Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T12:27:47.848Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Post-Mortem on Prussia: The East German Position

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 December 2008

Andreas Dorpalen
Andreas Dorpalen
Affiliation:
Ohio State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In the East German Marxist-Leninist analysis of German history the role of Prussia, of the Prussian state and the Junkers, of Prussian militarism and agrarianism have received a great deal of attention. Since they are regarded as major causes of the catastrophes that subsequently befell Germany, this concern is of course not surprising. Moreover, class interests, special socio-economic configurations, the transition from feudal conditions to a capitalist-industrial system played so manifest a role in Prussia's rise that Marxist scholars, if only for that reason, were bound to turn to the investigation of these developments.

Type
Articles
Information
Central European History , Volume 4 , Issue 4 , December 1971 , pp. 332 - 345
Copyright
Copyright © Conference Group for Central European History of the American Historical Association 1971

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

This paper was read in slightly modified form at the annual meeting of the American Historical Association at Boston, on December 29, 1970.

1. Schilfert, Gerhard, Deutschland von 1648 bis 1789 (East Berlin, 1967), pp. 39–43;Google ScholarOlaf, Groehler, Die Kriege Friedrichs II. (East Berlin, 1968), pp. 11–13.Google Scholar

2. Schilfert, pp. 52–53, 111–12, 217; also Streisand, Joachim, Deutsche Geschichte in einem Band (East Berlin, 1968), p. 66;Google ScholarKuczynski, Jürgen, “Die Krise des Feudalismus in Deutschland,” Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Gesellschafts-und sprachwissenschaftliche Reihe, IV (1954–1955), 103–104.Google Scholar Significantly, a major objection of the Junkers to their being taxed was that this might put them on an equal footing with the other estates. See Carsten, F. L., The Origins of Prussia (Oxford, 1954), pp. 185–86, 192.Google Scholar

3. Schilfert, pp. 39–40, 218; also Groehler, p. 12; Mottek, Hans, Wirtschaftsgeschichte Deutschlands (East Berlin, 1964–1968), 1, 255–56.Google Scholar

4. Schilfert, pp. 52–53, 57, 111; Groehler, pp. 16; Streisand, Deutsche Geschichte, p. 66. Büsch, Otto, Militärsystem und Sozialleben im alten Preussen (West Berlin, 1962)Google Scholar, contains a great deal of material on the substantial revenues available to the Prussian officer above the rank of captain in the 18th century.

5. Schilfert, pp. 112–13. Cf. Büsch, pp. 51–56.

6. In fact, Streisand is taken to task by one reviewer of his Deutsche Geschichte for allowing too much space to personalities, especially the German princes, while the masses are shown as the “heroes of history” only when they part in major actions; Schmiedt, R. F., in Zeitschrift für Geschichtswissenschaft (ZfG), XVIII (1970), 826–27.Google Scholar See also the criticism of Mottek's “subjectivist” treatment of Frederick II in Uwe-Jens Heuer, Allgemeines Landrecht und Klassenkampf (East Berlin, 1960) p. 53, n. 8.Google Scholar

7. Schilfert, pp. 53, 55; Vogler, Günter, in ZfG, XVIII (1970), 532.Google Scholar

8. Schilfert, pp. 111, 114–15, 117; also Mottek, 1, 260–61; Streisand, Deutsche Geschichte, p. 66, who devotes barely a quarter-page to Frederick William I. On Frederick William I as Bürgerkonig see Skalweit, Stephan, “Friedrich Wilhelm I. und die preussisische Historie,” Jahrbuch für die Geschichte Mittel- und Ostdeutschlands, VI (1957), 117;Google ScholarKlein, Ernst, “Der preussische Absolutismus,” in Preussen: Epochen und Probleme seiner Geschichte, ed. Dietrich, Richard (West Berlin, 1964), p. 83;Google ScholarDietrich, Richard, Kleine Geschichte Preussens (West Berlin, 1966), p. 77.Google Scholar

9. Schilfert, pp. 158–61, 165–68, 174–76, 179–82 (quotation on p. 167; similarly Ingrid Mittenzwei, in ZfG, XVIII [1970], 532); Streisand, Deutsche Geschichte, pp. 69–70; Mottek, I, 260, 277–80, 303–306, 359. In a way this viewpoint does not differ very much from that of non-Marxist historians. See, for example, Rothfels, Hans, “Friedrich der Grosse und der Staat,” Geschichte in Wissenschaft und Unterricht, XIII (1962), 634–35.Google Scholar However, Rothfels's attitude toward Frederick is characterized by a curious ambivalence: while in the above-cited passage he describes the king's policies as strictly utilitarian, in another passage he claims that they were inspired by humanitarian impulses (ibid., p. 628). There is a similar ambiguity in Hajo Holborn's and Gerhard Ritter's evaluations of Frederick: Holborn, Hajo, A History of Modern Germany (New York, 1959–1969), II, 242, 262ff.;Google ScholarRitter, Gerhard, Das deutsche Problem (Munich, 1962), pp. 30ff.Google Scholar

10. Müller, Hans-Heinrich, “Der agrarische Fortschritt und die Bauern in Brandenburg vor den Reformen von 1807,” ZfG, XII (1964), 636ff.;Google ScholarMittenzwei, Ingrid and Lehmann, Hannelore, “Die marxistische Forschung in der DDR zum brandenburgisch-preussischen Territorialstaat im Zeitalter des Absolutismus (Mitte des 17. Jahrhunderts bis 1789),” Jahrbuch für Geschichte, III (1969), 340ff.Google Scholar, with additional references.

