943 Geschichte Mitteleuropas; Deutschlands
The history of German migration policies was a growth industry during the 1990s. The political battles of the present, such as asylum legislation, integration, and citizenship reform, created growing interest in the German historical experience of migration, migration controls and citizenship law. At the time, the only major work to tackle the subject was Klaus Bade's pioneering study of Prussian migration policies before the First World War, recently republished in an updated edition.[1] Initially, interest in German migration policies was guided largely by two leading questions. Histories of citizenship in Germany tended to adopt a long or a comparative perspective, which sought to test the hypothesis that German citizenship law and its implementation in practice reflected a particularly ethnic German conception of nationhood.[2] Histories of migration policy, by contrast, tended to focus on particular episodes in which a German tendency to view migrants primarily with regard to their usefulness, and not as potential immigrants and future citizens, clearly emerged, especially with regards to histories of the German Empire, the First World War, National Socialism, the Second World War and the post-war treatment of Gastarbeiter. The Weimar Republic, in contrast, was usually passed over in a few pages that highlighted the continuity of labor market control.[3] This state of affairs was remarkable because research on other countries highlighted the interwar period as an epoch of massive change in international migration policies. Race and ethnicity loomed larger than they had before, as indicated by the implementation of a quota system and barred zones in the United States. Moreover, with the First World War came the introduction of documentation requirements and the creation of labor-management bureaucracies that facilitated the distinction between citizens and aliens, as well as attempts to match labor supply to labor demand. Gérard Noiriel had even gone so far as to argue, largely with a view to migration and documentation policies, that the practices of Vichy had their roots in republican reforms of the late 1920s and 1930s.[4] Jochen Oltmer's magisterialHabilitationsschrift closes this gap all but completely. Based on a thorough reading of the archival record and contemporary public debate, his book shows that the transition from the politics of the First World War to the politics of National Socialism in the years of a labor shortage was more complicated previously assumed. He also highlights that migration policy was a field in which the Weimar Republic's problems emerged with particular poignancy. Oltmer's account is organized thematically rather than chronologically, though his subjects are arranged in the order in which they emerged as the main foci of internal administrative and public political debate. In the Weimar Republic's early years, these topics concerned ethnic Germans left outside the Empire's post-Versailles borders, prisoners of war and political refugees. In the later years, the position of migrant workers gained more prominence. While publicly committed to aiding fellow Germans, the republic's practice was ambivalent. The arrival of former residents of Alsace--mostly skilled workers in industries where labor was in demand, from a territory unlikely to be re-conquered soon--was welcome, but emigration of ethnic Germans from areas under Polish control was actively discouraged. The official view of these potential emigrants was less positive, their numbers were larger by several orders of magnitude and maintaining a visible German minority outside Germany's eastern borders seemed a good way to bolster the German case for a revision of the Treaty of Versailles. Migrants from Poland who could not prove they had been persecuted could therefore only expect accommodation in forbidding refugee camps in remote locations. As Oltmer's third chapter shows, this attitude also shaped the Weimar Republic's response to ethnic German emigration from Russia, which peaked during the famine years of the 1920s. Individual ethnicity was, therefore, not a dominant factor in the treatment of refugees; aliens of all ethnic backgrounds remained in a precarious position in the Weimar Republic, regardless of whether they were former prisoners of war who had opted to stay, or Jewish refugees from eastern and southeastern Europe who loomed relatively large in public debates or refugees from Soviet Russia. Ethnicity and race also loomed large in debates on the desirability of labor immigration. In general, the attitudes of state governments had more or less come full circle since the days of the empire. Whereas Prussia had been most concerned about the impact of Polish immigrants on national homogeneity before 1914, Bavaria and Baden-Württemberg proved most rigid after 1919. However, the majority of migrant workers were interested in jobs in Prussia, in the industrial areas of the Ruhr and, more prominently, in the agricultural east, which continued to rely on the access to Polish labor markets, particularly for potato planting and harvesting. In theory, the states and the empire had a powerful new tool to control labor migration: the obligatory work permit, issued only if no German applicants could be found for a job. Things were, however, not so simple in practice. Political interest in ethnic homogeneity was equal to interest in increasing the supply of food, a goal that could only be achieved, East Elbian landowners claimed, if Polish seasonal workers remained available to German employers. Immigration was, however, regarded with distaste by the völkisch right, Prussia's conservative bureaucracy and the Social Democrats, who viewed Polish laborers as an obstacle to the long-overdue modernization of rural Prussia through mechanization and unionization. The solution, fixed quotas for migrant laborers set to decline every year, proved unworkable, as rural employers turned to undocumented laborers. Moreover, the German government did its bit to undermine respect for legality in immigration matters. Seeking to reimpose a de facto policy forcing Polish migrants to return home for part of the year to prevent their settlement in Poland, German officials came into conflict with Polish determination to cut the state's ties to long-term emigrants, and were frequently forced to aid migrants in clandestinely crossing the border, before an unequal agreement could be concluded with Poland in 1927 that confirmed the status of Polish workers as second-class migrants excluded from social insurance and subject to a forced return for part of the year. Oltmer's comprehensively documented study does more than simply fill a gap in existing research. He unearths a striking pattern to Weimar policies, which could be found in many other fields of policy and may contribute to explaining why successive Weimar governments had such a difficult time in gaining the population's respect. Public pronouncements frequently contradicted secret or semi-secret policies. Official quotas for foreign workers, for example, were unofficially raised and little attempt was made to sanction employers of undocumented workers. Such actions exposed the Republic to criticism from the right and created a climate in which even more restrictive National Socialist policies could acquire broad popular support. Oltmer's book thus treats a question at the center, not the periphery, of the Weimar years.
Douglas G. Morris's excellent book poses a broad question: what happened to the rule of law in Germany after 1919? How severe was the collapse of judicial impartiality and competence? Can one doubt whether the Weimar Republic ever qualified as a republic, "if a necessary part of a republic is a judiciary committed to democratic ideals and impartial justice" (p. 1)? That there was a collapse in judicial impartiality is hardly in doubt. As early as 1922, Emil Julius Gumbel provided statistical proof: between late 1918 and summer 1922, a total of 354 political murders committed by perpetrators affiliated with the political right had been punished with one life sentence plus 90 years and 2 months imprisonment; in 326 cases, there had been no punishment at all. By contrast, the 22 murders committed by left-wing sympathizers in the same period had been punished with 10 death sentences, 3 life sentences and 248 years and 9 months imprisonment; only 4 perpetrators escaped (p. 1). To be sure, this statistic may indicate more about the political leanings of police officials and prosecutors investigating cases than of judges who rule on the evidence put before them, but the divergence in sentencing remains remarkable. Morris reformulates this insight to ask how Germany's judges, trained to apply the law in an impartial and technically correct manner, could become raving political partisans willing to twist the law in favor of a particular political position. He does not seek to provide a comprehensive answer, but focuses on cases which involved Max Hirschberg, a Jewish attorney who practiced in Munich from 1911 to 1934, when he escaped to Italy. Hirschberg moved on to the United States in 1939, where he died in 1964. Hirschberg was not only involved in the major political trials of the day in 1920s and early 1930s Munich, but also developed a systematic interest in judicial error, which culminated in a major work on Das Fehlurteil