Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident Due to planned maintenance there will be periods of time where the website may be unavailable. We apologise for any inconvenience.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 16 December 2008
Shortly after the turn of the century a Social Democratic newspaper characterized middle-class liberals as forming at best the “tail” (Schwanz) of Social Democracy, at worst the “tail of the Prussian Conservatives.” If the remark reflects the contempt which Marxists as well as radical rightists have manifested toward the middle parties, it also suggests the precariousness, the uncertain orientation of the middle posture. Flanked on one side by the still politically dominant landed aristocracy and the influential industrial magnates, on the other side by an inexorably growing industrial working class was a variety of social and occupational groupings weakly unified by a claim to some degree of status and a consciousness of being bürgerlich. In the imperial period the meaning of bürgerlich was shifting from “nonaristocratic” to “nonlaborer” without having attained the intermediate connotation of “civic.” The bürgerlich social and occupational groupings found their political representation primarily in the liberal and Catholic parties, secondarily in allegedly nonpolitical institutions and an array of regional, peasant, and anti-Semitic parties, increasingly in economic pressure groups.
1. Schwäbische Tagwacht(SPD, Stuttgart), June 5, 1903, Jan. 8, 1908.Google Scholar
2. Krieger, Leonard, “European History in America,” p. 306, in Higham, John, Krieger, , and Gilbert, Felix, History: The Development of Historical Studies in the United States (Princeton, 1965; paperback ed., Englewood Cliffs, N.J.).Google Scholar
3. The present article deals with quite recent publications (from 1970 on) selected around certain themes. Valuable reference works for older bibliography and general information are Fricke, Dieter et al. , eds., Die bürgerlichen Parteien in Deutschland: Handbuch der Geschichte der bürgerlichen Parteien und anderer bürgerlicher Interessenorganisationen, (Leipzig, 1968–1969),Google Scholar and Vogel, Bernhard et al. , Wahlen in Deutschland: Theorie, Geschichte, Dokumente, 1848–1970 (Berlin, 1971).CrossRefGoogle Scholar Two important recent works emphasizing once again the social underpinnings, ideological limitations, and divisions of liberalism prior to national unification are Gugel, Michael, Industrieller Aufstieg und bürgerliche Herrschaft: Sozialökonomische Interessen und politische Ziele des liberalen Bürgertums in Preussen zur des Verfassungskonftikt (Cologne: Pahl-Rugenstein Verlag, 1975),Google Scholar and Langewische, Dieter, Liberalismus und Demokratie in Württemberg zwischen Revolution und Reichsgründung (Düsseldorf: Droste Verlag, 1974).Google Scholar
4. Stürmer, , Regierung und Reichstag im Bismarckstaat, 1871–1880: Cäsarismus oder Parlamentarismus, Beiträge zur Geschichte des Parlamentarismus und der politischen Parteien, vol. 54 (Düsseldorf: Droste Verlag, 1974. Pp. 376. DM 68).Google Scholar
5. Stürmer, Regierung und Reichstag, pp. 289–97, 311–33. Cf. Mitchell, Allan, “Bonapartism as a Model for Bismarckian Politics,” Journal of Modem History 49 (1977): 181–99, and comments by Otto Pflanze, Claude Fohlen, Stürmer, and Mitchell, pp. 200–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. E.g., Stürmer cites the exclusion of Center deputies from ad hoc committees, but large Reichstag majorities voted for salaries for deputies and for the Hoverbeck motion against the arrest of a Center deputy. (Regierung und Reichstag, pp. 72, 86, 130.)