11. Schilfert, pp. 90, 131–36, 163–64, 216–17, who tends, however, to overrate the actual impact of popular opposition; Heuer, pp. 37ff., who also attributes the changeover to capitalist production methods in part to pressures from below, though without any factual evidence; Streisand, , Deutschland von 1789 bis 1815 (East Berlin, 1961), p. 5.Google Scholar Certain that developments had reached a stage where there must have been more popular unrest than has so far been uncovered, one East German historian called for further research in that direction: Herzfeld, Erika, in ZfG, VIII (1960), 194.Google Scholar See also Mittenzwei and Lehmann, p. 344.

12. Kuczynski, p. 105. That developments, however, were not as completely blocked as he claims was shown above. See also the East German authors cited in n. 10.

13. Marx-Engels-Lenin-Stalin, , Zur deutschen Geschichte (East Berlin, 1954), II, Pt. I, 879–81; Mottek, II, 35–40;Google ScholarKuczynski, Jürgen, Die Geschichte der Lage der Arbeiter unterdem Kapitalismus (East Berlin, 1961), I, 62–64.Google Scholar See also Heuer, pp. 90–93, who traces the “Prussian way” back to the Prussian Code of 1794.

14. Eichholtz, Dietrich, Junker und Bourgeoisie vor 1848 in der preussischen Eisenbahngeschichte (East Berlin, 1962);Google Scholar Kuczynski, Geschichte, I, 119. For a conclusion quite similar to Kuczynski's by a West German scholar see Koselleck, Reinhart, Preussen zwischen Reform und Revolution (Stuttgart, 1967), p. 87.Google Scholar

15. Geschichte der deutschen Arbeiterbewegung, ed. by the Institute for Marxism-Leninism at the Central Committee of the Socialist Unity Party (East Berlin, 1966), I, 90ff.;Google ScholarObermann, Karl, Deustchland von 1815 bis 1849 (East Berlin, 1967), pp. 235ff.Google Scholar For a more detailed discussion of the inconsistencies in the Marxist analyses of the bourgeois position see Dorpalen, Andreas, “Die Revolution von 1848 in der Geschichtsschreibung der DDR,” Historische Zeitschrift, CCX (1970), 335–37.Google Scholar

16. Engelberg, Ernst, Deutschland von 1849 bis 1871 (East Berlin, 1965), pp. 57, 70;Google ScholarWeber, Rolf, Kleinbürgerliche Demokraten in der deutschen Einheitsbewegung: 1863–1866 (East Berlin, 1962), p. 23.Google Scholar The West German scholar Wolfgang Zorn provides an interesting corroboration of Weber's conclusion when he points out that “Since railroad lines were being built across state boundaries, railroad stockholders [among whom were many noblemen] also became some sort of stockholders in national unification.” Zorn, Wolf-gang, “Wirtschafts- und sozialgeschichtliche Zusammenhänge der deutschen Reichsgründungzeit (1850–1879),” in Moderne deutsche Sozialgeschichte, ed. Wehler, Hans-Ulrich (Cologne and West Berlin, 1966), p. 260.Google Scholar

17. See, e.g., Engelberg, p. 118.

18. On this question see Dorpalen, Andreas, “The Unification of Germany in East German Perspective,” American Historical Review, LXXIII (1968), 1075–78.Google Scholar

19. Engelberg, pp. 73–74, 151–52; Kuczynski, Geschichte, II, 1.

20. Statements of Bismarck and Roon, quoted in Hamerow, p. 14.

21. Engelberg, Ernst, “Zur Entstehung und historischen Stellung des preussisch-deutschen Bonapartismus,” in Beiträge zum neuen Geschichtsbild, ed. Klein, Fritz and Streisand, Joachim (East Berlin, 1956), pp. 236ff.Google Scholar The (pseudo-)plebiscitary element which non-Marxists associate with the concept of Bonapartism is ignored in the Marxist definition.

22. On the English and French developments see Moore, Barrington, Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy: Lord and Peasant in the Making of the Modern World (Boston, 1966), ch. I and II.Google Scholar

23. In Silesia, as Johannes Ziekursch has shown, the nobility far outdistanced the burghers in launching manufacturing enterprises after the Seven Years' War. Ziekursch quotes a Silesian official as stating in 1792 that the nobility was “the most dangerous competitor of the burgher, who was trailing far behind it.” Similar conditions existed in the two provinces of East and West Prussia and presumably also in other parts of the state. Ziekursch, Johannes, Das Ergebnis der friderizianischen Städteverwaltung und die Städteordung Steins (Jena, 1908), pp. 22ff.Google Scholar (quotation on p. 26), and pp.x–xi. See also Holborn, II, 266–67.

24. Rosenberg, Hans, Bureaucracy, Aristocracy and Autocracy: The Prussian Experience 1660–1815 (Cambridge, Mass., 1958), pp. 175ff.;Google ScholarHolborn, Hajo, “Der deutsche Idealismus in sozialgeschichtlicher Beleuchtung,” Historische Zeitschrift, CLXXIV (1952), 364.Google Scholar See also Vogler, Günter, in ZfG, x (1962), supplement, pp. 355–56.Google Scholar

25. See Henderson, W. O., The State and the Industrial Revolution in Prussia: 1740–1870 (Liverpool, 1958);Google ScholarSchnabel, Franz, Deutsche Geschichte im neunzehnten Jahrhundert (Freiburg, 1949), II, 299–301;Google Scholar Koselleck, passim.

26. This is questioned by at least one East German historian: Heuer, p. 271.

27. Schilfert, Gerhard, in ZfG, XI (1963), 518.Google Scholar