Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T15:04:47.708Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

“What Is to Be Done?” The Red Specter, Franchise Questions, and the Crisis of Conservative Hegemony in Saxony, 1896–1909

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 December 2008

James Retallack
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We could be more liberal if we had no social democrats.” This was one axiom of German electoral politics with which the overwhelming mass of non-socialist (bürgerlich) German voters agreed unrservedly, wrote Lothar Schücking, a liberal critic of Prussian officialdom, in 1908. Nevertheless, continued Schücking, the aims and ideals of the social democratic movement were completely unfamiliar to most educated Germans. “One knows a few slogans,” wrote Schucking: “‘free love,’ ‘religion a private matter,’ ‘impoverishment of the masses,’… ‘republic.’” Everything else was subsumed under the specter of the “red international.” Disapprovingly, Schucking concluded that “the burgerlich parties have gradually come to recognize only ‘national questions.’”

Type
Articles
Information
Central European History , Volume 23 , Issue 4 , December 1990 , pp. 271 - 312
Copyright
Copyright © Conference Group for Central European History of the American Historical Association 1990

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

1. Schücking, Lothar Engelbert, Die Reaktion in der inneren Verwaltung Preussens (Berlin-Schöneberg, 1908), 16f.Google Scholar, “Das rote Gespenst!”

2. Sheehan, James J., German Liberalism in the Nineteenth Century (Chicago, 1978), 152ff.;Google ScholarBlackbourn, David and Eley, Geoff, The Peculiarities of German History (New York and Oxford, 1984), 18f.;CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Eley, G., “Liberalism, Europe, and the Bourgeoisie 1860–1914,” in Blackbourn, David and Evans, Richard J., eds., The German Bourgeoisie (London and New York, 1991), 300f.;Google Scholar cf. other essays in the latter collection, and also those in Jarausch, Konrad and Jones, Larry Eugene, eds., In Search of a Liberal Germany (New York, 1990).Google Scholar

3. See esp. Ritter, Gerhard A., ed., Der Aufstieg der deutschen Arbeiterbewegung (Munich, 1990);CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Rohe, Karl, ed., Elections, Parties and Political Traditions (New York, 1990).Google Scholar

4. On this important question, see Applegate's, Celia excellent monograph, A Nation of Provincials (Berkeley, 1990), 42.Google Scholar

5. See Gagel, Walter, Die Wahlrechtsfrage in der Geschichte der deutschen liberalen Parteien 1848–1918 (Düsseldorf, 1958), 63ff., 126ff.Google Scholar; von Strandmann, Hartmut Pogge, “The Liberal Power Monopoly in the Cities of Imperial Germany,” forthcoming in Jones, Larry Eugene and James, Retallack, eds., Elections, Mass Politics, and Social Change in Modern Germany: New Perspectives (New York and Cambridge, 1992);Google ScholarRetallack, James, Notables of the Right: The Conservative Party and Political Mobilization in Germany, 1876–1928 (Boston and London, 1988), esp. 153–66;Google Scholar and Steinbach, Peter, Die Zāhmung des politischen Massenmarktes, 3 vols. (Passau, 1990).Google Scholar

6. For a variety of perspectives critical of this view, see inter alia Anderson, Margaret Lavinia and Barkin, Kenneth, “The Myth of the Puttkamer Purge and the Reality of the Kulturkampf: Some Reflections on the Historiography of Imperial Germany,” Journal of Modem History zu (1982): 647–86;Google ScholarPflanze, Otto, “Sammlungspolitik' 1875–1886: Kritische Bemerkungen zu einem Modell,” in Otto, Pflanze, ed., Innenpolitische Probleme des Bismarck-Reiches (Munich and Vienna, 1983), 155–93;Google Scholar and Retallack, J., “The Road to Philippi: The Conservative Party and Bethmann Hollweg's “Politics of the Diagonal,’ 1909–1914,” forthcoming in Fout, John C., ed., Politics, Parties and the Authoritarian State (New York, 1992).Google Scholar For the broader historiographical context, see Retallack, , “Social History with a Vengeance? Some Reactions to H.-U. Wehler's Das Deutsche Kaiserreich,” German Studies Review 7, no. 3 (1984): 423–50,CrossRefGoogle Scholar and idem, “Wilhelmine Germany,” in Gordon, Martel, ed., Modem Germany Reconsidered (London, 1991), 33–53.Google Scholar

7. Eley, Geoff, “Sammlungspolitik, Social Imperialism and the Navy Law of 1898,” reprinted in Eley, , From Unification to Nazism (Boston, 1986), 110–53.Google Scholar

8. Fairbairn, Brett, “The German Elections of 1898 and 1903” (D. Phil. thesis, Univ. of Oxford, 1987), esp. chaps. 3 and 4;Google Scholaridem, “The Limits of Nationalist Politics: Electoral Culture and Mobilization in Germany, 1890–1903,” Joumal of the Canadian Historical Association (New Series), I (1990): 145–69, esp. 163ff.Google Scholar; idem, “Authority vs. Democracy: Prussian Officials in the German Elections of 1898 and 1903,” Historical Journal 34, no. 4 (1990): 811–38, esp. 825ff.Google Scholar; and idem, “Interpreting Wilhelmine Elections: National Issues, Fairness Issues, and Electoral Mobilization,” forthcoming in Jones and Retallack, eds., Elections, Mass Politics, and Social Change, 1992.

9. Suval, Stanley, Electoral Politics in Wilhelmine Germany (Chapel Hill, 1985), 9Google Scholar; Fairbairn, “The Limits of Nationalist Politics,” 167.

10. Retallack, J., “Anti-Socialism and Electoral Politics in Regional Perspective: The Kingdom of Saxony,” forthcoming in Jones, and Retallack, , eds., Elections, Mass Politics, and Social Change, 1992Google Scholar; cf. Retallack. “Anti-Semitism, Conservative Propaganda, and Regional Politics in Late Nineteenth-Century Germany,” German Studies Review II, no. 3 (1988): 377–403.

11. Limits of space prevent me from citing the large body of literature on this subject; see the works cited in nn. 2 and 3 above for further references. To date, the reports sent to Berlin by the Prussian envoy in Dresden have never been tapped to illuminate this problem, though similar reports from Munich, Stuttgart, and Karlsruhe have been: see Barton, Irmgard, Die preussische Gesandtschaft in München als Instrument der Reichspolitik in Bayern (Munich, 1967)Google Scholar; Philippi, Hans, Das Königreich Württemberg im Spiegel der preussischen Gesandtschaftsberichte 1871–1914 (Stuttgart, 1972)Google Scholar; and Kremer, Hans-Jürgen, Das Grossherzogtum Baden in der politischen Berichterstattung der preussischen Gesandten 1871–1918, Teil I:1871–1899 (Frankfurt a.M., 1990), Teil II: 1900–1918, forthcoming 1991.Google Scholar

12. Crucial biographical information on Saxon ministers can be found in Karlheinz Blaschke, “Das Königreich Sachsen 1815–1918,” and idem, “Minister des Königreichs Sachsen 1815–1918,” in Schwabe, Klaus, ed., Die Regierungen der deutschen Mittel- und Kleinstaaten 1815–1933 (Boppard a.R., 1983), 81–102, 285–94.Google Scholar

13. See the report of the Prussian envoy in Saxony, Count E. A. Karl von Dönhoff, to Bülow, 17 Oct. 1901, in the Political Archive of the German Foreign Ministry in Bonn (hereafter cited as PA AA Bonn), I A Sachsen (Königreich) (hereafter cited as Sachsen), Nr. 60 (“Parlamentansche Angelegenheiten des Königreichs Sachsen”), Bd. 5. All Foreign Ministry files were consulted either in Bonn or on microfilm from the U.S. National Archives.

14. These and other details below concerning the Saxon franchise laws of 1868, 1896, and 1909 are taken from Diersch, Victor Camillo, “Die geschichtliche Entwicklung des Landtags wahlrechts im Königreich Sachsen” (Ph.D. thesis, Univ. of Leipzig, 1918)Google Scholar; Pache, Alfred, Geschichte des sächsischen Landtagswahlrechts von 1831–1907, 2d ed. (Leipzig, 1919)Google Scholar; Oppe, E., “Die Reform des Wahlrechts für die II. Kammer der Ständeversammlung im Königreich Sachscn,” Jahrbuch des öffentlichen Rechts der Gegenwart 4 (1910): 374–409.Google Scholar Further details and analysis are found in G. A. Ritter with Merith Niehuss, Wahlgeschichtliches Arbeitsbuch (Munich, 1980), 163–82Google Scholar; and Ritter, “Das Wahlrecht und die Wählerschaft der Sozialdemokratie im Königreich Sachsen 1867–1914,” in Ritter, ed., Aufstieg, 49–101.

