jewish history and jewish historiography: a challenge to contemporary german historiography

Jewish History and Jewish HistoriographyA Challenge to Contemporary German

Historiography

BY MOSHE ZIMMERMANN

It seems necessary to commence by defining the concepts used in this paper. By"German" is meant the Federal German Republic, or "West Germany". Theterm "contemporary" will denote the last four decades. In the context of Germanhistoriography the term "Jewish history" will be used mainly with regard toGerman-Jewish history and will only refer to universal Jewish history whenrelevant to the following discussion. Furthermore, I shall exclude from this papernot only ancient and medieval history but also the chapter on the Holocaust,which has to be dealt with separately and has in fact received attention in recenthistoriographical surveys.1 However, some of the conclusions arrived at in thesesurveys may well serve as starting points for the following article. Konrad Kwiet,a German historian, stated ten years ago:

"For many years the German historians had . . . felt bound by a long tradition and had left thehistorical investigation and interpretation of the history of the German Jews, of antisemitismand of the persecution of the Jews to those directly affected: to the Jews themselves . . . It isonly very recently that there has been a tendency to include the German-Jewish organisationsand the conduct of the Jewish population within the canon of subjects worthy of research."2

Ian Kershaw, who knows the German scene very well, remarked in a bookpublished only four years ago:

'Otto Dov Kulka, 'Die deutsche Geschichtsschreibung iiber den Nationalsozialismus und die"Endlosung"', in Historische Zeitschrift (HZ), 1985, pp. 599-640; and idem, 'Major Trends andTendencies in German Historiography on National Socialism and the "Jewish Question" (1924-1984)', in LBI Year Book XXX (1985), pp. 215-242; idem, 'Singularity and its Relativisation. ChangingViews in German Historiography on National-Socialism and the "Final Solution" ', in MosheZimmermann (ed.), Germany's Singular History, Jerusalem 1989, pp. 112-137; cf. Konrad Kwiet,'Problems ofjewish Resistance Historiography', in LBI Year Book XXIV (1979), pp. 37-57; idem, 'Zurhistoriographischen Behandlung der Judenverfolgung im Dritten Reich', in MilitargeschichtlicheMitteilungen, 27 (1980), pp. 149-192; idem, 'Die NS-Zeit in der westdeutschen Forschung', in ErnstSchulin (Hrsg.), Deutsche Geschichtswissenschaft nach dem zweiten Welthrieg, Munchen 1989, pp. 195—198; Ian Kershaw, The Nazi Dictatorship. Problems and Perspectives of Interpretation, London 1985, pp.82-105.

2Kwiet, 'Problems', loc. cit., p. 37.

35

at Universite L

aval on June 21, 2014http://leobaeck.oxfordjournals.org/

Dow

nloaded from

http://leobaeck.oxfordjournals.org/

36 Moshe Zimmermann

"Historians in both parts of Germany after the war came only slowly to concern themselveswith anti-semitism and the persecution of the Jews . . . Even then [after the Eichmann trial],historical scholarship . . . on the fate of the Jews found only a muted echo in the Germanpopulation."

Hans Mommsen confirmed the same impression only very recently, stating that"in West German research . . . the history of Genocide remained an exclaveoutside institutionalised historiography".3 These remarks, made from the pointof view of researchers of Nazi persecution, are only a hint as to what may be saidfrom the point of view of the historian dealing with earlier periods too.

Jewish history, like the history of other "minorities", poses a methodologicalproblem — that of the analytical framework. Should it be dealt with separately orwithin the social and political context of which it is part? The conflict is —according to one historian4 — between a sectoral and an integrative approach, i.e.between putting stress on internal developments and concentrating on reciprocalrelations between the minority and its social surrounding. I would prefer todescribe the distinction as one between an exclusive and an integrativeapproach, since the problem does not lie with the category of the "sector" itself,but with the way this section of society is dealt with — as part or as exclave ofsociety. The problem with the fate of minorities in historiography is not theconcentration on the "sector" as its object or on its internal relations, but theisolation of this sector and its separation from the broader context. Therein liesthe explanation for many of the shortcomings in writing the history of the Jewsthrough the ages.

