Johannes Hürter, Hans Woller. Hans Rothfels und die deutsche Zeitgeschichte. München: Oldenbourg Wissenschaftsverlag, 2005. 209 S. EUR 24.80, paper, ISBN 978-3-486-57714-3. Reviewed by Stefan K. Berger Published on H-German (March, 2006) Hans Rothfels was one of the most powerful came a branch of historical studies which aimed doyens of the German historical profession in the at revising the new Eastern borders of the 1950s. A victim of the National Socialist race laws, Weimar Republic. Rothfels occupied a prominent he was forced into exile in 1939. After 1945, he place within Ostforschung, taking up and propa‐ was one of the few historians who returned to re‐ gating many of the ideas of Volksgeschichte. The sume a somewhat delayed model career. He gave controversy surrounding Rothfels found its high‐ legitimacy to the compromised historical profes‐ point in February 2003, when H-Soz-u-Kult orga‐ sion in Germany by confirming its dubious claim nized a discussion forum on Rothfels.[2] that, as a profession, it had stayed well clear of The volume under review is yet another at‐ Nazism. When this myth came under increasing tempt to evaluate Rothfels's career from its begin‐ fire from a younger generation of historians in nings in the Weimar Republic through the Third the 1990s, Hans Rothfels was one of those who Reich and the exile years in the United States to its came in for a good deal of criticism over his apogee in the young Federal Republic. It has its championing of Volksgeschichte during his years origins in a conference organized by the Institut as professor at the University of Königsberg be‐ für Zeitgeschichte in Munich. Rothfels was, of tween 1926 and 1935. Volksgeschichte rose to course, its frst director and played an influential prominence after the First World War. It was an role in determining the course of West German attempt to replace the state as the crucial focus of Zeitgeschichte after the Second World War. Yet, historical studies in Germany with the Volk. The contrary to what one might expect, this volume is notion of Volk employed by many historians was not an apologia for Rothfels. It includes a range of one deeply tinged with racial and nationalist critical voices, despite the fact that, regrettably, overtones. One of the key objectives of Volks‐ two of his foremost critics are absent: Nicolaus geschichte was to contribute to the revision of the Berg and Karl Heinz Roth apparently had differ‐ Versailles Treaty, in particular the loss of territo‐ ent commitments at the time of the conference. ries to neighboring countries.[1] Ostforschung be‐ H-Net Reviews Unfortunately, the introduction leaves the ques‐ Wolfgang Neugebauer analyzes Rothfels's re‐ tion open whether they were asked to contribute search on East Central Europe and fnds much to to the conference volume without having been at commend it. Thus Rothfels emphasized a specifi‐ the conference. cally East Central European libertas culture early Overall, the emphasis of the volume is on un‐ on as characteristic of the region. Making use of derstanding Rothfels in his epoch, on contextual‐ the methodology developed by Otto Hintze, Roth‐ izing him as a man of his time, historicizing him fels was also an early proponent of the compara‐ rather than sitting in judgment on him. One of tive history of East Central Europe and sought those contexts is the experience of the totalitarian structural similarities in East Central European state and its offer of a truly Faustian pact: vast societies. Neugebauer fnds in Rothfels's writings new possibilities for scholars, including those rep‐ a clear fascination with the cultural and ethnic di‐ resenting the historical sciences, in exchange for versity of East Central Europe. But it is here that scholars becoming the handmaidens of politics. Neugebauer also locates the major shortcoming of The second context is the national conservative Rothfels's oeuvre. His Germanocentrism prevent‐ milieu in which Rothfels thrived in Königsberg. At ed him from any deeper understanding of the the end of the Weimar Republic, this milieu ways in which non-German cultures contributed shared several key assumptions with the National to the shaping of East Central Europe. Socialists. In the introduction, the editors stress Ingo Haar demonstrates how vociferously that these two contexts are essential for properly Rothfels fought against the Weimar Republic and understanding the life and career of Hans Roth‐ against those of his colleagues with democratic fels. The rest of the articles deal with different and republican credentials. He also shows how stages of Rothfels's life. much overlap there was in his radical conserva‐ Jan Eckel, who provides a sketch of Rothfels's tive thinking with the ideas of the National Social‐ intellectual biography,[3] argues convincingly that ists. Peter Th. Walther investigates Rothfels's exis‐ one of the central ideas underpinning Rothfels's tence in exile and concludes that he played a mar‐ historical thinking throughout his career was the ginal role in the American university landscape. notion