Margaret Lavinia Anderson

THE LIMITS OF SECULARIZATION, ON THE PROBLEM OF THE CATHOLIC REVIVAL IN 19TH-CENTURY GERMANY

The Limits of Secularization: On the Problem of the Catholic Revival in Nineteenth-Century Germany Author(s): Margaret Lavinia Anderson Source: The Historical Journal, Vol. 38, No. 3, (Sep., 1995), pp. 647-670 Published by: Cambridge University Press Stable URL: http://www.jstororg/stable/2640007 Accessed: 31/07/2008 12:56 Y our use of the J STOR archive indicates your acceptance of ]STORs Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.j stor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.j sp. JSTO Rs Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the]STOR archive only for your personal, non—commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup. Each copy of any part of a]STOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not—for—profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about] STO R, please contact support@jstor.org. http://www.j stor.org

Voter, junker, landrat, priest: The old authorities and the new franchise in Imperial Germany

Voter, Junker, Landrat, Priest: The Old Authorities and the New Franchise in Imperial Germany Margaret Lavinia Anderson The American Historical Review, Vol. 98, No. 5 (Dec., 1993), 1448-1474. Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=OOO2—8762%28199312%2998%3A5%3C1448%3AVJLPTO%3E2.0.CO%3B2—L The American Historical Review is currently published by American Historical Association. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of J STOR’s Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/about/terms.html. JSTOR’s Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/joumals/aha.html. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is an independent not—for—profit organization dedicated to creating and preserving a digital archive of scholarly journals. For more information regarding JSTOR, please contact support@ j stor.org. http://www.jstor.org/ Fri Jun 3 16:42:25 2005

Down in Turkey, far away: human rights, the Armenian Massacres, and Orientalism in Wilhelmine Germany

“Down in Turkey, far away”: Human Rights, the Armenian Massacres, and Orientalism in Wilhelmine Germany Author(s): Margaret Lavinia Anderson Source: The Journal of Modern History, Vol. 79, No. 1 (March 2007), pp. 80-111 Published by: The University of Chicago Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/517545 . Accessed: 07/07/2013 13:58 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org. The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal of Modern History. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 169.229.32.136 on Sun, 7 Jul 2013 13:58:54 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Interdenominationalism, Clericalism, Pluralism: The Zentrumsstreit and the Dilemma of Catholicism in Wilhelmine Germany

In April 1909 Emil Schuler, a Jew of Lippstadt, a small town in Catholic Westphalia, died. The passing of this otherwise unremarkable man was noted in a number of newspapers because Schuler was known to be both a good “Israelite” and a loyal supporter of the Center Party—a party denounced as “ultramontane” by its enemies and acknowledged even by its friends to have a constituency almost entirely Catholic. The Judische Rundschau commented, however, that it considered this Lippstadt Jews political allegiance “absolutely worth considering,” opining that recent proceedings in the Reichstag had shown that at least the religious interests of Jews found better representation within the Center than with, for example, either Liberalism or Social Democracy.

From Syllabus to Shoah

Margaret Lavinia Anderson Published : Central European History, vol. 34, no. 2 (2001): 231-38 Review Article From Syllabus to Shoah? Katholicizismus und Antisemitismus im Deutschen Kaiserreich. By Olaf Blaschke. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1997. pp. 443. DM 78.00. ISBN 3-525-35785-0 kart. Why have Catholics have gotten off so lightly when guilt for German antisemitism has been assessed? Their demonstrably high levels of immunity to the siren calls of National Socialism during the Weimar Republics last elections have made them look good, at least in comparison to other groups. The harassment and at times persecution of their clergy under the Nazi dictatorship underscored the incompatibility between the Catholicism and this most antisemitic of regimes. And finally, most historians of Germany are aware that the representatives of the Church had, long before the movements triumph under Hitler, vehemently denounced antisemitism. In this study of antisemitic discourse within German Catholicism, Olaf Blaschke has knocked the props out from under that last piece of evidence. In a brilliant piece of Begriffsgeschichte, Blaschke reminds us of the pejorative connotations that adhered to the term antisemite, which was, after all, a neologism, indelibly associated with the radical, vulgar, obviously

Reply to Volker Berghahn (German Empire, 1871-1914)