7. Zucker, , Ludwig Bamberger: German Liberal Politician and Social Critic, 1823–1899 (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1975. Pp. xi, 343. $14.95).Google Scholar Also see Harris, James F., “Eduard Lasker and Compromise Liberalism,” Journal of Modem History 42 (1970): 342–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. White, , The Splintered Party: National Liberalism in Hessen and the Reich, 1867–1918 (Cambridge, Mass., and London: Harvard University Press, 1976. Pp. viii, 303. $15).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. E.g.,Silverman, Dan P., Reluctant Union: Alsace-Lorraine and Imperial Germany (University Park, Pa.: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1972), chaps. 6–8, 10 on Alsace- Lorraine parties;Google ScholarStehlin, Stewart A., Bismarck and the Guelph Problem, 1866–1890: A Study in Particularist Opposition to National Unity (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1973), chap. 5 on Guelph parliamentary activity;CrossRefGoogle ScholarTilton, Timothy Alan, Nazism, Neo-Nazism, and the Peasantry (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1975), on Schleswig-Holstein from 1918 to 1972;Google ScholarHunt, James C., The People's Party in Württemberg and Southern Germany, 1890–1914: The Possibilities of Democratic Politics (Stuttgart: Ernst Klett Verlag, 1975);Google ScholarSidman, Charles F., Württemberg in der Weimarer Republik (Stuttgart: Theiss Verlag, forthcoming 1978).Google Scholar
10. Levy, , The Downfall of the Anti-Semitic Political Parties in Imperial Germany (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1975. Pp. vii, 335. $18.50).Google Scholar
11. Tipton, , Regional Variations in the Economic Development of Germany during the Nineteenth Century (Middletown, Conn.: Wesleyan University Press: 1976. Pp. xiv, 270. $22).Google Scholar
12. Stump, , Geschichte und Organisation der Zentrumspartei in Düsseldorf, 1917–1933, Beiträge zur Geschichte des Parlamentarismus und der politischen Parteien, vol. 43 (Düsseldorf: Droste Verlag, 1971. Pp. 168. DM 42).Google Scholar
13. Plum, , Gesellschftsstruktur und politisches Bewusstsein in einer katholischen Region, 1928–1933: Untersuchungen am Beispiel des Regierungsbezirks Aachen (Stuttgart: Deutsche Verlagsanstalt, 1972. Pp. 319. DM 26).Google Scholar
14. Ross, , Beleaguered Tower: The Dilemma of Political Catholicism in Wilhelmine Germany (Notre Dame, Ind., and London: University of Notre Dame Press, 1976. Pp. xx, 218. $14.95).Google Scholar Other works approaching political Catholicism from a regional perspective are: Schönhoven, Klaus, Die bayerische Volkspartei, 1924–1932 (Düsseldorf: Droste Verlag, 1972),Google Scholar reviewed by Landauer, Carl in Central European History (CEH) 6 (1973): 283–85;CrossRefGoogle ScholarBlackbourn, David G., “Class and Politics in Wilhelmine Germany: The Center and theSocial Democrats in Württemberg,” CEH9 (1976): 230–49;Google ScholarHendon, David W., “The Center Party and the Agrarian Interest in Germany, 1890–1914” (Ph.D. diss., Emory University, 1976).Blackbourn (Queen Mary College, University of London) is at work on a book-length study of the Center in Wilhelmian Württemberg.Google Scholar
15. Zeender, The German Center Party, 1890–1906, Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, N.S., vol. 66, pt. 1 (Philadelphia: the Society, 1976. Pp. 125. $7.50).Google Scholar
16. “Germany, 1890–1914: A Survey of Recent Research,” CEH 1 (1968): 349.
17. Schorske, , German Social Democracy, 1903–1917: The Development of the Great Schism (Cambridge, Mass., 1955), p. 231.Google Scholar
18. Snell, John L., “Imperial Germany's Tragic Era, 1888–1918: Threshold to Democracy or Foreground of Nazism?” Journal of Central European Affairs 18 (1958–1959): 386, and 19 (1959–60): 57–60.Google ScholarFischer, Fritz, Griff nach der Weltmacht, 3d ed. (Düsseldorf, 1964), chap. 1 and passim.Google ScholarElm, Ludwig, Zwischen Fortschritt und Reaktion: Geschichte der Parteien der liberalen Bourgeoisie in Deutschland, 1893–1918 (East Berlin, 1968).Google Scholar
19. Robson, , “German Left Liberals and the First World War,” in The Canadian Historical Association: Historical Papers Presented at the Annual Meeting Held at Ottawa,1967, pp. 216–34.Google ScholarSnell, John L. and Modris Eksteins (titles cited below) make use of Robson's 1966 Oxford dissertation, on which the article is based.Google Scholar
