Greater German Research Articles

Nazi Constitutional Designs: The State Secretaries’ Meetings and the Annexation of East Central Europe

This article examines the state secretaries’ meetings as an instrument of government in Nazi Germany. They are mostly known as the forum at which the infamous Wannsee Conference took place, but here the 20 January 1942 meeting will be situated in a context previously ignored by historians by showing that such gatherings were an increasingly regular occurrence during the ‘Third Reich’, and that a range of policy issues were discussed there – not just mass murder. As such, it will shed new light on how the ‘Hitler state’ functioned at this level by showing that Wannsee was not entirely extraordinary, the format having become established practice long before 1942. Similarly, the article will also show that the jurisdictional conflicts that played out at Wannsee were equally common, with participants generally jockeying for influence and advancing claims to departmental authority. Indeed, although they effectively replaced cabinet meetings, which were formally banned by Hitler in 1938, the state secretaries’ meetings did little to salvage collegial government. To illustrate this, a series of meetings called to coordinate the government's response to a particular issue will be examined – the annexation of ‘Greater German’ territories in Austria, the Sudetenland and Poland. As will be shown throughout, very little was achieved by way of coordination, with the state secretaries only advancing those constitutional designs that served their ministries’ claims to power.

Hitler’s Northern Utopia: Building the New Order in Occupied Norway

Hitler’s Northern Utopia: Building the New Order in Occupied Norway

SOVEREIGNTY AND THE LEGAL LEGACIES OF EMPIRE IN EARLY NINETEENTH-CENTURY PRUSSIA

AbstractThe traceless disappearance of the Holy Roman Empire from the map and the minds of nineteenth-century Germany was until recently a pervasive historiographical trope. Revisionist scholarship has since uncovered the empire's modern afterlife as a model for federative political order and archetype of the greater German (großdeutsche) nation. This article identifies a different kind of legacy, by examining the empire's role in shaping the constitutional configuration of an individual successor state – Prussia. In a debate over Prussia's unwritten historical constitution unfolding in the 1840s, narratives of the empire's constitutional history became the basis on which the juridical structure of the kingdom's sovereignty was negotiated by jurists and political actors. These included, among others, King Frederick William IV and his brother William, the leaders of the German historical school of jurisprudence Savigny and Eichhorn, and the Prussian statesman Kamptz. The article contrasts two rival interpretations of the imperial legacy: a teleological narrative focusing on the evolution of state sovereignty within the imperial constitution and a genealogical narrative highlighting the origins of sovereignty as a hereditary fiefdom. In doing so, it questions the rigid distinction that historians have drawn between the empire and the statehood that replaced it in 1806.

Germany’s Future Form of State

[MWS 21.1 (2021) 23-65] ISSN 1470-8078 doi: 10.15543/maxweberstudies.21.1.23© Max Weber Studies 2021, Global Policy Institute, University House, Coventry University London, 109 Middlesex Street, London E1 7JF. Germany’s Future Form of State Max Weber Preliminary Remark The following sketches, appearing in the Frankfurter Zeitung and here only stylistically smoothed out (additions mostly recognisable as annotations)1 , are purely political pieces written for the occasion without any claim whatsoever to ‘academic’ validity. They are only intended to show that a republican, greater German (großdeutsche) form of state— and not a greater Prussian (großpreussische) form of state—with a federal and thereby democratic character is not, as is widely believed, at all impossible, and to get discussion started.2 The conclusions will doubtlessly soon be overtaken by events, just as my text on ‘Parliament and Government in Germany’s New Order’ (1917)3 has meanwhile been overtaken; that argued from the facts of Prussian hegemony and 1. They appeared in five articles from 22 November to 5 December. The changes Weber made in section III—adding footnotes, which are flagged with prefix MW— reflect the discussions on breaking up the state of Prussia in the preliminary talks on the German National Assembly for the Constitution, 9-12 December. These have been published as ‘Beiträge zur Verfassungsfrage’ (MWG I/16: 56-90). 2. The terminology can be confusing. ‘Großdeutsch’ usually refers to the ambitions dating back to the beginning of the 19th century to create a state of all the German-speaking peoples, in particular the unification of Austria with the other German states. British historians refer to this as greater Germany rather than Great Germany. The Prussian chancellor Bismarck pursued a ‘smaller’ German solution by going to war with Austro-Hungary, in 1866, and the ‘klein-deutsch’, Prussian led, outcome was cemented in the German Reich of 1871. Here Weber wants to knock back Prussia’s hegemony in the Reich—not a ‘great[er] Prussian’ state. As becomes clear in the text, he does want to include German-speaking Austria, the rump of the old Habsburg empire, in a new federal, larger German, state. 3. ‘Parlament und Regierung im neugeordneten Deutschland. Zur politischen Kritik des Beamtentums und Parteiwesen’ (MWG I/15: 421-596); ‘Parliament and Government in Germany under a new Political Order. Towards a political critique of officialdom and the party system’ (Weber 1994: 130-271). In a letter (12 December 1918) to the publisher Duncker & Humblot Weber asked how his earlier brochure (Parliament and Government) was selling, and he remarks, ‘jetzt ist sie ja antiquiert’ (MWG II/10: 353). 24 Max Weber Studies© Max Weber Studies 2021. of the dynasties that the future situation could only be viewed through parliamentarization. The really crucial material problems (social and financial) of the new construction still remain unresolved in the lap of the future, so that for the time being only the constructions of nonbinding frameworks of a state-technical kind are possible. 15 December 1918 Max Weber I The nation, politically uneducated, stands with inadequate and dilettantish powers before the task of replacing Bismarck’s creation with something different. That creation is now over. Already for reasons of foreign policy, which were so strongly tied into his construction. First of all because the Austrian dynasty has disintegrated—seen from Bismarck’s standpoint, [this was] engineered to sacrifice 10 million Germans from membership of the Reich for the sake of politically neutralising 30 million non-Germans.4 Further, because the dynastic alliance with Russia is gone, which was based on a common interest against the Poles and neutralizing them.5 Because the military epoch of German history has come to an end. Finally, because the existing dynastic solution of the smaller German problem (des kleindeutsches Problem) is anyway as little applicable in the future as the problem itself.6 What now? Although these preliminary issues appear at the moment to be practically settled, we ask once again: parliamentary monarchy or a republic? What role actual dynastic sentiments will play in the future remains to be seen. We were loyal to them from historical memory, in Baden also because of popular opinion...