However, it should be emphasised, that the critical approach of the quotedhistorians as well as of the present writer should be understood as a mutatismutandis criticism directed at most historiographies of nations which had a"Jewish Question". Not all phenomena of Jewish-non-Jewish relations inGermany and not all shortcomings of German historiography while dealing withthem have a unique German character: very often they constitute a part of abroader spectrum.

I

From the nineteenth century on, "professional" German history has beenregarded as the exclusive preserve of the "professionals" - the members of the"guild of historians". This "guild" {Zunft) - which is only an informal institution— was extremely efficient in enforcing the strict rules of production, distributionof labour etc., which was common to all the guilds of the different crafts until theydied out in the nineteenth century. Therefore, even in the twentieth century,research done under the auspices of the historical "guild" followed the rules and

3Kershaw, op. cit., p. 83; Hans Mommsen, 'Die Biirde der Vergangenheit. Auseinandersetzung mitdem unbequemen historischen Erbe der Deutschen', in Hilmar Hoffmann (Hrsg.), Gegen den Versuch,Vergangenheit zu verbiegen, Frankfurt a. Main 1987, p. 99.

4Arno Herzig, 'Juden und Judentum in der sozialgeschichtlichen Forschung', in Wolfgang Schiederand Volker Sellin, Sozialgeschichte in Deutschland, vol. 4, Gottingen 1987, p. 108.

at Universite L


Dow

nloaded from


Jewish History and Jewish Historiography 37

the cliches imposed by it, and historians who tried to circumvent them were notaccepted as real carriers of the torch of historical research, even if they came fromwithin the "guild". The few who tried were confronted with heavy opposition orwere ignored. Topics they attempted to introduce into the legitimate sphere ofinterest of the historians were rejected.5 All the more unhappy was the fate ofJewish historians and Jewish history v/ithin the framework of the Germanhistorical "guild" and German history. It was the fate of the outsider. Let usconsider a well-known example: The confrontation between Treitschke andGraetz in the year 1879.6 This confrontation, carried out against the backgroundof the political discussion of antisemitism, brought face to face two ill-matchedopponents. On the one side there was an ideal representative of the "guild" and ofthe academy, on the other — the perfect outsider. Both wrote history, but the factthat the discussion was between the insider and the outsider predetermined theoutcome long before the controversy among "professionals" actually began.Indeed, in an academic world which would not allow a Jew to become anOrdinarius unless he was baptised, one could hardly expect a matter-of-factdiscussion between these two historians. In any case, attention was paid only tothe "real" confrontation — between Treitschke and Mommsen, i.e. between two"respectable" historians, and unfortunately this holds true even for the survey ofthis debate presented by a contemporary historian in connection with socialhistory and the Jewish Question!7 Moreover, the issue itself was on the "off-side".Since the destruction of the Second Temple Jewish existence in general had beenconsidered a non-political entity, and as long as it was barred from becomingone, because of the accusation of a "state within a state", or because of thefounding of a Jewish state—Jewish history was doomed to remain marginal to, oreven ignored by the historical profession that had political and national historiesin its focus. It goes without saying that this statement also applies to historyoutside Germany. Paradoxically enough, had the case been different, i.e. if the"guild" had considered this history to be a legitimate subject for research, thiswould have resulted only in trouble for the German Jews by indicating that apolitical entity called "Jews" or "German Jews" did exist. From the point of viewof cultural history and the history of ideas, it was not even necessary to wait forToynbee and his like in order to consider the Jews as "fossils" — the Christiantradition of European historiography assigned the end of Jewish history to amuch earlier date. In this respect too, German historiography was no exception.