20. Düding, Der nationalsoziale Verein: Der gescheiterte Versuch einer parteipolitischen Synthese von Nationalisms, Sozialismus und Liberalismus (Munich and Vienna: Oldenbourg Verlag, 1972. Pp. 211. DM 42).Google ScholarGellately, , The Politics of Economic Despair: Shopkeepers and German Politics, 1890–1914, SAGE Studies in 20th Century History, vol. 1 (London and Beverly Hills: SAGE Publications, 1974. Pp. xvi, 317. $13.50).Google ScholarUllmann, , Der Bund der Industriellen: Organisation, Einfluss und Politik klein- und mittelbetrieblicher Industrieller im deutschen Kaiserreich, 1895–1914, Kritische Studien zur Geschichtswissenschaft, vol. 21 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1976. Pp. 464. DM 78).CrossRefGoogle ScholarMielke, , Der Hansa-Bund für Gewerbe, Handel und Industrie, 1909–1914: Der gescheiterte Versuch einer antifeudalen Sammlungspoliti, Kritische Studien zur Geschichtswissenschaft, vol. 17 (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1976. Pp. 359. DM 64).Google Scholar
21. Stegmann, , Die Erben Bismarcks: Parteien und Verbände in der Spätphase des Wilhelminischen Deutschhnds: Sammlungspolitik, 1897–1918 (Cologne and Berlin: Kiepenheuer & Witsch, 1970. Pp. 584. DM 48).Google Scholar
22. The controversy that Stegmann has provoked concerns the status of heavy industry in the conservative Sammlung, not the character of the liberalizing or antifeudal Sammlung. Kaelble, Hartmut, Industrielle Interessenpolitik in der Wilhelminischen Gesellschaft: Der Centralverband Deutscher Industrieller, 1895–1914 (Berlin, 1967), pp. 91–109, 126–36, 139–46,CrossRefGoogle Scholar argued for the existence of important divergent tendencies within the Centralverband and for standing conflicts between heavy industry and agrarians. Stegmann noted the insufficient documentary basis for Kaelble's theses, but also branded Kaelble's position an “apologia” for heavy industry (Erben Bismarcks, pp. 16,166 n. 204,190, 261, 388 n. 162). Mielke rehabilitates a modified version of Kaelble's position while polemicizing repeatedly against Stegmann (Hansa-Bund, pp. 83–91, 166–80). But Mielke's emphasis on the extent of continued participation of the Centralverband in the Hansabund is weakened by his own statistical tables (cf. pp. 91, 209–10). In a monograph-like article Stegmann has moderated his tone and presented a complex differentiated picture of the industrial pressure groups: ,“Hugenberg contra Stresemann: Die Politik der Industrieverbande am Ende des Kaiserreichs,” Vierteljahrshefte fur Zeitgeschichte 24 (1976): 329–78.Google Scholar
23. Heckart, , From Bassermann to Bebel: The Grand Bloc's Quest for Reform in the Kaiserreich, 1900–1914 (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1974. Pp. x, 317. $18.50).Google Scholar
24. Schmidt, , “Parlamentarisierung oder ‘Präventive Konterrevolution’? Die deutsche Innenpolitik im Spannungsfeld konservativer Sammlungsbewegungen und latenter Reformbestrebungen (1907–1914),” in Gesellschaft, Parlament und Regierung: Zur Geschichte des Parlamentarismus in Deutschland, ed. Ritter, Gerhard A. (Düsseldorf: Droste Verlag, 1974). PP. 249–78.Google Scholar
25. Snell, , The Democratic Movement in Germany, 1789–1914, James Sprunt Studies in History and Political Science, vol. 55 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1976. Pp. x, 501. $13.95). Based on exhaustive command of the literature, sprinkled with arresting insights, and trenchantly phrased, Snell's work will be of very great value as an undergraduate text or a guide to research for graduate students. A difficulty with the book is the inadequacy of the definitions of “liberalism” and “democracy.”Google Scholar
26. Grosser, , Votn monarchischen Konstitutionalismus zur parlamentarischen Demokratie: Die Verfassungspolitik der deulschen Parteien im letzten Jahrzehnt des Kaiserreichs (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1970. Pp. xii, 230. Fl. 25).Google Scholar
27. Chickering, , Imperial Germany and a World without War: The Peace Movement and German Society, 1892–1914 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1975. Pp. xiv, 487. $27.50, paper $10.50).Google ScholarHoll, , “Krieg und Frieden und die liberalen Parteien,” in Liberalismus und imperialistischer Staat: Der Imperialisms als Problem liberaler Parteien in Deutschland, 1890–1914, ed. Holl, and List, Günther (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975. Pp.176.DM 15.80), pp. 72–88. Despite the title of the book only Holl's contribution presents information on the liberal parties; the other essays represent intellectual history (the history of liberal ideas) or position papers for and against the Fritz Fischer school.Google Scholar
28. Witt, , “Innenpolitik und Imperialismus in der Vorgeschichte des 1. Weltkrieges,” in Liberalismus und imperialistischer Staat, pp. 15, 31 n. 51.Google Scholar Supporting the tripolarist conception is Eley, Geoff's article: “Social Imperialism in Germany: Reformist Synthesis or Reactionary Sleight of Hand?” in Imperialismus im 20. Jahrhundert: Gedenkschrift für George W. F. Hallgarten, ed. Radkau, Joachim and Geiss, Imanuel (Munich: Verlag C. H. Beck, 1976); in the Weber-Naumannian tradition Eley sees liberal imperialism as a constituent element in a reformist coalition.Google Scholar