15. Dönhoff to Chancellor Leo von Caprivi, 14 and 16 Oct. 1891, PA AA Bonn, Sachsen Nr. 60, Bd. 3; Würzburger, Eugen, “Die Wahlen für die Zweite Kammer der Ständeversammlung von 1869 his 1896,” Zeitschrift des K. Sächsischen Statistischen Landesamtes (Dresden) 51, no. 1 (1905): 2.Google Scholar

16. See the articles on “Landtagswahlbeteiligung” and “Säcchisches Wahlrecht” in Schröder, Wilhelm, ed., Handbuch der sozialdemokratichen Parteitage von 1863 bis 1909 (Munich, 1910), 257–17 and 506–8Google Scholar; Fricke, Dieter, Handbuch zur Geschichte der deutschen Arbeiterbewegung 1869 bis 1917 2 vols. (Berlin, 1987), 2:765.Google Scholar; and Bemstein, Eduard, “Die Sozialdemokratie und das neue Landtagswahlsystem in Sachsen”, Neue Zeit 14 (1895–1896), Bd. ii, no. 32: 181–88.Google Scholar

17. These and other percentages in this paper have been rounded.

18. Dönhoff to Chancellor Chlodwig zu Hohenlohe-Schillingsfürst, 25 Oct. 1897, PA AA Bonn, Deutschland Nr. 125 (“Reichstagswahlen”), Nr. 3, Bd. 14, referring to Interior Minister Georg von Metzsch-Reichenbach; see also Dönhoff to Hohenlohe, 10 Apr. 22 and 30 Sept. 9 and 13 Oct. 8, 11 and 22 Nov. 1897; and Count Georg von Wedel (Kgl. Pr. Legations-Sekretär in Dresden) to Hohenlohe, 28 Sept. 1899, in PA AA Bonn, Sachen Nr. 60, Bd. 5.

19. Dönhoff to Hohenlohe, 21 Mar. 1898, PA AA Bonn, Sachsen Nr. 60, Bd. 5; Dönhoff to Hohenlohe, 26 May 1898, PA AA Bonn, Deutschland Nr. 125, Nr. 3, Bd. 15.

20. See Würzburger, Eugen, “Die Wahlen zum Deutschen Reichstag im Königreich Sachsen von 1871 bis 1907,” Zeitschrift des K. Sächsischen Statistischen Landesamtes 54, no. 2 (1908): 171–80Google Scholar; Dönhoff to Hohenlohe, 10 July 1898, PA AA Bonn, Deutschland Nr. 125, Nr. 3, Bd. 15.

21. Schulze, Arthur, Die Bankkatastrophen in Sachsen im Jahre 1901 (Tübingen, 1903), 126ff.Google Scholar; Vogel, Karl, “Die Besteuerung des Grossbetriebs im Kleinhandel im Königreich Sachsen” (Ph.D. diss., Univ. of Giessen, 1903), esp. 22ffGoogle Scholar; Richter, Otto, Geschichte der Stadt Dresden in den Jahren 1871 bis 1902, 2d ed. (Dresden, 1904), 164ff.Google Scholar; Mittheilungen für dir Vertrauensmänner der Nationalliberale Partei 14, no. 2 (Sonderbeilage) [1902]Google Scholar, “Generalversammlung des Nationalliberalen Vereins für das Königreich Sachsen” (I am grateful to Larry Eugene Jones for providing me with a copy of this report); and Dönhoff's reports to Bülow in 1901–1903 in PA AA Bonn, Sachsen Nr. 53 (“Die Finanzen des Königreichs Sachsen”), Bd. 4.

22. Warren, Donald Jr, The Red Kingdom of Saxony (The Hague, 1964), 13ff., 33ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Dönhoff to Hohenlohe, 31 Jan. 1897, PA AA Bonn, Sachsen Nr. 48 (“Allgemeine Angelegenheiten des Königreichs Sachsen”), Bd. 18; and Wedel to Bülow, 19 Sept. 1902, ibid.