This situation had one result: under the conditions prevailing in Germanhistory writing, Jewish and German-Jewish history lay beyond the scope of the"guild", and found their expression mainly in books written by Jews outside the

5Cf. Wolfgang Weber, 'Die deutschen Ordinarien fur Geschichte', in Wilhelm Heinz Schroder(Hrsg.), Lebenslaufund Gesellschaft. Zum Einsatz von kollektiven Biographien in der historischen Sozialfor-schung, vol. 18, Stuttgart 1985, pp. 114-146. Georg Iggers, Social History of Politics, 'Introduction',New York 1986.

6Walter Boehlich, Der Berliner Antisemitistnusstreit, Frankfurt a. Main 1965; cf. Michael Meyer, 'GreatDebate on Antisemitism. Jewish Reaction to New Hostility in Germany 1879-1881', in LBI YearBook XI (1966), pp. 137-170.

7Herzig, loc. cit., p. 114.

at Universite L


Dow

nloaded from


38 Moshe Zimmermann

"guild" for the Jews themselves, very often for the purpose of bolstering their self-esteem as members of the German society. This was also the raison d'etre of theVereine for Jiidische Geschichte und Literatur and periodicals such as Zeitschriftjur dieGeschichte desjudentums.8 The German Zionists, who inherited substantial parts oftheir Nationalism (as well as their vocabulary) from their German counterparts,were quick to realise how powerful research and the study of history could be forthe Zionist cause. They therefore produced many works on Jewish history andtaught Jewish history - but of course, outside the boundaries of the "guild".These works cannot be considered as historiography in the professional sense,since they were mostly written by non-professionals.9 Weimar's days were tooshort to bring about a turn in the course of German historiography, at least not ina direction that would have corrected the above-mentioned deficiency. If oneconsiders that even after "Stunde Null", 1945, it took more than fifteen years forGermany's historians to change their course of action, it is quite obvious why thefifteen years prior to 1933 were insufficient to bring about this change.

The assumption, that without the catastrophe of Nazism or the debacle of1945 the historical "guild" could have pursued its traditional course undis-turbed, is easy to prove: long after the school of the "annales" or the "newhistory" became established, German historiography continued to ignore theirexistence. What then, short of a catastrophe, could have changed Germanhistoriography? Ritter's programatic speech at the first Historikertag after the warsignalled a certain tendency for change,10 and yet, even with the slowlegitimisation of social history (introduced by Werner Conze and a few others),this change was hesitant, even insignificant, and sometimes contrary to theprogressive direction expected. With regard to Jewish history and historiogra-phy the additional difficulty of confusion and bad conscience prevailed over thesystematic attempt to change.

II

The masterpieces of Jewish historiography were produced in Germany: Jostwrote the Geschichte der Israeliten seit der Zeit der Maccabaeer and the Neuere Geschichte

8See e.g. A. Kohut, Die Geschichte der deutschen Juden. Ein Handbuchjur die jiidische Familie, Berlin 1886;Martin Philippson, Neueste Geschichte des judischen Volkes, Leipzig 1907-1911; Ismar Elbogen,Geschichte der Juden in Deutschland, Berlin 1935; as well as the periodicals: Zacharias Frankel'sMonatsschriftjur die Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judenthums (since 1851); Ludwig Geiger's Zeitschriftfur die Geschichte desjudentums (since 1887); Jahrbuch Ju'r jiidische Geschichte und Literatur (since 1898).9Jewish history was a central element in the curriculum of the organised Jewish students. See MosheZimmermann, 'Jewish Nationalism and Zionism in German-Jewish Students' Organisations', inLBI Year Book XXVII (1982), pp. 140 ff. The attempt (by Herzig) to present not only MartinPhilippson, but also Arthur Ruppin as examples of "deutsch-jiidische Geschichtsschreibung" ismisleading. Ruppin was not, either by education or profession, an historian. One gets theimpression that Herzig included them in his historiographical representation only in order to labelthem - and Jewish historiography along with them - as users of "rassistische Deutungsmuster",which in itself is a misinterpretation of their writings and a misunderstanding of the context of theirvocabulary.

