Claus-Dieter Krohn, Corinna R. Unger, eds.. Arnold Brecht: Demokratischer Beamter und politischer Wissenschaftler in Berlin und New York. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 2006. 228 pp. EUR 38.00, cloth, ISBN 978-3-515-08883-1. Reviewed by Jason Tebbe Published on H-German (September, 2007) Historians in general and historians of Ger‐ Arnold Brecht has now received full bio‐ many in particular have recently become increas‐ graphical treatment in a collection of essays edit‐ ingly interested in transnational history and in ed by Claus-Dieter Krohn and Corinna R. Unger. tackling topics that do not ft neatly into the stric‐ The editors make their purpose clear on the frst tures of national history. For example, the histori‐ page: they want to extend Brecht's undeservedly ography of the postwar period has seen many ex‐ "forgotten" reputation. Although historians, in‐ cellent examinations of the role of American pop‐ cluding myself, too often resort to this justifcation ular culture in Germany.[1] However, we ought to for scholarship on obscure topics, by the end of remember that people as well as products moved the book the reader gets the impression that across the Atlantic, and that they too can offer Brecht's life and work does indeed merit some valuable windows into transnationalism. further investigation. One of those people was Arnold Brecht. A The book alternates between biographical es‐ chancellery official with Social Democratic lean‐ says and those devoted to aspects of his thought. ings during the Weimar period who fed the coun‐ Volker Depkat begins with an analysis of Brecht's try after Hitler's takeover in 1933, Brecht settled memoir, written during the 1960s. Not for nothing in America and found a job at the New School for was its abridged English version entitled The Edu‐ Social Research in New York. When the war began cation of Arnold Brecht, and Depkat defines it as he consulted for the U.S. government, and after an "Erziehungsroman" that traces the effects that the war went back to Germany to assist in the re‐ the manifold crises and breaks in Germany's building process and in the construction of the twentieth century had on Brecht's political devel‐ Federal Republic's Basic Law. Like the many other opment. Depkat surmises that the experience of émigré scholars from Germany at the time, Brecht 1919 confirmed his belief in democracy, and that straddled the Atlantic Ocean and moved more 1933 brought the problem of weighing the indi‐ than once between American and Europe. vidual versus the collective into high relief. The H-Net Reviews second essay, by Barbara Burmeister, extends the norm in Brechts's case. Brecht was never forced biographical analysis and concerns Brecht's child‐ to leave Germany, and he actually took vacations hood and youth in Wilhelmine Lübeck. He ap‐ and research trips to Germany until 1939, which pears to have had a rather typical upbringing for angered his New School colleagues. During these a child of the Hanseatic Bürgertum, which scholarly years he tried to fgure out what went Burmeister argues sparked Brecht's devotion to wrong with Weimar, examined the complications liberal values as an adult. the New Deal faced with federalism, and wrote a The next chapter, by Heiko Holste, fnally prophetic article for the Harvard Law Review call‐ delves into Brecht's career as a government offi‐ ing for the creation of a European "federation" af‐ cial in the Weimar Republic, specifically his role ter the war. Corinna Unger then examines his ac‐ in the so called "Preußenschlag" of 1932, when tivities during World War II, particularly his role then chancellor Franz von Papen took direct con‐ as an adviser to the U.S. government. In this ca‐ trol of Prussia's state government. This power pacity Brecht worked to make postwar Germany a grab foreshadowed the one taken a year later by Rechstaat, but unlike other émigrés such as Hitler, and in general reveals the tenuous nature Thomas Mann, he did not take part in propaganda of German democracy and the Weimar constitu‐ broadcasts out of a sense of German patriotism. tion in the early 1930s. According to Holste, His continuing identification with his German Brecht initially supported the move out of his be‐ identity set him apart from other émigrés, and lief in a more centralized German state but later possibly reflected the fact that his fight was one saw his folly. The consequences of the Preußen‐ of choice rather than life-or-death necessity. After schlag led Brecht to support a more federalist sys‐ the war he immediately went back to Germany tem of government in later life. Ultimately, a and