‘Compulsory Independence’: Irish Nationalist Images of Empire and Republic after the Birth of Independent German-Austria, 1919–1922

Abstract After 1918, the birth of independent small states in Central Europe was a common point of reference in Ireland. This article aims to provide a more complex understanding of Irish images of postwar Austria, highlighting the coexistence of some elements of Austria’s imperial legacy and new characteristics of the independent small state. Irish commentators focused heavily on the newly drawn borders in Central Europe, including the redistribution of nationalities, which was considered a significant factor in the formulation of identities in the newly independent, self-declared nation-states. This article discusses how Irish intellectuals, journalists, and politicians connected the issues of changing borders and the ethnic composition of Austria to actual Irish problems, especially in relation to the question of (greater German) unity. In addition, this article also explores how the significance of religion in Irish national identity determined perceptions of postwar Austria. Catholicism came to symbolize more than the everyday religion of the majority of the Irish population, and it manifested itself in Irish perceptions of the wider world, including the small successor states of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.

Just West of East: The Paradoxical Place of the Theresienstadt Ghetto in Policy and Perception

Abstract When German authorities established the Theresienstadt Ghetto for Bohemian and Moravian Jews in late 1941, the site initially functioned much like other ghettos and transit camps at the time, as a mere way station to sites of extermination further East. The decision to reconfigure the ghetto as a site of internment for select “privileged” groups of Jews from Germany and Western Europe, and its advertisement as a “Jewish settlement” in Nazi propaganda, constituted an apparent paradox for a regime that sought to make the Greater German Reich “judenrein” (clean of Jews). This article investigates the Theresienstadt Ghetto from a historical-spatial perspective and argues that varying prejudices and degrees of antisemitism shaped divergent “spatial solutions” to segregate Jews from non-Jews, wherein the perceived divide between so-called “Ostjuden” and assimilated Western Jews played a central role. In this analysis, Theresienstadt emerges as a logical culmination to paradoxical policies designed to segregate select groups of German and assimilated Western European Jews.

Just West of East: The Paradoxical Place of the Theresienstadt Ghetto in Policy and Perception

Abstract When German authorities established the Theresienstadt Ghetto for Bohemian and Moravian Jews in late 1941, the site initially functioned much like other ghettos and transit camps at the time, as a mere way station to sites of extermination further East. The decision to reconfigure the ghetto as a site of internment for select “privileged” groups of Jews from Germany and Western Europe, and its advertisement as a “Jewish settlement” in Nazi propaganda, constituted an apparent paradox for a regime that sought to make the Greater German Reich “judenrein” (clean of Jews). This article investigates the Theresienstadt Ghetto from a historical-spatial perspective and argues that varying prejudices and degrees of antisemitism shaped divergent “spatial solutions” to segregate Jews from non-Jews, wherein the perceived divide between so-called “Ostjuden” and assimilated Western Jews played a central role. In this analysis, Theresienstadt emerges as a logical culmination to paradoxical policies designed to segregate select groups of German and assimilated Western European Jews.