10Gerhard Ritter, 'Gegenwartige Lage und Zukunftsfragen deutscher Geschichtswissenschaft', inHZ, 170 (1950), pp. 1-22. (Rede am 20. Historikertag 12.9.1949.)

at Universite L


Dow

nloaded from



der Israeliten between 1820 and 1846 and edited the periodicals Zion and JahrbuchJur die Geschichte derjuden und des Judenthums. Zacharias Frankel founded in 1851the Monatsschriftjur Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judenthums, and the subsequenteditor of this journal, Heihrich Graetz, published, beginning in 1853, themonumental Geschichte derjuden von den dltesten Zeiten bis aufdie Gegenwart. Abouthalf a century later, in the Berlin of Weimar Germany, Simon Dubnowpublished the complete version of the Weltgeschichte desjudischen Volkes. Von seinenUranfangen bis zur Gegenwart. The two pillars of Jewish history in Israel and theUSA — Fritz Baer and Salo Baron — studied and published in Germany andAustria respectively before they left for their new homelands. Jewish history-writing without these and other great men and their works would be unthink-able. And yet, these giant enterprises lay beyond the scope of institutionalisedGerman historiography in their time, and in fact they remain so even up totoday!11 The dichotomy existed not only between Jewish and German history ingeneral, but also between German and German-Jewish history in particular, asdemonstrated by the fact, that German-Jewish history before the Nazi era wasleft to Jewish writers like Ismar Freund, Selma Stern and Guido Kisch.12 Howmuch of a chance these authors would have had to overcome the dichotomy, ifNazism and the Second World War had not occurred, is an open question. Howshould we understand the subtitle of Stern's book, Der preufiische Stoat und dieJuden. Ein Beitrag zur deutschen und jiidischen Geschichte? Does it mean that sheaccepts the dichotomy or that she tries to overcome it? Anyway, not only thissub-title but also the long list of writers of Jewish history and their works showthe great gap between German historiography and Jewish history. It is an ironyof history that it was the Nazi system that seemed to bridge the gap, out of its ownlogic and with the help of the historians' "guild" controlled by it. The centrality ofthe Jewish Question in Nazi ideology and praxis led historians to deal withJewish history as a legitimate topic of the "guild". The most prominentrepresentatives of the "guild", Karl von Muller and Walter Frank wrote aboutthe Jews or guided research in that field. A special institute, the Institut zumStudium der Judenfrage, systematically published works on Jewish history, and sodid the Reichsinstitut fur die Geschichte des neuen Deutschlands that stood behind theseries Forschungen zur Judenfrage. One of the paradoxical symptoms of this newapproach of Nazi-German historiography to Jewish historiography was theoutstanding bibliography of Volkmar Eichstadt on the Jewish Question between1750 and 1848.13

To carry the irony even further: after 1945 there was one respect in which theconservative "guild" of historians was able to de-Nazify itself without any

"Symptomatic is the reception of Graetz's new edition of Jewish History. Cf. Historisch-politisches-Jahrbuch, 4 (1986), pp. 98-99 - a half-page review for this monumental work.

12See for example, Ismar Freund, Die Emanzipation derjuden in Preussen, Berlin 1912; Selma Stern, DerPreufiische Stoat und die Juden, Berlin 1925; idem, Der Preufiische Stoat und die Juden (four parts),Tubingen 1962-1975 (Schriftenreihe wissenschaftlicher Abhandlungen des Leo Baeck Instituts II1,2; 8/1,2; 24/1, 2/1, 2/II; 32). For a general survey see Werner Schochow, Deutsch-judischeGeschichtswissenschaft, Berlin 1969.