REPLY TO VOLKER BERGHAHN I am grateful to Volker Berghahn for the chance to clarify our differences as well as for the characteristic civility of his critique. In what follows, I will 1) take issue with his view of German historiography; 2) rebut his charge that recent scholarship has left us with a fragmented, ultimately undecipherable picture of the Kaiserreich; and 3) explain why I think my own argument in Practicing Democracy, which he agrees takes seriously the oppressive features of German society, is more persuasive than his picture of deterioration to the point of impasse and ungovernability. I. Any author would be flattered to have her work singled out as pars in toto for two generations of historiography. Whether those cultural historians who have written on art, Burgertum, childhood, Heimat, monuments, pub life, old age, rural piety, science, urban crime, and women are equally delighted to be dispatched by proxy via a critique of a book focussed relentlessly on electoral politics, I leave to them. They may well feel that my faults, and even my virtues, are not theirs. The narrative that allows Professor Berghahn to group such disparate works together is a simple one. For him, the modern historiography of the Kaiserreich begins in the sixties and early seventies on a Fischerite and Bielefeldian foundation. Then comes the historiographical Zweite Berghahn, Germany and the Approach to War (St. Martins, 1993), 13.

Clerical Election Influence and Communal Solidarity: Catholic Political Culture in the German Empire, 1871–1914

In 1863 Franz Josef Hergenrother, Professor of Church History in Wurzburg, subjected the question of the clergy’s role in elections to careful analysis. Hergenrother was no liberal. His defence of papal infallibility in 1870 would soon gain him notoriety. Yet in his discussion of the propriety of clerical participation in electoral politics, Hergenrother proved to be anything but an ultramontane hotspur. He pointed frankly to the pitfalls of both abstinence and ‘engagement’. Engagement encouraged the impression that the clergy pursued worldly ends. Yet the priest was a citizen, and if, in constitutional countries, where elections were so important, he failed to make use of his political rights, he neglected his duty to the Church and set a bad example for others. Even so, a priest must not campaign, he must not harangue crowds, he must not become involved in party battles. It was a thin line the Reverend Professor was drawing, and he conceded that mistakes would be made. But ‘the clergy will be ignored if it ignores the conditions of present society’, he concluded. A ‘mute onlooker ..., risks losing the confidence of the people’.1

Ataturk in the Nazi Imagination

Central European History vol. 39, no. 1. BOOK REVIEWS book is often chaotic, lacks clear development, is repetitious, and makes irrelevant jumps through time—all of which, in the end, needlessly blur his narrative. L EO VAN B ERGEN R OYAL N ETHERLANDS I NSTITUTE OF S OUTHEAST A SIAN AND C ARIBBEAN S TUDIES doi:10.1017/S0008938916000224 Ataturk in the Nazi Imagination. By Stefan Ihrig. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2014. Pp. 311. Cloth

Der Kampf um die Wahlfreiheit im Kaiserreich: Zur parlamentarischen Wahlprüfung und politischen Realität der Reichstagswahlen 1871–1914. By Robert Arsenschek. Beiträge zur Geschichte des Parlamentarismus und der politischen Parteien, volume 136. Düsseldorf: Droste Verlag, 2003. Pp. 420. €49.80.

29.95. ISBN 978-0674368378. It is rare to read a work of history that is both startling and true, but Ataturk in the Nazi Imagination is both. Reading through “hundreds, perhaps thousands” (194) of texts published in German newspapers between 1919 and 1945, Stefan Ihrig has discovered the German Right’s “obsession” (14, 27) with Turkey, which culminated in a Mustafa Kemal Ataturk cult comparable to that of the Turkish Republic. The atmosphere of the Nazi movement was “saturated with ‘Turkey’” (101), and articles on Turkey outnumbered those on all other countries combined. As Ihrig points out, one finds almost nothing about Turkey in studies of National Socialism. Yet, as early as 1920, Turkey was repeatedly depicted on the Right as a “role model” (Vorkampfer) for Germany. Ihrig’s readings of the “media frenzy” (151) over Turkey’s War of Independence are es- pecially incisive. Given the German elites’ traditional philhellenism, some papers had initially favored Greece, but eventually all of them turned against it, as seen in their lopsided com- mentary on the massacres committed on both sides, and in their admiration for Turkey’s defiant behavior at the 1923 Conference of Lausanne. By overturning the 1920 Diktat forced on Turkey in Paris, Team Ankara had won German hearts. What explained Turkey’s success? Turkey had a Fuhrer who had, ignoring the Ottoman leadership in Constantinople, established his own government on the periphery (Ankara), stamped an army out of the ground, and, through sheer force of will, reconquered Anatolia from its Greek and Armenian minorities and their French allies: “a revisionist-nationalist dream come true” (11). Turkey was a “‘parallel Germany,’ where things went the way they were supposed to” (64). Ataturk abolished opposition parties, introduced an autarchic economy, and ruled an ethnically cleansed, racially pure population of farmer-warriors. The New Turkey was everything the Weimar Republic was not. Ihrig revises our picture of National Socialism in a number of ways. He topples Benito Mussolini from his pedestal as a source of Adolf Hitler’s inspiration. Until the Italian alliance in the 1930s, il Duce was barely mentioned in the Nazi press. By contrast, Ataturk, as Hitler would later proclaim and his press endlessly repeat, was the German leader’s “star in the dark- ness” during the long years before 1933. In arguing that Turkey mirrored the Nazi utopia, Ihrig casts a skeptical eye on the recent thesis that Nazis thought themselves Christian: crush- ing the “churches” (i.e., Islamic institutions) was “an integral ingredient, if not one of the preconditions” (225) of Turkey’s success. Ihrig’s most exciting chapter is his second, “Ankara in Munich,” on the 1923 Beerhall Putsch. In the run-up to November 9, 1923, Heimatland, the organ of Bavaria’s paramilitary

