Arnd Bauerkämper

Transnational Fascism: Cross-Border Relations between Regimes and Movements in Europe, 1922-1939

In recent debates about transnational and inter-cultural approaches in historiography, crossborder relations have usually assumed a positive connotation for mutually enriching the parties involved. However, research on bilateral relationships between Italian Fascism and German National Socialism and of fascist movements in other European states demonstrate that transnational exchange is normatively ambivalent, i.e. it can comply with our aims, wishes and expectations or not. This contribution will present evidence for the attractiveness of Italian Fascism and German Nazism throughout Europe in the 1920s and 1930s. Beyond high politics, cooperation between fascists extended to other areas, like recreation and public relations. Nevertheless, fascist movements and regimes appropriated foreign doctrines and policies selectively in order to avert the charge of copying foreign models. They also stressed their nationalist credentials. Yet hypernationalism was deeply ingrained in fascist ideology, too. Thus, cooperation between European fascists was continuously hampered by mutual antagonism. Altogether, fascist nationalism and transnationalism were interrelated rather than mutually exclusive. Nevertheless, cross-border cooperation between fascist movements should not be underestimated or reduced to wartime collaboration.

Europe as Social Practice: Towards an Interactive Approach to Modern European History

The article starts with analyzing the inherent comparative frameworks influencing the way Europe is usually mapped with regard to historical regions. Such regions have been frequently devised in terms of dualistic spatial and temporal concepts contrasting central vs. peripheral and “progressive” vs. “backward” entities. Rejecting these concepts, the study advocates a reconsideration of the spatial dimension in terms of “entangled history”/history of transfers, becoming more sensitive to the complex interplay between different regions. At the same time, the author rejects the one-sided application of “entangled history” as it absolutizes the interaction and excludes the possibility of structural analyses of the differences between transmitting and recipient societies. Therefore, he pleads for a creative combination of the comparative method with the more recent methodological precepts stressing transnational interaction.

Interwar Fascism in Europe and Beyond: Toward a Transnational Radical Right

On September 28, 1937, millions of Germans listened to the Italian Duce Mussolini when he declared at a mass rally in Berlin: “Comrades!… The rallies which have been held for my reception have deeply moved me.… I have not only come to you as head of the Italian government but also as leader of a national revolution who would like to give evidence of the overt and firm bonds [I have with] your revolution. Though the development of the two revolutions might have been different, the aim that we wish to achieve is the same: the unity and greatness of the people. Fascism and National Socialism are expressions of the sameness of the historical processes in the lives of our nations, which have achieved unity in the same century and as a result of the same events.… Tomorrow’s Europe will be Fascist as a result of the logical successions of events, not as a result of our propaganda.… Germany has woken up. The Third Reich has emerged. I do not know when Europe will wake up It is important, however, that our two great peoples, which encompass a vast and growing mass of 115 million people, are united in unshakable determination. Today’s gigantic rally conveys this to the world.”1 Although he had by no means abandoned his claims of Italian superiority in the alliance with Germany, Mussolini clearly conceived Fascism as a political challenge that was to transcend national borders.2

German Philanthropy in International and Transnational Perspective

This chapter introduces twentieth century German philanthropy in the context of transnational exchange situating it in a triangular relationship with the United States and the developing world, primarily through Africa. It includes an explanation of the theoretical approach to philanthropy, characteristics of German philanthropy, and a strong emphasis on the idea of transnational exchange. It will thereby contribute to transnational studies of philanthropy that deal with contacts, coalitions, and interactions between nongovernmental institutions and actors across state boundaries. The volume aims to shift the analytical focus from singular interactions between donor (in one country) and recipient (in another) to multiple forms of connectedness, entanglements, and transfers at various subnational or supranational levels.

“America” as an Argument: References to US Foundations in Debates About Scientific Funding in West Germany from 1945 to the mid-1970s

Arnd Bauerkamper investigates the interactions between American and German philanthropy by focusing on German academics. He analyzes the shift from the late 1940s and 1950s. At the same time, in the framework of the Cold War US foundations tried to implement pluralism, mutual respect, and discursive openness to the 1960s when German actors looked at American models of academic funding (paradoxically at a time when US foundations were under attack at home). By using the concepts of converse interests and asynchronic relationship, Bauerkamper argues that German reformers used US models to pressure for internal reforms and thus points to a selected Americanization and appropriation of “American” solutions to justify particular domestic causes and interests.