BLUMENAU E SEUS IMIGRANTES: APONTAMENTOS ACERCA DA EMERGÊNCIA DE UMA CULTURA FÍSICA (1850-1899)

Situada no nordeste de Santa Catarina, na região do Vale do Itajaí, Blumenau é conhecida em todo o Brasil como uma das cidades com maior influência germânica em sua cultura e história. Nesse sentido, o presente ensaio foi norteado pela seguinte questão: como os clubes de tiro foram utilizados pelos imigrantes para a emergência de uma cultura física na cidade de Blumenau? As análises realizadas apontam para a centralidade dos Schützenvereine enquanto espaços importantes para o desenvolvimento e cultivo de tradições de práticas corporais trazidas do velho continente, bem como para a formação de importantes dispositivos para consolidação de uma cultura física por parte dos habitantes de Blumenau.

The Greater German Reich and the Jews: Nazi Persecution in the Annexed Territories 1935−1945

The Greater German Reich and the Jews: Nazi Persecution in the Annexed Territories 1935−1945

Book Review: Stefan Manz: Constructing a German Diaspora: The ‘Greater German Empire’, 1871–1914

Book Review: Stefan Manz: <i>Constructing a German Diaspora: The ‘Greater German Empire’, 1871–1914</i>

The Greater German Reich and the Jews: Nazi persecution policies in the annexed territories, 1935-1945

The Greater German Reich and the Jews: Nazi persecution policies in the annexed territories, 1935-1945

Constructing a German Diaspora: The ‘Greater German Empire’, 1871–1914

Constructing a German Diaspora: The ‘Greater German Empire’, 1871–1914

Dutch Face-ism. Portrait Photography and Völkisch Nationalism in the Netherlands

This article takes its cue from an essay by Gerhard Richter on Walter Benjamin and the fascist aestheticization of politics. It examines the portrait photography of Dutch photographer W.F. Van Heemskerck Düker, who was a true believer in the ideology of a Greater Germany. He published a number of illustrated books on the Dutch Heimat and worked together with German photographers Erna Lendvai-Dircksen and Erich Retzlaff. When considering what type of photography was best suited to capture the photographic aesthetics of the fascist nation, the article argues that within the paradigm of the Greater German Heimat we find not so much a form of anthropometric photography, as exemplified by the work of Hans F.K. Günther, as a genre of Heimat portraits that was better equipped to satisfy the need to unify two crucial structural oppositions in fascist ideology, namely mass versus individuality, and physical appearance versus inner soul.

The Holocaust and education: what impact did educators have on the implementation of anti-Judaic policies in 1930s Germany?

The successful introduction of formalised anti-Judaic policies in mid-1930s Germany was one of the steps toward the extermination of European Jewry through the implementation of the Final Solution. The current paper seeks to examine the role of social institutions, particularly educational systems within the greater German community, as agents of Nazi policy or agents of resistance in the years leading up to the Final Solution. In particular, the paper will emphasise the first years of Nazi power and the rise of the Third Reich. Documentation will include a general investigation into the reaction of professional educators as the nationalist hegemony of the Party came to rule curriculum and educational environs across Germany.

The Evolution of US Policy toward West German-Soviet Trade Relations 1969–89

From Nixon to Reagan, official US perceptions of West German trade with the Soviet Union (Osthandel) underwent a remarkable evolution. Despite initial skepticism, the Nixon and Ford administrations placed no major obstacles to West German–Soviet economic relations. Carter, however, changed the situation. His stance on human rights and economic sanctions against the Soviets for various developments - along with his belief that West Germany should follow the United States' lead - led Carter to ask Schmidt to curtail Osthandel, an action that contributed to Schmidt's notoriously poor relationship with the US President. Despite coming from a different political party, Reagan initially continued Carter's outlook on Osthandel. Yet rather than emphasize human rights, he publicly stressed Poland's self-determination as the reason to implement his aggressive policy to curb trade with the USSR, even though his advisers feared the strategic implications of greater German dependence on Soviet energy. Carter's and Reagan's early approaches were ineffective. Their actions, especially the latter's, strained US relations with Germany, the United States' most important ally in central Europe. Equally important, both Carter's and Reagan's policies undermined détente with Moscow. Because Nixon and Ford's approach to Osthandel harmed neither US–German relations nor US–Soviet relations, these presidents' responses had conspicuous advantages over succeeding administrations.