13Volkmar Eichstadt, Bibliographu zur Geschichte der Judenfrage, Bd. I, 1750-1848, Hamburg 1935.

at Universite L


Dow

nloaded from


4-O Moshe Zimmermann

problems — Jewish history was again excluded from its sphere of interest.Moreover, this lesson remained more vivid than other lessons post-war Germanylearned, because of the intensity of the German Holocaust complex. So, evenwhen later the "guild" reformed itself in many respects, the Jewish themeremained almost "untouched". It is easy to define the dilemma of Germanhistoriography after 1945: too much concern with the Jewish theme would beinterpreted as the outcome of the discriminatory tradition of antisemitism andNazism, too little — as evasion and suppression. German historiography has notrid itself of this dilemma after this long time, even after the changes of the sixties.I think, that the "guild" should have preferred the risk of the first accusation tothe latter, and should have tried to give it a proper answer. Only in the last fewyears, with the rise of the post-war generation, can substantial signs of movementin this direction be observed.

Ill

"The new era" in German historiography did not begin with a revolution.14

Fischer's thesis15 on the outbreak of the First World War stirred the waters ahundred years after the organ of the "guild", the Historische Zeitschriji, firstappeared. And although the storm broke out because of the subject-matter of hisbook, and not because of an innovative method, the way was open for a re-evaluation of method and scope of historical writing. Here German social historymade its way to the forefront.16 The by-products of the new history were, forinstance, regional histories and histories of other, less conventional, spheres ofresearch, including the history of the Third Reich. This trend may be attributedon the one hand to the scientific and psychological need to explain the origins ofthe catastrophe, but on the other hand to the fact that historians of the so-called"white years" took the lead, when it was no longer necessary to suppress historyin order to preserve sanity. The Federal Republic no longer had to resort tocompulsive silencing of the national schizophrenia in order to legitimise itself.The educational system found out, to its dismay, that de-historisation leads to

14This is indirectly proven by Iggers's book on German historiography, where the change is heraldedas "democratisation of the historical writing", but not considered revolutionary even though itbegan, as we know now, several years earlier. Georg G. Iggers, The German Conception of History,Middletown, Conn. 1968.

15Fritz Fischer, 'Deutsche Kriegsziele. Revolutionierung und Separatfrieden im Osten', HZ, 188(1959) pp. 249-310; idem, Griff nach der Weltmacht, Diisseldorf 1961; Gerhard Ritter, 'Eine neueKriegsschuldthese?', HZ, 191 (1962), pp. 646-668; for a bibliography of the debate see E. W.Lynar, Deutsche Kriegsziele 1914-1918, Frankfurt a. Main 1964.

16About social history in German historiography cf.: Jiirgen Kocka, 'Theoretical Approaches toSocial & Economic History of Modern Germany. Some Recent Trends', in Journal of Modern History(JMH), (1975), pp. 101-119; Wolfgang J . Mommsen, 'Gegenwartige Tendenzen in der Gesch-ichtsschreibung der Bundesrepublik', Geschichte und Gesellschaft (GuG), 1981 (1) pp. 149-188;Konrad Jarausch, 'Illiberalism and Beyond. German History in Search of a Paradigm', in JMH, 2(1983), pp. 268-284; Richard Evans, 'The Myth of Germany's Missing Revolution', in New LeftReview, 149 (1985), pp. 67-94; Iggers, Social History of Politics, op. cit.; David Blackbourn,'Introduction', in idem, Populists and Patricians, London 1987, pp. 1-32.

at Universite L


Dow

nloaded from



major social turmoil, such as in the late sixties. And so it came about that in theseventies the historical research in Germany entered a new phase: methodschanged, the "consumers" - in- and outside the academy - changed theirexpectations and requirements, and the volume of research done increasedconsiderably. Yet, it was precisely the new method that perpetuated de-historisation. Social studies got the upper hand in the competition with history,at least in schools. Under the circumstances, it was natural to expect that Jewishhistory, and particularly German-Jewish history would receive due attentionwithin the framework of new German historiography. Indeed a book like Diedeutsche Politik und die Juden im Ersten Weltkrieg (1969), written primarily by arespectable member of the "guild", Egmont Zechlin,17 was a sign of the comingchange even in this field. But only a sign. Zechlin's own complaint about the factthat "the history of the Jews in Germany was virtually a neglected field" prior to1933, and even in the sixties "it did not get proper attention",18 was still validafter his book appeared; otherwise Kwiet or Herzig would not have repeated itfifteen years later.19 It seems surprising how small was the change with regard toGerman-Jewish history during the heyday of social history that so profoundlytransformed German historiography in general.