involved himself in the rebuilding process. "technocratic" outlook had blinded him to the true This activity included advocating a strongly feder‐ nature of the Preußenschlag. Some of that mind‐ al German state and working to ensure that the set comes out in the essay that follows by Jürgen civil service would be run on democratic princi‐ Koehler on Brecht's "Law of State Expenditures." ples by functionaries who would not betray the This "law" was Brecht's biggest contribution to the rule of law. Although Brecht wanted strict new field of political science, and it posits "a progres‐ standards for the civil service, like most Germans sive parallel between state expenditures and pop‐ at the time he sharply criticized denazification ulation density" (p. 83). Brecht reached this con‐ and refused to accept any notion of collective guilt clusion after examining data from eighteen Ger‐ for the war. man Länder and nineteen American states. The last two essays concern Brecht's later life. Koehler claims that although political scientists Michael Ruck's is particularly interesting as it de‐ no longer think in terms of absolute "laws," tails Brecht's ideas on the postwar "German ques‐ Brecht's thesis still applies in certain contempo‐ tion" and the Cold War in general. Above all, rary circumstances. Brecht wanted a peaceful reunification of Ger‐ The next two essays return to the biographi‐ many, which he considered the key development cal mode, the frst being an account of Brecht's ex‐ for a peaceful resolution of the Cold War. Before ile in America and activity at the New School for the Korean War raised tensions he even advocat‐ Social Research by Claus-Dieter Krohn. He places ed an organization that would bring together the Brecht in the larger context of "refugee scholars" central European states across the divide of the who fed persecution in Germany, but also points Iron Curtain. Not surprisingly, he maintained an out some interestingly unique deviations from the extensive correspondence with Willy Brandt and supported the latter's Ostpolitik. The last essay, by 2 H-Net Reviews Alfons Soellner, examines Brecht's magnum opus, [2]. Stephen Eric Bronner, Reclaiming the En‐ Politische Theorie (1959). Despite winning many lightenment (New York: Columbia University awards at the time of publication, Politische Theo‐ Press, 2006). rie has faded into obscurity, something Soellner wants to rectify. He argues that its main value lies in its establishment of a middle path between ab‐ solute scientific truth and relative value. Further‐ more, Soellner claims that Brecht hit on the dilemma of how modern states ought to distribute their resources well before John Rawls and oth‐ ers. Last, he poignantly fnds Brecht's Kantian principles in need of revival in a world that too many interpret in terms of a "clash of civiliza‐ tions." This last assertion fts with political pro‐ gressives' other recent attempts to reclaim the En‐ lightenment tradition.[2] In general, Arnold Brecht displays the bene‐ fits and drawbacks of collections of scholarly es‐ says. Although the different essays allow for deep analysis of particular aspects of Brecht's life, their fragmented nature makes it difficult to get an overall feel for his life or importance. Considering the subject's fascinating biography and how he weathered the major upheavals in Germany's tu‐ multuous modern history. a more narrative ap‐ proach might have been more appropriate. The specialized nature of some the essays will also be off-putting to readers who lack a deep back‐ ground in political science. For that reason and due to the obscurity of its subject, Arnold Brecht will not appeal to most students of modern Ger‐ man history. Nevertheless, the volume is of value for those interested in the high politics of the Weimar Republic, émigré German scholars in America, the history of social science, and debates over the "German Question." Notes [1]. Good examples include Heide Fehren‐ bach, Cinema in Democratizing Germany (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1995); and Uta Poiger Jazz, Rock and Rebels (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000). 3 H-Net Reviews If there is additional discussion of this review, you may access it through the network, at https://networks.h-net.org/h-german Citation: Jason Tebbe. Review of Krohn, Claus-Dieter; Unger, Corinna R., eds. Arnold Brecht: Demokratischer Beamter und politischer Wissenschaftler in Berlin und New York. H-German, H-Net Reviews. September, 2007. URL: https://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=13636 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. 4.