23. Cf. Retallack, J., “Conservatives contra Chancellor: Official Responses to the Spectre of Conservative Demagoguery from Bismarck to Bülow,” Canadian Journal of History 20, no. 2 (1985): 218ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

24. Dönhoff to Bulow, 29 Oct. 1904, in PA AA Bonn, Sachsen Nr. 60, Bd. 7; Hugo Opitz-Treuen, , “Soll die lndustrie konservativ oder liberal sein,” Konservative Monatsschrift 63 (1906): 1125–34Google Scholar; and the NLP's, Saxon broadside, Die “Industriefreundlichkeit” der Konservativen (Leipzig, 1914), 3–13.Google Scholar

25. It was at this point that Dönhoff labelled the Saxon Landtag “the most conservative of all German parliaments.” See n. 13, above.

26. Warren, Red Kingdom, 35f.; Dönhoff to Bülow, 22 and 31 May 1902, PA AA Bonn, Sachsen Nr. 53, Bd. 4; Nationalliberale Partei, Mittheilungen [1902], “Generalversammlung,” E-F.

27. Nationally. Chancellor Bülow had wished to conduct the Reichstag campaign aginst both the SPD and the Agrarian League, whom he described in a secret circular as “the two extreme parties.” When Dönhoff explained why a campaign against the BdL in Saony would destroy the Kartell agreement, Bülow concurred that Saxony was a special case. Nonetheless, Saxon ministers operated at cross-purposes with Bülow when they worked “behind the scenes” to undermine support for BdL candidates. See Bülow's circular (“Ganz geheim!”) to Prussian envoys dated 18 May 1903; Dönhoff's reply (“Geheim!”) of 25 May 1903; and Bülow's reply (“Geheim”) of 26 May 1903, in PA AA Bonn, Deustchland Nr. 125, Nr. 8, Bd. 16.

28. The following is based on Mehnert to Būlow, 17 June 1903, and reply, n.d. [June 1903], in Bundesarchiv Koblenz (hereafter BAK), R43F (Reichskanzleiakten), Nr. 1792 (I am grateful to Brett Fairbaim for providing me with notes taken from this correspondence); Dönhoff to Bülow, I Mar. 25 and 31 May 3, 9, 11, 15, and 18 June 1903, in PA AA Bonn, Deutschalsn Nr. 125. 3, Bd. 16; Dönhoff to Bülow, 7 June, 2 July, 19 Sept. 1903, and Wedel to Bülow, 15 July 1903, in PA AA Bonn, Sachsen Nr. 60. Bd. 6.

29. Konrad Wilhelm von Rüger was much hated by the National Liberals during his tenure as finance minister (1902–1910) and as chaiman of the Saxon ministry (1906–1910).

30. Wedel to Bülow, 13 Aug. 1903, and other correspondence in PA AA Bonn, Sachsen Nr. 50 (“Die sächsische Presse”), Bd. 4.

31. Count Udo zu Stolberg-Wernigerode to Bülow, 27 Dec. 1903, in BAK, NL Bülow, Nr. 107, Bl. 97ff.; reply, 7 Jan. 1904, in BAK, R43F, Nr. 2005 (“Mittellandkanal”), Bl. 127ff. (excerpt), and BAK, R43F, Nr. 1391/5 (“Konservative Parteien”), Bl. 41ff.

32. Blaschke, “Königreich Sachsen,” 98, 289. Saxony did not have a Minister-President; the governmental leader was designated Vorsitzender des Gesamtministeriums. Metzsch was given the title Count in 1916.

33. Dönhoff to Bölow, 2 July and 19 Sept. 1903, and Wedel to Bülow, 15 July 1903, in PA AA Bonn, Sachsen Nr. 60 Bd. 6; see also Oppe, “Reform,” 378; Diersche, “Landtagswahlrecht,” 213ff.

34. Dönhoff to Bülow, 19 Sept. 1903, PA AA Bonn, Sachsen Nr. 60, Bd. 6.

35. Warren, Red Kingdom 38.

36. See Dönhoff to Bülow, 1 July 1905, PA AA Bonn, Sachsen Nr. 48, Bd. 20; Warren, Red Kingdom, 36ff., 52ff., and passim.

37. Preussiche Jahrbücher (hereafter Pr Jbb) 113, no. 3 (1903): 374.Google Scholar

38. Dönhoff to Bülow, 19 and 26 Sept. 1903, 2, 17, 21, 23 and 30 Oct. PA AA Bonn, Sachsen Nr. 60. Bd. 6.

39. Dönhoff to Bülow, 30 Oct. 1903, PA AA Bonn, Sachsen Nr. 60, Bd. 6; “Dekret vom 31. Dec. 1903,” excerpted in Pache, Geschichte, 30f.