29. Rosenberg, Arthur, Imperial Germany: The Birth of the German Republic (New York, 1962), chap. 2, gave a similarly differentiated, but ultimately skeptical analysis of the middle parties.Google Scholar
30. Albertin, , Liberalismus und Demokratie am Anfang der Weimarer Republik: Bine vergleichende Analyse der Deutschen Demokratischen Partei und der Deutschen Volkspartei(Düsseldorf: Droste Verlag, 1972), reviewed by Orlow, Dietrich in CEH 8 (1975): 187–94.Google Scholar
31. Stephan, , Aufstieg und Verfall des Linksliberalismus, 1918–1933: Geschichte der Deutschen Demokratischen Partei (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1973. Pp. 520. DM 66).Google Scholar
32. Pois, , The Bourgeois Democrats of Weimar Germany, Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, N.S., vol. 66, pt. 4 (Philadelphia: the Society, 1976. Pp. 117. $6).Google Scholar
33. According to Pois, e.g., Conrad Haussmann and Friedrich Payer were “under the influence of Friedrich Naumann”; Naumann “determined” the principles of the Progressive Party; Eugen Richter saw the “state as representing some sort of threat to constitutional development”; the Freisinnige Zeitung was Naumann's newspaper; the DDP was founded at Nuremberg on Nov. 22, 1918; Baumer had a “post-menopausal fascination for young people”; Jews formed one-twentieth of the population; Heuss was a “leading luminary” of pre-1914 politics. Bourgeois Democrats, pp. 8,11,15, 38, 86,108.
34. Schustereit, , Linksliberalismus und Sozialdemokratie in der Weimarer Republik: Eine vergleichende Betrachtung der Politik von DDP und SPD, 1919–1930 (Düsseldorf: Pädagogischer Verlag Schwann, 1975. Pp. 296. DM 38).Google Scholar
35. Eksteins, , The Limits of Reason: The German Democratic Press and the Collapse of Weimar Democracy, Oxford Historical Monographs (London: Oxford University Press, 1975. Pp. xv, 337. $22.50).Google Scholar
36. Similarly, Hess, Jürgen C., “Gab es eine Alternative? Zum Scheitern des Linksliberalismus in der Weimarer Republik,” Historische Zeitschrift 223 (1976): 638–54 (a review of Albertin, Schustereit, and Eksteins);CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Jones, Larry E., “Gustav Stresemann and the Crisis of German Liberalism,” European Studies Review 4 (1974): 141–63, on the decline of the DVP and, more generally, German liberalism.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
37. See article, Albertin's “German Liberalism and the Foundation of the Weimar Republic: A Missed Opportunity?” in German Democracy and the Triumph of Hitler, ed. Nicholls, Anthony and Matthias, Erich (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1971), pp. 29–46.Google Scholar
38. Jones, , “The Crisis of White-Collar Interest Politics,” in Industrielles System und politische Entwicklung in der Weimarer Republik, ed. Mommsen, H., Petzina, D., and Weisbrod, B. (Düsseldorf: Droste Verlag, 1974), pp. 811–23.Google Scholar“Between the Fronts: The German National Union of Commercial Employees from 1928 to 1933,” Journal of Modem History 48 (1976): 462–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
39. Childers, , “The Social Bases of the National Socialist Vote,” Journal of Contemporary History 11, no. 4 (10 1976): 17–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
40. Gessner, , Agrarverbände in der Weimarer Republik: Wirtschaftliche und soziale Voraussetzungen agrarkonservativer Politik vor 1933 (Düsseldorf: Droste Verlag, 1976. Pp. 304. DM 48).Google Scholar
41. Gessner (Technische Hochschule Darmstadt), Lens Hemming, Martin Schumacher, and Larry E. Jones (Canisius College) are at varying stages of further work in this area. Letter of L. Jones, Sept. 12, 1977. Also see Tilton, , Nazism and the Peasantry. [Gessner has now published, too late for inclusion here, Agrardepression und Prasidialregierungen Deutschland 1930 bis 1933: Probleme des Agrarprotektionismus am Ende der Weimarer Republik (Düsseldorf: Droste Verlag, 1977. Pp. 209. DM 39).]Google Scholar
42. Kater, , Studentenschaft und Rechtsradikalismus in Deutschland, 1918–1933: Eine sozialgeschichtliche Studie zur Bildungskrise in der Weimarer Republik, Historische Perspektiven, vol. 1 (Hamburg: Hoffmann und Campe Verlag, 1975. Pp. 361. DM 58).Google Scholar
43. Maier, , Recasting Bourgeois Europe: Stabilization in France, Germany, and Italy in the Decade after World War I (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1975. Pp. xiv, 650. $30, paper $11.50).Google Scholar
44. E.g., Levy (Downfall of the Anti-Semitic Parties), White (Splintered Party), and Zucker (Bamberger) could have profited from using each other's work in progress. Heckart could have profited from White's work and Ross's (Beleaguered Tower). If these comments represent criticism, they apply to me as much as anyone.
