Moscow, MSU Publishing House, 1983, 216 p.

Associate Professor of the Department of Modern and Contemporary History of the Faculty of History of Moscow State University, Candidate of Historical Sciences L. V. Ovchinnikova in her book explores the main trends of West German historiography of the Weimar Republic, reveals its general and specific features, shows the evolution of ideological and political attitudes over a quarter of a century. The author identifies two main trends - conservative and neoliberal-in covering the key problems of the history of the Weimar Republic and traces them back to the mid-70s. In addition, she refers to the origins of these trends in German historiography of the 1920s and early 1930s, which makes it possible to establish continuity and show the development of traditions in German bourgeois historiography as a whole.

Analyzing the disputes between historians of the two directions during the Weimar Republic, L. V. Ovchinnikova gives a picture of the separation between them. On the one hand, the conservative nationalists openly advocated the overthrow of the bourgeois-democratic republic, considering that it had no connection with national history, advocated the preparation of an open dictatorship of monopoly capital, rejected any idea of the historical conditionality and regularity of the November Revolution, from which the Weimar regime emerged. They did not understand its historical significance, did not draw any conclusions from the collapse of Kaiser's Germany, and remained its enemies throughout the existence of the Weimar Republic. The book by L. V. Ovchinnikova contains a detailed analysis of the views of leading historians of the conservative-nationalist trend (G. von Belov, D. Schaefer, M. Spahn, K. A. von Muller, E. Marx, etc.).

page 132

Liberal-leaning historians favored a more flexible parliamentary tactic, which was supported by a part of the monopolistic bourgeoisie. They approached the analysis of historical facts in a more differentiated and in-depth way, and were forced to conclude that the revolutionary explosion in November 1918 was a consequence of the contradictions that existed in the political system of the empire, about the irreversibility of the process of democratic transformation in Germany and the impossibility of returning to a monarchical form of government. At the same time, liberal historians have not become consistent and active supporters and defenders of the republic. Their attitude to the parliamentary system and the bourgeois-democratic institutions of the republic was complex and contradictory. As for their views on the issue of socio-economic reforms and methods of "reconciliation of the working class and the bourgeoisie", their class position, narrowness of the problem statement, and differences in argumentation and understanding of the very idea of "social democracy"were clearly revealed. The author examines the concrete historical views of such major historians as F. Meinecke, E. Trelch, G. Delbrueck and others.

Until the mid-1950s, the author notes, the German historical science was dominated by the conservative trend led by G. Ritter. The conservatives were characterized by a direct apology for German imperialism and militarism, defending the dogmas of German historicism. However, since the mid-1950s, the most conservative concepts, which no longer generally meet the situation and needs of the ruling classes, began to fade into the background. The theories of neoliberal historians, who revised a number of methodological principles of West German historical science, became increasingly widespread. Neoliberals advocated the need to modernize the methodology of history (V. Konce, T. Shider, O. Brunner, K. D. Erdman), for the introduction of the structural-social historical method. Social history has become increasingly widespread (pp. 61-63).

The paper notes that conservative historians strongly disapprove of the Weimar constitution and the bourgeois-liberal institutions of the republic, believing that they did not have any historical prerequisites for their existence. They are not interested in questions of economic development, social relations, party politics, or the labor movement, but mainly in foreign policy. They draw their ideas from the works of M. Spahn, K. A. von Muller, and other nationalist historians of the 1920s (p. 93). Neoliberal historians evaluate the Weimar regime from the point of view of their political ideal - a stable bourgeois parliamentary system, insured against socio-political upheavals. In this connection, the critical Marxist analysis of the concepts put forward by bourgeois historians about the influence of political parties on the demise of the bourgeois-parliamentary system, about the "improvised character" of the Weimar Republic (T. Eschenburg, Erdmann, K.-D. Bracher) and the constitutional and legal imperfection of the Weimar system is important.

The author rightly emphasizes that neoliberal historians have made a certain step towards a more critical study of the problem of parties, and their approach to the topic has also changed: the political history of parties is supplemented by a structurally differentiated analysis of their social composition and electorate. This is also facilitated by the publication of new documents. At the same time, there is a tendency to rehabilitate the policies of bourgeois parties, to belittle their responsibility for the elimination of the parliamentary system, complicity with fascism, and the fall of the republic. However, it is known that during the Weimar Republic they were unable to solve the vital problems of the German people and find a way out of the crisis. Their capitulatory position was especially clearly manifested at the time of the establishment of the fascist regime. When considering this issue, the author should have taken a wider range of literature related to the politics of the Center Party and the National Party. A number of fairly large and well-known works have fallen out of the researcher's field ^of view1 .