40. Discriminatory franchises introduced in Leipzig (1894), Chemnitz (1898), and Dresden (1905), together with the growing influence of parties and interest groups in municipal elections, showed the hollowness of the first claim. See Verein für Socialpolitik, ed., Verfassung und Verwaltungsorganisation der Städte, 4/1, Königreich Sachsen (Leipzig, 1905)Google Scholar; and the special supplements to Kommunale Praxis, entitled Sächsische Gemeinde-Politik, whic appeared in 1905.

41. Dönhoff to Būlow, 10 Jan. 1904, PA AA Bonn, Sachsen Nr. 60. Bd. 6.

42. See Pache, Geschichte, 16ff. and 30ff.; Oppe, “Reform,” 380–82; Diersch, “Landtagswahlrecht,” 220ff. and 230ff.; on motions for reform of the upper house in Dec. 1903, see Dönhoff to Bülow, 21 Dec. 1903 and attachments; on his discussion with Mehnert, Dönhoff to Bülow, 10 Jan. 1904; on press reactions to the Denkschrift of 31 Dec. 1903, Dönhoff to Bülow, 8, 11, 17, 31 Jan. 1904; and on the legislative battle, Dönhoff to Bülow, 5 Feb. 1904, all in PA AA Bonn, Sachsen Nr. 60, Bd. 6. See also Dönhoff to Bülow, 29 Apr., 21 May 1904, ibid., Bd. 7.

43. For this and the following, see Dönhoff to Bölow, 20 Oct. and 25 Nov. 1904, and 13 Mar., 23 May, 3 June, 19 Sept., and 3, 4, 26 Oct. 1905, PA AA Bonn, Sachsen Nr. 60. Bd. 7.

44. Cf. “Saxonica.III” von einem sächsischen Konservativen, Grenzboten 64, no. I (1905): 364–64.Google Scholar

45. Dönhoff to Bülow, 13 Mar. 1905, PA AA Bonn, Sachsen Nr. 60, Bd. 7.

46. Block, Hans, “Die ‘Wiedergeburt’ des Liberalismus in Sachsen,” Neue Zeit 23 (1904–1905), Bd. ii, no. 48: 693–99, and no. 49: 730–35, esp. 697.Google Scholar

47. Dörrer, Horst, “Die ersten Wahlrechtskämpfe der Dresdner Arbeiter unter dem Einfluss der ersten russischen Revolution von 1905 bis 1907,’ in Wissenschaftliche Annalen zur Verbreitung neuer Forschungsergebnisse 5 (1956): 383–400Google Scholar; Herrmann, Ursula, “Der Kampf der Sozialdemo-kratie gegen das Dreiklassenwahlrecht in Sachsen in den Jahren 1905/06,” Zeitschrift für Geschichtswissenschaft 3 (1955): 856–83Google Scholar; Dieter Fricke, “Der Aufschwung der Massenkämpfe der deutschen Arbeiterklasse unter dem Einfluss der russischen Revolution von 1905,” ibid. 5 (1957): 771–90; Reichard, Richard W., “The German Working Class and the Russian Revolution of 1905,” Journal of Central European Affairs 13, no. 2 (1953): 136–53Google Scholar; Stem, Leo, ed., Die Auswirkungen der ersten russischen Revolution von 1905–1907 auf Deutschland (Berlin, 1956), 2/II:261–67.Google Scholar

48. Dönhoff to Bülow, 29 Nov. 1905, PA AA Bonn, Sachsen Nr. 60, Bd. 7, also for parts of the following two paragraphs; Warren, Red Kingdom, 65ff; and Diersch, “Landtagswahlrecht,” 244f.

49. Dr. Würzburger to the Saxon interior ministry, 29 Aug. 1904, copy in PA AA Bonn, Sachsen Nr. 60, Bd. 7. This analysis was based on twelve selected Prussian Landtag constituencies deemed to bear a close resemblance to Saxon constituencies in terms of social and occupational structure.