im Strafprozeß, published in 1960. Morris is interested primarily in how trials were conducted. This in-depth analysis is divided into three blocks: political trials in 1922 and 1925, when Germany's war guilt and the causes of defeat were treated in libel suits and criminal prosecutions; non-political cases in which Hirschberg succeeded in having judicial errors reversed; finally, political cases linked with the rise of the Nazi party from 1926. In each case, Morris offers a clear exposition of the facts and substantial as well as legal issues in the case, a step-by-step analysis of trials and appeals processes, and an evaluation of the outcome. The main lines of argument which emerge from these analyses are, first, that some problems were peculiar to Bavaria. The main issue was the existence of people's courts, introduced during Bavaria's brief socialist phase to provide swift justice. The people's courts did not just increase judges' freedom of action by abolishing procedural safeguards, but also protected judges from professional scrutiny and criticism because there were to be no appeals. One of Hirschberg's major victories in the cases of the early 1920s was successful lobbying for their reintroduction. Second, Munich's judges may have been particularly traumatized by the brief revolutionary episode (and by the political preferences of Bavaria's ministries, which were systematically anti-Republican); moreover, they were called upon to decide a stream of political trials, some of which--notably libel trials--effectively sought the impossible, namely a definitive judicial ruling on the validity of a certain interpretation of history or a personal political position. Third, in spite of significant personal variations in style and substance, even after the reintroduction of appeals judges tended to use their freedom of maneuver in an anti-left-wing (which implicitly meant pro-National Socialist) sense. However, until 1933, this state of affairs did not challenge the ties which bound the profession. The Bavarian ministry of justice failed in its attempts to have Hirschberg disbarred in the early 1920s. Even when Hirschberg was released from so-called protective custody in 1934, most of his colleagues rallied round the decorated war veteran, allowing him to retain an access to the court building that was denied most Jewish attorneys. Finally, the problems of the justice system affected non-political cases as well, which may have deepened distrust of Republican institutions. The meticulously researched book benefits immensely from its author's experience as a practicing attorney familiar with courtroom drama and legal technicalities, which are vividly recreated and succinctly explained. The focus on Hirschberg illustrates both the immense obstacles a defense attorney faced and the victories an exceptionally gifted attorney could still win. Even though the courtroom perspective disregards some of the motivations which have their roots outside court--be it the social structure of and career perspectives in Munich's legal profession or political pressures on judges--these are not the main focus of Morris's research. Finally, one could argue about the optimist portrayal of pre-1918 German justice in politically sensitive cases. The clear focus on Weimar trials ensures that the book is no biography. Although Morris includes brief chapters on Hirschberg's youth and his years in exile, not much information is offered on Hirschberg's private life, the economics of his legal practice or his time in exile. But this decision does not diminish Morris's achievement in providing a fascinating insight into the workings of Weimar justice.
Otto Hufnagel war bis vor dem Ersten Weltkrieg ein typischer wilhelminischer Bildungsbürger. Er wurde 1885 als Sohn eines protestantischen Frankfurter Volksschullehrers und Veteranen des Kriegs von 1870 geboren, legte 1905 das Abitur ab und studierte in Heidelberg und Leipzig Geschichte, Deutsch und Latein. Während die kontroverse Bewertung seiner Dissertation zeigte, dass (nur) ein Teil der Leipziger Historiker in ihm ein wissenschaftliches Talent sah, waren auch die Skeptiker sicher, dass es sich bei Hufnagel Junior ebenfalls um einen vorbildlichen Lehrer handeln würde. Dieses Urteil bestätigte Hufnagel seit 1911 in der waldeckischen Hauptstadt Arolsen, wo er sich auch in der breiteren Öffentlichkeit der Residenzstadt hervortat: als glühender Bismarck-Verehrer, Marine-Apologet und Kriegsbefürworter. Das sollte sich erst ändern, als Hufnagel seit 1915 persönlich mit den Schrecken des Krieges konfrontiert wurde. Als er im Herbst 1918 in das einer relativ gemächlichen Revolution entgegenblickende Arolsen zurückkehrte, tat er dies als