that the German state was threatened both The exile years did not seem to have a major im‐ from within and without. The experiences he pact on his methodological or thematic orienta‐ gained living through war, revolution, hyperinfla‐ tion, although he clearly de-emphasized his earli‐ tion and the Great Depression confirmed this per‐ er espousal of a racialized Volksgeschichte. sistent fear and led him to advocate geopolitical Christoph Cornelissen shows how Rothfels joined orders that, in his view, would bring security and forces with Gerhard Ritter after 1945 to instru‐ stability to an inherently insecure and unstable mentalize the German resistance of July 20, 1944, world. Eckel also portrays Rothfels as representa‐ in order to reject Allied criticisms of the traditions tive of that segment of national conservative of German history. In particular they both came to thought in the Weimar Republic that remained at a positive evaluation of Prussian conservatism. arm's length to pluralism and democracy after The most ambitious theoretical contribution 1945. Men like Rothfels were, however, willing to to the volume comes from Thomas Etzemüller. support the anti-Communism of the early Federal Drawing on Ludwig Fleck's Denkstillehre, Et‐ Republic and slowly many lost their negative zemüller wants to analyze not only the individual views on Western forms of political and social intentions of Rothfels, but presents Rothfels as the thinking. epicenter of a prominent intellectual collective that played an important role in historical think‐ 2 H-Net Reviews ing from the later years of the Weimar Republic to eral contributors to this volume clearly show, the early years of the Federal Republic.[4] The even an emphatic approach to Rothfels cannot "Rothfelsians" were united by propagating radical avoid two central conclusions. First, there was ideas of ordering society through forms of social considerable overlap between the radical conser‐ engineering which knew no boundaries. Et‐ vative and the National Socialist milieu in the in‐ zemüller sees different emphases in their re‐ terwar period. Second, radical conservative search before and after 1945, but the thinking in thought did not vanish with the end of the Nation‐ terms of order (Ordnungsdenken) remained the al Socialists but continued to have a major influ‐ central concern of the "Rothfelsians" well into the ence on the intellectual history of the early Feder‐ 1960s and 1970s when their Denkstil fnally be‐ al Republic. came obsolete. Notes Herman Graml's contribution is most clearly [1]. Volksgeschichte was frst systematically written to save Rothfels's reputation and defend analyzed by Willi Oberkrome, Volksgeschichte: him against his critics. Graml seeks to demon‐ methodische Innovation und völkische Ideolo‐ strate that his revered mentor, as editor of the gisierung in der deutschen Geschichtswis‐ Vierteljahreshefte, did not omit any significant senschaft 1918--1945 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & theme of contemporary history. Rothfels actively Ruprecht, 1993). Oberkrome's study followed a pi‐ sought to counter any apologia for National So‐ oneering work by Michael Burleigh, Germany cialism and in particular picked up the theme of Turns Eastwards. A Study of Ostforschung in the the death camps early on. Where Rothfels inter‐ Third Reich (Cambridge: Cambridge University vened to prevent the publication of research, as in Press, 1993). For a comparative perspective on the case of George Hallgarten, this action was tak‐ Volkgeschichte see also Manfred Hettling, ed., en not for political reasons but because these Volksgeschichten im Europa der Zwis‐ writings were not scholarly enough. Alas, the rela‐ chenkriegszeit_ (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & tionship between politics and scholarship is a Ruprecht, 2003). complex one that cannot be reduced to a straight‐ [2]. See http://hsozkult.geschichte.hu- forward dichotomy. berlin.de/forum/type=diskussionen&id=281 , Matthias Beer contributes an intriguing arti‐ where much additional literature on Rothels can cle in which he argues against the idea of the in‐ be found. vention of contemporary history after 1945. [3]. See also the more detailed work by Jan Drawing on an article by Justus Hashagen from Eckel, Hans Rothfels (Göttingen: Wallstein, 2005). the time of the First World War and a publication by Theodor Schieder from 1935, Beer demon‐ [4]. See also Thomas Etzemüller, strates that some of the key characteristics of con‐ Sozialgeschichte als politische Geschichte. Werner temporary history (as summarized in Rothfels's Conze und die Neuorientierung der westdeutschen famous article in the frst issue of the Viertel‐ Geschichtswissenschaft nach 1945 (Munich: Old‐ jahreshefte) had already been formulated during enbourg, 2001). the first half of the twentieth century. Finally, Heinrich August Winkler and Horst Möller provide brief articles that again seek to emphasize Rothfels's conversion in exile and after 1945 and stress the need to understand rather than judge his intellectual biography.