Zwischen Sozialstaat und kultureller Heterogenität: Philanthropie und Patronage in deutschen und amerikanischen Städten im späten 19. und frühen 20. Jahrhundert

Abstract Der Beitrag behandelt das Verhältnis von Zivilgesellschaft und Kapitalismus anhand des philanthropischen Handels wirtschaftsbürgerlicher Eliten in deutschen und amerikanischen Städten von den 1870er Jahren bis 1914. In beiden Ländern war das Stiften und Spenden wohlhabender Unternehmer eine Form der Patronage. Für ihre Unterstützung erwarteten die reichen Geber jeweils Anerkennung und Loyalität. Zumindest in den großen Städten war die Wirkung großbürgerlicher Philanthropie als Instrument der Patronage jedoch zusehends begrenzt. In den Vereinigten Staaten bildete sich zunehmend eine differenzierte Kultur zivilgesellschaftlichen Engagements heraus. In Deutschland verengte besonders der Aufstieg des Wohlfahrtsstaates die Spielräume der Patronagephilanthropie, obwohl beides vielerorts koexistierte.

European Integration by Cross-Border Exchange: Actors in Transnational and National Spaces in the Emerging Civil Society since the Late Eighteenth Century

European integration has been promoted — and impeded — ‘from below’ long before terms like ‘Europeanisation’ were coined and the political process of unification started in the early 1950s. This contribution will deal with the gradual, though by no means linear or uninterrupted rapprochement of Europeans by investigating the emergence and transformation of cross-border civil societies since the eighteenth century. A social history of the gradual emergence of self-organisation beyond the borders of territorial nation-states has to include the perspectives of specific groups and actors. Thus, sharp differences in the usage of the term ‘civil society’ by late-eighteenth century hommes de lettres and members of contemporary anti-globalisation movements like Attac or, for example, diplomats in international organisations, can be detected. However, they have been united by the overriding goal of establishing a civil society across territorial, administrative and cultural borders. Historical investigations of this transnational activism must reconstruct the meanings of ‘civil society’, not least in order to grasp its features and explain its impact. As will be argued in this chapter, exchange between crucial actors of civil society initiated a rapprochement. This long-term process can be conceived of as a ‘European integration’ before the concept had been coined and the political process started. By concentrating on actors of civil society in general and international nongovernmental organisations in particular, this chapter will reconstruct the neglected cross-border encounters, transfers and entanglements between Europeans ‘from below’. It will utilise the established and proven historical comparison as well as more recent transnational approaches that have been discussed as methodological tools in historiography in the last two decades (Bauerkamper 2013: 27–42).

Bürgerschaftliches Engagement zwischen Erneuerung und Abbruch

Das Konzept der „Engagementpolitik“ ist in der sozialwissenschaftlichen und historischen Forschung bislang noch nicht profiliert. Jedoch konnen empirische Untersuchungen auf die Diskussion und die vorliegenden Studien uber Burgertum und Burgerlichkeit bezogen werden. Diese Forschungsrichtungen verbindet die Konzentration auf das freiwillige und offentliche Engagement von Burgern fur Ziele, die nicht partikularen Interessen verpflichtet sind. Uberdies basiert das wissenschaftliche Interesse fur burgerschaftliches Engagement – explizit oder implizit – auf der Uberzeugung, dass die skizzierten Formen sozialen Handelns die Qualitat von Gesellschaften gleichermasen widerspiegelt und pragt. So ist in neueren Untersuchungen ein enger Nexus zwischen dem Ausmas der individuellen Einbindung in freiwilliges Engagement und der sozialen Integration von Personen nachgewiesen worden. Das Spektrum burgerschaftlichen Engagements umfasst dabei uber ehrenamtliches Engagement hinaus Mazenatentum, die Beteiligung an Selbsthilfegruppen und unterschiedliche Formen institutionalisierter wie informeller politischer Partizipation (Gensicke 2006: 12; Geiss 2006; Evers 2003: 153; Enquete- Kommission Deutscher Bundestag 2002).

Bodenreform und Kollektivierung

„Bodenreform“ und „Kollektivierung“ sind nicht eindeutig besetzte politische Begriffe. Sie werden in Deutschland jedoch weitgehend auf die in der Sowjetischen Besatzungszone (SBZ) und der DDR von 1945 bis 1960 durchgesetzten agrarpolitischen Eingriffe bezogen. Die Konzepte sind ursprunglich allerdings aus der Diskussion uber die Produktivitat und Legitimitat des Grosgrundbesitzes hervorgegangen, die im spaten 18. Jahrhundert einsetzte. Mit der Erweiterung der besitzlosen Unterschichten auf dem Lande wurde seit dem fruhen 19. Jahrhundert zunehmend eine Umverteilung des Grosgrundbesitzes gefordert. Nach den Agrarreformen, die in der ersten Halfte des 19. Jahrhunderts in den deutschen Staaten durchgefuhrt wurden, verlangten nicht nur Karl Marx (1818–1883) und Friedrich Engels (1820–1895), sondern auch burgerliche Sozialreformer wie Adolf Damaschke (1865–1935), Guter oder die Ertrage des Grosgrundbesitzes Bauern zuzuteilen, nicht zuletzt um der zunehmenden Landflucht zu begegnen.