überzeugter Demokrat und Republikaner, der bald zu einer der führenden Persönlichkeiten der Waldeckschen DDP aufstieg. Als Mitglied des Landtages beschäftigte sich Hufnagel intensiv mit den besonderen Problemen der Waldeckschen Verfassung und ihrer Implikationen für eine Neuordnung der Beziehungen zwischen Bevölkerung, Fürst, Staat und Reich. Waldeck war 1866 von der preußischen Annexionswelle verschont geblieben, aber 1867 halb-freiwillig in die Rolle einer preußischen Dependance mit einem Monarch minderen Ranges gewechselt. Eine der beherrschenden Fragen der waldeckschen Landespolitik war daher - neben der Revolution - die Möglichkeit eines Anschlusses an Preußen (den Hufnagel befürwortete) und bereits vor 1926 die Frage nach dem Status des Vermögens eines Quasi-Monarchen (wo sich Hufnagel anspruchsvoll, aber kompromissbereit zeigte). Waldeck gehörte nach 1918 zunächst zu den deutschen Regionen, welche dem bürgerlichen Liberalismus besondere Möglichkeiten zu eröffnen schienen - dafür sprach bereits vor 1914 die Tatsache, dass Friedrich Naumann Reichstagsabgeordneter für Waldeck und Pyrmont gewesen war; nach dem Krieg kam das Wirken von ihrer Begeisterung für Kaiser und Reich abgekommenen Persönlichkeiten wie Hufnagel hinzu. Allerdings machte der weitere Verlauf der Ereignisse deutlich, dass auch in Waldeck der bürgerliche Liberalismus schwierigen Zeiten entgegenging. Zwar schien sich relativ lange die Chance zu bieten, alle liberalen Kräfte in einer Partei zu vereinigen oder zumindest im Landtag zu einer Fraktion zu schmieden, aber diese Hoffnung erwies sich als trügerisch. Die DDP wurde alsbald - trotz des politischen Geschicks Hufnagels - im bürgerlichen Lager von rechts überholt, wobei die Tatsache, dass in Menks Darstellung die liberale Haltung zu sozialen Fragen stark in den Hintergrund tritt, eine mögliche Begründung erahnen lässt. Die Taktik der bürgerlichen Rechten, Hufnagel öffentlich an den Pranger zu stellen, etwa durch Verweis auf die Folgen seiner politischen Aktivität für Unterrichtsausfall an seiner Schule oder durch Berichte über vermeintliche Verfehlungen im Landtag (beispielsweise Protokollfälschung) endete in einer Prozesskette, aus der Hufnagel zwar siegreich hervorging, die ihn aber zermürbte und 1924 dazu bewog, ins liberale Frankfurt überzusiedeln. Folgt man dem Urteil Gerhard Menks, so wurde Waldeck sehr bald ein weiterer Staat, in dem eine demokratische politische Kultur bereits vor 1933 von innen ausgehöhlt wurde und wo für kritische Geister weniger Platz blieb als für Demagogen, die nach 1933 erfolgreich blieben. In Frankfurt betätigte sich Hufnagel vorwiegend als Lehrer und Wanderer, kaum noch als Politiker und politischer Publizist. Insofern bedeutete die Machtergreifung 1933 zwar eine Zäsur, aber keine unmittelbare politische Bedrohung; eine Entlassung des wenig exponierten Lehrers stand offenbar ebensowenig zur Debatte wie ernsthafte Sanktionen. Die Versetzung innerhalb Frankfurts konnte als Strafe oder Belohnung gedeutet werden. 1944 zog Hufnagel mit seiner Schule nach Westerburg, um den Folgen des Bombenkrieges zu entgehen, starb aber noch im selben Jahr. Hufnagel war gewiss kein Politiker der ersten Reihe. Der vorliegenden Biografie gelingt es aber, anhand der detaillierten Betrachtung einer - zugegebenermaßen spröden - Person ein liberales Milieu der 'Provinz', das entscheidend von Lehrern geprägt wurde, neu und in vielfacher Hinsicht erstmals zu beleuchten. Dies geschieht auf der Grundlage akribischer Recherchen, die durch den beinahe kompletten Verlust des Nachlasses Hufnagels erschwert wurden, sowie umfassender Kenntnisse der Landesgeschichte, die immer in den breiteren historischen Kontext eingebettet wird. Ein 776 Seiten umfassender Dokumentenanhang enthält publizierte Quellen zu Hufnagel, zur Geschichte der waldeckschen und Frankfurter DDP, zur Revolution von 1918 und zur allgemeinen Regionalgeschichte des späten Kaiserreichs und der Weimarer Republik. Während der Rezensent sich eine deutlich rigorosere Straffung des Manuskripts gewünscht hätte, das zu ausladenden, sich im Rahmen der Darstellung mehrfach wiederholenden Schilderungen neigt, so werden andere Nutzer des Buches die Tatsache begrüßen, dass der Autor auch mit der allgemeinen Historiografie der Epoche nicht vertraute Leserinnen und Leser an jeder Stelle in den allgemeinen Kontext seiner Betrachtungen einführt. Es handelt sich insgesamt um ein Produkt einer gründlichen, leidenschaftlichen Forschungsarbeit, welche die Geschichte des Weimarer Liberalismus um eine biografische und regionalgeschichtliche Dimension erweitert und damit die Frage nach den Gründen für sein Scheitern der Beantwortung ein Stück näher bringt. Redaktionelle Betreuung: Nils Freytag