AHA Annual Meeting, CGCEH Session 3: Radicalizing the Nation: The Impact of the First World War on German Nationalism and Political Culture. American Historical Association.

Reviewed by Raffael M. Scheck
Published on H-German (January, 2004)

Richard Frankel's presentation gave many examples for the long shadow the first chancellor of the German Empire cast over German politics during and following World War I. Appeals to Bismarck legitimized a broad range of right-wing, even extremist, approaches and helped to radicalize German politics in this unstable period. Although Frankel showed that Max Weber and Gustav Stresemann represented differentiated and not necessarily anti-democratic or anti-republican readings of Bismarck, he pointed out that the majority of German groupings appealing to Bismarck opposed democracy and the Weimar Republic. Adherence to Bismarck thus appeared primarily as a factor working against the creation of a more democratic and conciliatory Germany. <p> Barry Jackisch highlighted the importance of the Pan-German League in spreading radical anti-Semitism during the Weimar Republic. The focus on anti-Semitism informed the widely distributed Bamberg declaration (1919) of the League, and it led to the foundation of organizations and committees devoted specifically to the purpose of spreading anti-Semitism. Reference was made to the Deutschvoelkischer Schutz- und Trutzbund, and a case study of the League's Dresden chapter served to illustrate some organizing methods. The paper also stressed the Pan-German influence on the DNVP, the major right-wing party before the rise of the Nazis, and especially on the DNVP's racial committee. The Pan-German League was instrumental in radicalizing the DNVP's position on anti-Semitism and in making possible the election of Alfred Hugenberg as chairman of the party in 1928. <p> Adam Seipp placed the eventful history of postwar Munich in the context of demobilization problems, as seen from a street-level perspective. He stressed that food and housing shortages, unemployment, and other basic concerns fueled the dynamic of political events in Munich right after the war. The final argument was that Munich's history should be placed in a European context of postwar problems, rather than being seen as an exceptional case. <p> The commentator argued that Bismarck's legacy worked as "political capital" in analogy to the "cultural capital" defined by Pierre Bourdieu. He warned, however, that distance from Bismarck's positions did not necessarily imply a more democratic stance, given that many Bismarck cultists often advocated goals that were far removed from the beliefs of the historic Bismarck. Trying to understand this gap between the historic Bismarck and the aims of many Bismarck cultists, the commentator suggested that Bismarck may have been an ersatz monarch for a monarchism that had no convincing pretender, thus crystallizing nostalgia for a <cite>Kaiserzeit</cite> whose <cite>Kaiser</cite> had failed miserably even in the eyes of radical rightists. <p> The commentator agreed with Jackisch on the centrality of the Pan-German League for the spread of radical anti-Semitism after the war. He argued, however, that the radicalization of the League's views on anti-Semitism were a wartime phenomenon and claimed that the League's new political strategies were neither innovative nor effective. He asked why the Pan-German League was so committed to working in the dark--setting up anti-Semitic organizations without using its own name. He suggested that the increased stress on anti-Semitism might have been related to the League's difficulties adapting to the new political dynamics after the overthrow of the monarchy. Regarding Seipp's paper, the commentator above all called for a consideration of Bavarian particularism, which experienced a powerful boost in this period. He pointed out that the instability in Bavaria meant that Bavaria had no effective government at the very time in which the position of Germany's states in the new constitution was discussed. Thus, the Weimar Constitution was too centralist for many Bavarians, who resented it--feeling that their state had not been adequately heard in its formation. <p> One comment from the audience stressed that Bismarck himself shared responsibility for some misinterpretations of his legacy because of his vindictive comments after his dismissal. Another member of the audience asked about specifically Bavarian strategies of the Pan-German League. A fire alarm in the hotel a few minutes before the end of the session cut short the discussion and prevented the panelists from responding to some questions from the audience and suggestions of the commentator.

If there is additional discussion of this review, you may access it through the network, at: https://networks.h-net.org/h-german.

Citation: Raffael M. Scheck. Review of , AHA Annual Meeting, CGCEH Session 3: Radicalizing the Nation: The Impact of the First World War on German Nationalism and Political Culture. H-German, H-Net Reviews. January, 2004.
URL: http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=15045

Copyright © 2004 by H-Net, all rights reserved. H-Net permits the redistribution and reprinting of this work for nonprofit, educational purposes, with full and accurate attribution to the author, web location, date of publication, originating list, and H-Net: Humanities & Social Sciences Online. For any other proposed use, contact the Reviews editorial staff at hbooks@mail.h-net.org.