¹ Der Weg in die Diktatur, 1918 bis 1933. Zehn Beitrage. Miinchen. 1963; Junker D. Die Deutsche Zentrumspartei und Hitler 1932/33. Stuttgart. 1969; Morsey R. Der Untergang des politischen Katholizismus. Die Zentrumspartei zwischen christlichem Selbstverstandnis und "Nationaler Erhebung" 1932/33. Stuttgart-Zurich. 1977.

page 133

L. V. Ovchinnikova pays much more attention to the bourgeois historiography of German liberalism. The author refers two parties to the liberal camp: Popular and Democratic.

It seems to us that the People's Party can only be conditionally attributed to the camp of liberalism, because under this banner it pursued a pro-monopoly policy, combined with open reaction and played an important role in undermining the liberal foundations of the Weimar regime. Considering the history of the Democratic Party, bourgeois historiography regrets the missed opportunities of "left" liberalism-the expansion of the social base, closer cooperation with social democracy. The question of the lack of unity in the ranks of the German liberals is also hotly debated ^.2 In general, liberalism in the Weimar Republic, as L. V. Ovchinnikova rightly notes, "did not fulfill its main function - to find a "third way" between the dictatorship of the proletariat and the dictatorship of monopoly capital. West German neoliberal historians regard this as one of the main reasons for the demise of the republic" (p. 113).

Of particular interest are the pages of the book where the author examines the views of neoliberal historians on the class struggle during the Weimar Republic. As a rule, these works justify the policy of German social democracy and distort the role and significance of the Communist Party in the struggle for the interests of the working people. L. V. Ovchinnikova criticizes the limited views of bourgeois ideologists, who believe that only the integration of the reformist workers ' party into the system of interests of the bourgeois state could ensure the stability and strength of the republic.

In this connection, the analysis of the views of historians of the "new methodological orientation" and the "left center", which directly point to the role of heavy industry concerns and farmers in the collapse of the republic and the establishment of the fascist dictatorship, is very instructive (pp. 123-127). The attitude of industrialists and farmers towards the Weimar Republic was hostile from the first days of its existence. L. V. Ovchinnikova rightly notes that the very formulation of the question by neoliberal historiography about the connection between monopolies and fascism, about the role of the German bourgeoisie in the disintegration of the Weimar Republic and the establishment of the Hitlerite regime should be regarded as "a positive result of the development of critical historical thinking in Germany" (p.144).

Bourgeois historiography treats the question of the role of the army in the fall of the republic differently. Among a considerable number of historians (some directly, others indirectly), there is a noticeable increase in attempts to rehabilitate the Reichswehr, German militarism, demonstrate the traditional loyalty of the army to the state and present it almost as the guardian of democracy. Thus, they try to establish continuity of development from the Reichswehr to the Bundeswehr and to obscure the guilt of big industry and the Reichswehr in undermining the democratic system of the Weimar Republic and establishing fascism.

The neoliberal historiography of the role of fascism in the fall of the Weimar Republic is marked by both a large number of works and a variety of theories that try to explain its origin, essence and goals. The author gives a critical assessment of the views of such major historians as Z. Nolte, Bracher, and Konce, and analyzes the points of view of historians who tried to critically review the previous attitudes on the essence and roots of fascism (Winkler, W. Wipperman, and A. Kuhn). However, this section should be supplemented with an analysis of other works on German fascism and its role in the collapse of the Weimar Republic.

Thus, the West German historiography of the collapse of the Weimar Republic presents a very mixed picture. Conservatives do not particularly regret the fall of the republic, since it did not represent for them either order or the strength of the state. They actually justify the establishment of the Nazi dictatorship. The neoliberal literature, as L. V. Ovchinnikova rightly points out, is very contradictory in its conclusions and assessments: from apologetic theories to critical analysis and realistic assessments of the role of the forces that led to the collapse of the Weimar Republic. However, by-

² For more details, see: Vinogradov V. N. The crisis of bourgeois liberalism in the years of the Weimar Republic in the coverage of the historiography of the Federal Republic of Germany. - Voprosy istorii, 1977, no. 6; his. The problem of the crisis of left liberalism in the Weimar Republic in the bourgeois-reformist historiography of Germany. Scientific and Analytical review, Moscow, 1978.

page 134

such a critical approach does not change the overall class orientation of these historians, who condemn the heroic struggle of the German Communists, the revolutionary workers ' movement of Germany against reaction, the growth of the fascist danger, and the democratic development of the country. Anti-Sovietism and anti-Bolshevism, as is well known, played a very disastrous role in the history of the Weimar Republic and its fall, but modern bourgeois authors continue to adhere to traditional anti-communist positions. In this regard, L. V. Ovchinnikova should pay more attention to the critical analysis of this problem.

In general, the monograph is written at a high professional level and enriches our knowledge of the West German historiography of the Weimar Republic.

page 135

Permanent link to this publication: