, “Die grossdeutsche Frage,” Der Kunstwart, XXXIX (04 1926), 20.Google Scholar

23. Diary, Mar. 8, 1927, Bundesarchiv Koblenz, Nachlass Koch-Weser, Nr. 36, p. 147.

24. An interesting series of anti-Austrian statements can be found in the Stresemann Papers, U. S. National Archives Microcopy T-120, Roll Col.U.3. This Roll was filmed by Columbia University. Microfilms of captured German documents will hereafter be cited by Microcopy, Roll, Series, and Frame numbers.

25. Memorandum by Stresemann on conversation with D'Abernon, June 4, 1925; Auswärtiges Amt, T–120/4576/2344/E171648. The same statement was made to the Italian Ambassador and to the German Crown Prince; see Bosdari to Mussolini, Mar. 8, 1925, I documenti diplomatici italiani, series VII, vol. II, 558, and Stresemann to Crown Prince, Sept. 7, 1925, T–120/7318/3168/H159872. The letter to the Crown Prince is discussed in Thimme, Anneliese, “Gustav Stresemann, Legende und Wirklichkeit,” Historische Zeitschrift, CLXXXI (1956), 331ffGoogle Scholar. Karl Dietrich Erdmann believes that Stresemann's anti-Austrianism precluded any serious attempt at Anschluss during his ministry; see “Das Problem der Ost-oder Westorientierung in der Locarno-Politik Stresemanns,” Geschichte in Wissenschaft und Unterricht, VI (1955), 149–50;Google Scholar cf. Höltje, Christian, Die Weimarer Republik und das Ostlocarno-Problem (Würzburg, 1958), pp. 101–103, 127–28.Google Scholar

26. These views were most convincingly propounded by several liberal historians. See Meinecke, , Werke, II, 338,Google Scholar and Delbrück, Hans, Vor und nach dem Weltkriege (Berlin, 1926), P. 418.Google Scholar

27. Loebe as a socialist learned to suspect Wilhelmian kleindeutsch indoctrination as an instrument of anti-socialist oppression. Another Volksbund supporter, Theodor Heuss, came from one of the few liberal households which had held out against Bismarckian nationalism. See Loebe, , Erinnerungen eines Reichstagspräsidenten (Berlin, 1949), pp. 8–18, 114;Google ScholarHeuss, , Preludes to Life (London, 1955) pp. 104–14.Google Scholar For discussion of Volksbund aims see Österreich-Deutschland, III (Mar. 1926), 4; Der Anschluss, May 30, 1929; Neue Freie Presse, Aug. 31, 1925, p.m.

28. Österreich-Deutschland, III (Mar. 1926), 13.

29. Vorwärts (Berlin), Aug. 8, 1925, edition A.

30. See the revisionist works by a Bavarian poet and a displaced architect: Eulenberg, Herbert, The Hohenzollerns (New York, 1929), pp. viiiff.,Google Scholar and Hegemann, Werner, Frederick the Great (London, 1929), pp. 303–13.Google Scholar These works were reviewed in Historische Zeitschrift, CXXXVIII (1928), 604–14, 626–32. For a discussion of these books and their reviews see Hammen, Oscar, “German Historians and the Advent of the National Socialist State,” Journal of Modern History, XIII (1941), 175–77,Google Scholar and Stirk, S. D., The Prussian Spirit (London, 1941), pp. 125–35.Google Scholar

31. Rost, Hans, “Die vierhundertjährige Zerstörung des grossdeutschen Gedankens,” Das Neue Reich, IX (11 6, 1926–03 5, 1927), 109–11, 174–76, 430, 452–54, 522;Google Scholarvon Ruville, Albert, “Die politische Bedeutung und positive Leistung des Hauses Habsburg in der Geschichte,” Schönere Zukunft, VI (08 17, 1930), 1105Google Scholar; Hannoversche Landeszeitung, Dec. 13, 1924. Henle, Rudolf, “Deutsche Geschichte, Gegenwart und Zukunft,” Schönere Zukunft, IV (12 16, 1928), 248;Google ScholarTriepel, Heinrich, “Der Föderalismus und die Revision der Weimarer Reichsverfassung,” Zeitschrift für Politik, XIV (1924), 193–230.Google Scholar For the professional objections to this history see Mommsen's, Wilhelm answer to Triepel in “Unitarismus und Föderalismus in Deutschland,” Zeitshrift für Politik, XIV (1925), 412–24;Google ScholarMeisner, Heinrich Otto, “Preussen und Revisionismus,” Forschungen zur brandenburgischen und preussischen Geschichte, XLIII (1931), 252–89.Google Scholar

32. Historische Vierteljahrschrift, XXIV (1928), 289. The book reviewed was Kaindl, Raimund Friedrich, Oesterreich, Preussen, Deutschland (Vienna, 1926).Google Scholar For similar comments see Ruider, H., “Aus Oesterreich,” Historisches Jahrbuch, XLVII (1927), 766–70;Google ScholarSchäfer, Dietrich, “Oesterreich, Preussen, Deutschland” (above, n. 11), 389–400.Google Scholar

33. Mommsen, Wilhelm, “Zur Beurteilung der deutschen Einheitsbewegung,” Historische Zeitschrift, CXXXVIII (1928), 542.Google Scholar

34. Zechlin, Egmont, Bismarck und die Grundlegung der deutschen Grossmacht (Stuttgart, 1930), pp. 2–8;Google ScholarRothfels, Hans, Bismarck und der Osten (Leipzig, 1934), pp. 7–14, 34–37, 71.Google Scholar

35. Berelson, Bernard and Steiner, Gary, Human Behavior, an Inventory of Scientific Findings (New York, 1964), pp. 541–42.Google Scholar

36. Marcks, Erich, “Auf-und Niedergang,” p. 28.Google Scholar

37. Schneider, Reinhold, Die Hohenzollern. Tragik und Königtum (Leipzig, 1933), p. 191;Google ScholarAndreas, Willy, Geist und Staat (Munich, 1922), pp. 88–128.Google Scholar

38. Bauer, Wilhelm, Oesterreich in den reichsdeutschen Geschichtsschulbüchern (Berlin, 1927), p. 12;Google Scholar Bonn's views were expressed in the Neue Freie Presse, May 31, 1925, a.m.

39. See Funk, Philipp, “Weg der Geschichtsrevision,” Hochland, XXV (09 1928), 637–43.Google Scholar For a definition of landscape and its connection with the Volk, see Mosse, George, The Crisis of German Ideology (New York, 1964), pp. 15–17.Google Scholar

40. Keyser, , Geschichtswissenschaft, pp. 87–105;Google ScholarNadler, Josef, Literaturgeschichte der deutschen Stämme und Landschaften (Regensberg, 1913), II, ii, iv–v, and passim.Google Scholar See Hammen, , “German Historians,” 182–84.Google Scholar

41. Lach, Robert, “Die grossdeutsche Kultureinheit in der Musik,” Der Anschlussfrage in ihrer kulturellen, wirtschaftlichen und politischen Bedeutung, ed. Kleinwaechter, Friedrich and Paller, Hans (Vienna, 1930), pp. 294–95.Google Scholar

42. von Srbik, Heinrich, Deutsche Einheit. Idee und Wirklichkeit von Heiligen Reich bis Königgrätz (Munich, 1935ff.), I, 9Google Scholar. Srbik's early adhesion to National Socialist Germany has caused some historians to identify all of Deutsche Einheit with Hitlerian historiography, but Jacques Droz correctly maintains that at least Volume 1 of this work was a product of postwar and not post-1933 collapse: Les révolutions allemandes de 1848 (Paris, 1957), pp. 17–18.Google Scholar

43. Srbik, , Deutsche Einheit, I, 7.Google Scholar Meinecke testified to the impassioned nature of Srbik's work; Werke, VI, 152–54.

44. Srbik, , Gesamtdeutsche Geschichtsauffassung, p. 2.Google Scholar

45. The two most devastating reviews by kleindeutsch historians were Hartung, Fritz, “Preussen und die deutsche Einheit,” Forschungen zur brandenburgischen und preussischen Geschichte, XLIX (1937), 1–21,Google Scholar and Brandenburg, Erich, “Deutsche Einheit,” Historische Vierteljahrschrift, XXX (1936), 757–70.Google Scholar

46. Preussische Lehrerzeitung, quoted in Österreich-Deutschland, IV (Sept. 1927), 18; Vergangenheit und Gegenwart, XIV (1924), 154–56, XV(1925), 193–251, XVII (1927), 325–54, 405–22; the position of the Philological Association was reprinted in Behrend, Felix, ed., Das grössere Deutschland, Deutsche Zukunft (Leipzig, 1929);Google ScholarBrandl, Alois, “Der Schulauschuss des österreichisch-deutschen Volksbunds,” Österreich-Deutschland, III (01 1926), 2;Google Scholaribid., VIII (Jan. 1930), 8–9.

47. Verhandlungen des Reichstags, CCCCXIV, Anlagen zu den stenongraphischen Berichten, Nr. 3095, p. 9.

48. Amtsblatt des Bayerischen Staatsministeriums für Unterricht und Kultur, LX Nr. 16, Dec. 29, 1926; Amtsblatt des Württembergischen Kulturministeriums, Feb. 18, 1926; Landé, Walter, Richtlinien für die Lehrpläne der höheren Schulen Preussens (Berlin, 1925), p. 65.Google Scholar

49. Reichszentrale für Heimatdienst, report to Chancellor, 1929, Alte Reichskanzlei, T-120/K1064/4619/K273350. The information service's files were never microfilmed in sequence; however, many documents pertaining to Austria can be found in the Reichskanzlei microfilms and in the Reichskanzlei files, Bundesarchiv Koblenz, especially Folders R431/109 and R431/110. The most effective book subsidized by the Reichszentrale was von Paller, Heinz, Der grossdeutsche Gedanke (Leipzig, 1928).Google Scholar

50. Österreich-Deutschland, the official journal of the Volksbund, carried a series on “German Austrian Literature” from its first issue, 1 (Jan. 1924), 19 and passim; see also ibid., III (Apr. 1926), 20–21, v (Apr. 1928), 19–20, VI (Jan. 1929), 23. For the Arbeitsgemeinschaft see Münchner Neuste Nachricheten, Jan. 10–12, 1927.

51. Butterfield, Herbert, The Whig Interpretation of History (New York, 1965), pp. 34ff.;Google ScholarPotter, David, “The Historian's Use of Nationalism and Vice Versa,” American Historical Review, LXVII (1962), 939–51.Google Scholar