Democracy in the Undemocratic State: The German Reichstag Elections of 1898 and 1903 . By Brett Fairbairn. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. 1997. Pp. xiv + 408. Cloth

Book Reviews many ended in thralldom to eugenics. The irony of this “convergence” is not lost on Hau, who chooses to end his tale with the defeat of Ungewitter and his supporters in a futile campaign against the Nazis’ program of compulsory vaccination. “Ungewitter’s totalitarian vision of a society that subordinated the rights of individuals to the health of the Volksko¨rper was realized, but it was not his own version of a hygienic utopia,” the author concludes; “Regular physicians, not life reformers, were entrusted with the task of purifying and beautifying the German Volk in the Nazi extermination programs. Such visions proved much more compatible with modern scientific medicine than Un- gewitter could have imagined” (206). Much more could be said about this rich and rewarding book. Combining theoretical frames derived from Pierre Bourdieu, Mikhail Bakhtin, Sander Gilman, and Sheila Faith Weiss with much of the recent work on the German middle classes, Hau applies a sophisticated interpretive lens to a particularly illuminating region of German social and cultural history in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Much is un- doubtedly gained from such an approach, though the emphasis on class distinctions at times also seems to obscure the dynamics of disputes that did not necessarily orbit around bu¨rgerliche Kultur. Yet while the categories of social historical analysis at times get in the way, more often they prove extremely effective in revealing the vast amount of interplay across lines of class, race, and gender that Hau has done so much to recover. K EVIN R EPP Yale University Margaret Lavinia Anderson, Review of: Der Kampf um die Wahlfreiheit im Kaiserreich: Zur parlamentarischen Wahlpru¨fung und politischen Realita¨t der Reichstagswahlen 1871–1914. By Robert Arsenschek. Beitra¨ge zur Geschichte des Parlamentarismus und der politischen Parteien, volume 136. Du¨sseldorf: Droste Verlag, 2003. Pp. 420. €49.80. This important book examines the interactions between three sorts of German histories that are rarely, if ever, brought into systematic relationship with one another: the All- tagsgeschichte of election campaigns and polling days, the institutional history of the Reichstag as it ruled on disputed outcomes, and the constitutional history of the empire. In exploring these relationships, Robert Arsenschek joins Christoph Scho¨neberger and Hartwin Spenkuch among a new generation of scholars in offering a powerful challenge to recent arguments that the trajectory of German development pointed in increasingly democratic directions. Although Arsenschek adds interesting material to our picture of the election Alltag, the interplay between executive and legislature is the heart of his story. Never have the election policies and behavior of Germany’s various governments been investigated in such breadth and depth. And in demonstrating systematically how national elections were affected by Germany’s federalist structure, Arsenschek breaks new ground. The laws governing associations, assemblies, and police surveillance varied, until 1908, with each state. Similarly varied were the press laws regulating the distribution of printed matter (which included ballots), as well as the definitions of an “immediate state official” and a “recipient of poor relief”—the former was excluded from sitting on election panels; the latter, from voting altogether. Should a man whose children’s school fees were paid out of public funds be disenfranchised in national elections in one state while in another state there were no school fees? The vagaries of Germany’s [Translation: The Struggle for Free Elections in the German Empire: On parliamentary scrutinies and political reality in imperial elections 1871-1914]