50. Hohenthal, Count und Bergen to Metzsch, 19 and 22 Dec. 1905, printed in Stern, ed., Auswirkungen, 261–63.Google Scholar

51. Warren, Red Kingdom, 69f.

52. Pr Jbb 123, no. I (01 1906): 193–95 and 402–6.Google Scholar

53. Blaschke, , “Königreich Sachsen,” 99; Wer ist's, Degener, H., ed. (Leipzig, 1906), 359; Finance Minister Rüger was formally chairman of the state ministry from 1906 to 1910.Google Scholar

54. See Crothers, George, The German Elections of 1907 (New York, 1968), 147 and 176–78Google Scholar; Hohenlohe to Bülow, 27 Sept. and 18 Oct. 1907, in PA AA Bonn, Sachsen Nr. 60, Bd. 8.

55. On his discussion with Heinrich von Tschirschky und Bögendorff, see the letter of 13 May 1907 to Hohenthal by Count Christoph Vitzthum von Eckstädt, Hohenthal's successor as Saxon envoy to Prussia (1906–1909), interior and foreign minister (1909–1918), and de facto givernment leader; printed in Stern, ed., Auswirkungen, 263–65; on Bülow's alleged preference for plural voting, see Tschirschky to Bülow, 29 Oct. 1908, in PA AA Bonn, Sachsen Nr. 60, Bd. 8.

56. The plan was finally presented to the Landtag in the “Dekret vom 15. Oct. 1907.” See Hohenlohe to Bülow, and 20 July 1907, in PA AA Bonn, Sachsen Nr. 60, Bd. 8. The following is based on Diersch, “Landtagswahlrecht,” 247–333; Pache, Geschichte, 35–120; and Oppe, “Reform,” 383–409.

57. Crothers, German Elections, 148, 154–66, and 174.

58. See Hohenlohe to Bölow, 20 July, 27 Sept. 1907; 13 Mar., 13 Apr., 6 June, 19 Nov., 4 Dec. 1908; in PA AA Bonn, Sachsen Nr. 60, Bd. 8.

59. Kracke, Friedrich, Friedrich August III.: Sachsens volkstümlichster König (Munich, 1964)Google Scholar, cited in Blaschke, “Königreich Sachsen,” 85.

60. Pache, Geschichte 100 and 101–32.

61. Schäffle, A., “Die Bekämpfung der Sozialdemokratie ohne Ausnahmegesetz,” Zeitschrift für die gesamte Staatswissenschaft 46 (1890): 201–87, esp. 255–73.Google Scholar

62. Figures from Fricke, Handbuch, 2:777Google Scholar, and Hohenlohe to Chancellor Theobald von Bethmann Hollweg, 22 Aug. 1909, in PA AA Bonn, Sachsen Nr. 60, Bd. 8.

63. “Wahlgesetz für die zweite Kammer der Ständeversammlung vom 5. Mai 1909,” reprinted in Oppe, “Reform,” Appendix G.

64. On continued expansion of the Saxon SPD and its agitation, see Hohenlohe to Bethmann Hollweg, 22 Aug. 1909, in PA AA Bonn, Sachsen Nr. 60, Bd. 8, also for some of the following details.

65. See Ritter, Wahlgeschichtliches Arbeitsbuch, 180.

66. Hohenlohe to Bethmann Hollweg, 23 Oct. and 2 Dec. 1909; in PA AA Bonn, Sachsen Nr. 60, Bd. 8; Oppe, “Reform,” 394.

67. See Retallack, “The Road to Philippi.”

68. See Würzburger, Eugen, “Die Wahlen für die Zweite Kammer der Ständeversammlung vom Oct. und Nov. 1909,” Zeitschrift des K. Sächsischen Statistischen Landesamtes 55 (1909): 220–43Google Scholar; 57, no. I (1911): 1–168; and 58, no. 2 (1912): 259–331.

69. Here, however, two cavils are necessary. Competition in hopelessly unwinnable seats– where the bürgerlich parties together won less than 10 percent of the vote–cannot realistically be deemed to have been “serious.” The same is true of competition in “bomb-proof” constituencies, where the establishment parties controlled over 75 percent of the vote.

70. In this case, too, it seemed worth distinguishing between instances where the two parties together controlled more than 75 percent of the vote on the first ballot and where they did not. The possibility that right-wing disunity would permit a socialist victory was far more immediate in the second instance.

71. For this and the following, see Blaschke, “Königreich Sachsen,” 97–102, including the citation from the unpublished papers of Interior Minister Dr. Walter Koch. Staatsarchiv Dresden, Bd. I, 160–67.