Limits of nationalist mobilization: Bromberg/Bydgoszcz in theKaiserreich,1900–1918

Discussions about ethnic mobilization in eastern Europe have emphasized efforts of nationalist leaders to demarcate their community from their neighbors in mixed areas where ethnic boundaries and identities were blurred. Demarcation became a common means of defining the community both geographically and culturally, a process which later facilitated the community's mobilization. In the German Empire, however, the Polish-German demarcation was already stark, since it mostly coincided with Catholic-Protestant demarcations. But while the Polish community mobilized quickly and showed great solidarity, the German community did not. Using the Bromberg/Bydgoszcz administrative district as a model, the article argues that the local German community's internal divisions limited its ability to mobilize. Germans agreed on the need for greater German community solidarity, but differed on conceptualizations of its ideal structure and form. Liberal nationalists, envisioning a more egalitarian community defined by a common ethnicity, fought with local conservatives, who were as intent on preserving their prominence within the community as they were on struggling with the Poles. Such divisions crippled local German mobilization on any scale comparable to their Polish neighbors, suggesting that an ethnic community's self-demarcation is necessary but not sufficient to ensure its mobilization.

Social Construction and System in Legal Theory: A Response to Professor Preuss

Preuss' paper significantly advances the critical theory of law. As a side benefit, he provides English-speakers with an excellent introduction to the work of two leading West German participants in the debate, Jürgen Habermas and Gunther Teubner. Preuss' paper reveals considerable common ground between critical legal theorists in Germany and the United States, but also important differences of perspective and concern. I suspect that many American legal critics will think that Preuss' criticisms of Habermas and Teubner do not go far enough, that his criticisms raise a fundamental challenge to the current emphasis on structure and system in the German debate. In any event, Preuss' paper suggests the usefulness of a greater German “reception” of the American emphasis on agency and social construction. No doubt American legal criticism would likewise be enriched by entering into a more sustained dialogue with structuralist and systems theory.

From liberal nationalism to cosmopolitan patriotism: Simon Deutsch and 1848ers in exile

For many inhabitants of the Habsburg Empire, the Revolution of 1848 represented a common formative experience, signifying their entrance into the public sphere, their initial participation in politics and civil society. While some revolutionaries were executed or given amnesty, many sought refuge in Zurich, London, Constantinople, and especially Paris. This paper examines this international (and largely ‘cosmopolitan’) network of 1848ers in exile, focusing in particular on Simon Deutsch (1822–77), a young Austrian Jew who became a radical journalist in Vienna during the Revolution, as well as an ardent proponent of the ‘Greater German Solution’ [Grossdeutsche Lösung], before fleeing the firing squads at the end of 1848. During his thirty years in exile (Zurich, London, Paris, Constantinople, Madrid), this curious figure became involved in the Paris Commune, the International Workingmen's Association, and even helped found the New Ottomans (during his prolonged sojourn in Paris). His contacts with fellow 1848s from the Habsburg Empire and from other European countries (e.g. Karl Marx, Moses Hess) helped inform the perennial tension between liberal nationalism and international socialism that characterised Deutsch's life.

Austrians into German Soldiers: The Integrative Impact of Wehrmacht Service on Austrian Soldiers during World War II

In March 1983, germany annexed the Republic of Austria, incorporating it into the Greater German Reich. Thereafter, about 1.2 million Austrians eligible for military service were draft ed into the German armed forces: the Wehrmacht. Although we know where largely Austrian contingents fought in World War II, little is known about what, if anything, set them apart from their Reich German comrades. Nor do we know much about their attitudes, their “mindset,” or their subjective experience of military service and war.1 Because we know so little about the attitudes of Austrian soldiers in the Wehrmacht, and since army service—in contrast to membership in the SS or NSDAP—was largely mandatory, it is still possible to argue that Austrians were unwilling soldiers, sacrificed in a war that was not theirs, and that discrimination by foreign rulers fostered an Austrian national consciousness.

The DollfuΒ Ministry: The Demise of the Nationalrat

The demise of Parliament in March 1933 was the most significant single act in the march to semifascism in Austria, which began with the formation of the Heimwehr in the early days of the First Republic and was well under way when significant changes were made in the government on September 21,1933, and a concentration camp was established at Wöllersdorf a few days later. Traditional democratic means were employed to abolish Parliament. Dollfuβ, the Heimwehr, and the Christian Social Party only did what parties in power in democracies do when under attack. They used all the means at their disposal to protect their government from being overthrown. The Social Democrats and Greater Germans, likewise, employed only democratic means in their effort to overthrow the Dollfuβ regime and to preserve a democratically elected Parliament. Dollfuβ and the leaders of all but the National Socialist Party in Austria were well aware of the great danger to Austria that stemmed from the intensification of National Socialist efforts to overthrow a democratic form of government in Austria after Hitler came to power in Germany and knew that the German National Socialists were providing financial support to the Austrian Greater German Party to support them in their efforts to take control of Austria.