45. Among the most recent of these works is Hess, Jürgen C., Theodor Heuss vor 1933: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des demokratischen Denkens in Deutschland (Stuttgart: Ernst Klett Verlag, 1973).Google Scholar
46. Useful biographical essays on many of these and other Centrists may be found in Zeitgeschichte in Lebensbildem: Aus dent deutschen Katholizismus des 20. Jahrhunderts, ed. Morsey, Rudolf, 2 vols. (Mainz: Matthias Griinewald Verlag, 1973–1975).Google Scholar
47. See his typescript autobiography in the Gothein Nachlass, Bundesarchiv Koblenz.
48. Robertson, James M. (Stanford University) is completing a dissertation on Haussmann.Google Scholar
49. Dahrendorf, Ralf, Society and Democracy in Germany (Garden City, N.Y., 1967), chaps. 14, 17.Google Scholar
50. E.g., Stegmann, , Erben Bismarcks; Heckart, Bassermann to Bebel; Maier, Recasting Bourgeois Europe.Google Scholar Also Sheehan, James J., “Political Leadership in the German Reichstag,” American Historical Review 74 (1968–1969): 511–28;CrossRefGoogle ScholarJones, Larry E., “ “The Dying Middle’: Weimar Germany and the Fragmentation of Bourgeois Politics,” CEH 5 (1972): 23–54;Google ScholarJones, , “Sammlung oder Zersplitterung? Die Bestrebungen zur Bildung einer neuen Mittelpartei, 1930–1933,” Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte 25 (1977): 265–304.Google Scholar
51. Chickering, Imperial Germany and a World without War. Holl, Karl, “Pazifismus oder liberaler Neu-Imperialismus? Zur Rolle der Pazifisten in der Deutschen Demokratischen Partei,” in Imperialisms im 20. Jahrhundert, pp. 171–95.Google ScholarEvans, Richard J., The Feminist Movement in Germany, 1894–1933 (London and Beverly Hills: SAGE Publications, 1976).Google ScholarHackett, Amy, “Feminism and Liberalism in Wilhelmine Germany,” in Liberating Women's History: Theoretical and Critical Essays, ed. Carroll, Berenice A. (Urbana, Ill.: University of Illinois Press, 1975).Google Scholar
52. Hofinann, , Zwischen Rathaus und Reichskanzlei: Die Oberbürgermeister in der Kommunal- und Staatspolitik des Deutschen Reiches von 1890 bis 1933, Schriften des Deutschen Instituts für Urbanistik, vol. 46 (Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1974. Pp. 308. DM 30).Google Scholar Despite the dates given in the title, Hofmann takes only a brief glance at events prior to 1919.
53. E.g., White, , Splintered Party, pp. 78–82,141–48;Google ScholarPlum, , Gesellschaftsstruktur in einer katholischen Region, pp. 29–37;Google ScholarThranhardt, Dieter, Wahlen und politische Strukturen in Bayem, 1848–1953 (Düsseldorf: Droste Verlag, 1973).Google Scholar
54. In particular, see Childers's outstanding “Social Bases of the National Socialist Vote”; Childers (University of Pennsylvania) is working on a book-length study.
55. Burnham, Walter Dean, “Political Immunization and Political Confessionalism: The United States and Weimar Germany,” Journal of Interdisciplinary History 3 (1972): 4–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarLavies, Ralf-Rainer, Nichtwählen als Kategorie des Wahlverhaltens: Empirische Untersuchungen aus historischer, politischer und statistischer Sicht (Düsseldorf: Droste Verlag, 1973).Google Scholar
56. Also deterministic are Stürmer, Regierung und Reichstag; Mielke, Hansa-Bund … Der gescheiterte Versuch; Gellately, Politics of Despair, see pp. 195–96, 203–7; Chickering, Imperial Germany and a World without War, see pp. 217, 285, 385, 416; P. C. Witt, “Innenpolitik und Imperialismus"; J. C. Hess, “Gab es eine Alternative?”; and particularly L. E. Jones, “ “The Dying Middle’ “ and “Stresemann and the Crisis of Liberalism.” Snell (Democratic Movement) and Stegmann (Erben Bismarcks) are strongly pessimistic, but not deterministic. Kater (Studentenschaft und Rechtsradikalismus) tends toward determinism, but not consistently.