Why, then, this hiatus? Of course, the historians had to adjust first to the newmethods of social history and then implement them in the sphere of German-Jewish history. Hans Rosenberg, the emigre who became one of the mentors ofthe new trend, showed how easy it could be. In his book Grosse Depression undBismarckszeit (1967),20 he included in the most natural manner the chapter aboutantisemitism. Terms like "prejudice", "minority", "assimilation" etc. that havesince become commonplaces of social-history nomenclature, were freely used inthis chapter. Yet, most of the historical literature written since continued tocircumvent the chapter on German-Jewish history, which is of no lesserimportance than other monographic topics that have become very popular since.Worse than that: for a long time, monographs and articles written in "the newera of social history" and which should have included some reference to theJewish topic, at least in an exemplary way, usually failed to do so, except forliterature on Nazism or antisemitism. The book Moderne deutsche Sozialgeschichte,edited by the best known exponent of the new social history school, Hans-UlrichWehler, and published at the high point of this school of thought, in 1973, doesnot contain the term "Jews" or "Israelites" (not even under the subtitle"Minorities") in its index and even the term "Antisemitism" is mentioned onlyonce.21 This is an extreme example (Wehler's monograph on the German

17Egmont Zechlin, Die deutsche Politik und die Juden im Ersten Weltkrieg, Gottingen 1969.l8Ibid., p. VII.19Herzig, loc. cit., p. 124.^Hans Rosenberg, Grosse Depression und Bismarckszeit, Berlin 1967. While praising Rosenberg, one

should not exaggerate his innovativeness. Herzig claims that "Rosenberg differentiated for the firsttime between 'traditional' and 'modern' Antisemitism." Here again - those able to read Hebrewcould find this distinction in Shmuel Ettinger's writings and lectures: e.g. Antisemitism in the ModernAge, Tel-Aviv 1978 (in Hebrew).

21Hans-Ulrich Wehler (Hrsg.), Moderne deutsche Sozialgeschichte, Koln 1973.

at Universite L


Dow

nloaded from


42 Moshe Zimmermann

Empire did pay attention to the Jewish Question) of the fate of German-Jewishhistory within the "guild" even in the new generation of historiography. Thedetailed bibliography of that same book reveals, that relevant works published inIsrael or the USA about German-Jewish history were not included. All becauseof the same reason: either because the history of the German Jews did not seem todeserve the status of a segment of German history, or because confusion stillprevailed, for instance, as to the social character of this history. More attention toworks by Jacob Katz or Shmuel Ettinger at an early stage of the development ofGerman social history might have changed both knowledge and attitude longago. Eventually in the wake of the "historisation-trend" of the eighties — thisdeficiency was discovered and partly corrected by "classical" social historians aswell, as in Thomas Nipperdey's book, Deutsche Geschichte 1800-1866 (1984) where aspecial chapter (pp. 248-255) deals with the Jewish minority, or in the collectionof Wolfgang Schieder and Volker Sellin on German social history. But this trendwas not consistent: to use the German Historikertage as an example - sometimesGerman-Jewish history appears as an inherent part of a general theme (1983 inthe section about "Minorities in Prussia") and sometimes it is ignored (1986, inthe section about "the role of German speakers in migrations to EasternEurope"). Anyhow, the fact, that a whole section was allocated to medievalGerman-Jewish history in the 1988 Historikertag in Bamberg, demonstrates thetendency of the eighties to overcome this deficiency. One can therefore conclude,that at long last German-Jewish history may become legitimate not only from the"sectoral" or "exclusive" point of view but also as an integral part of Germanhistory.

It is typical that an "anti-historian" of Jewish origin, Bernt Engelmann, wasinstrumental in re-introducing German-Jewish history into the public mind. In1970 he published, outside the "guild" of course, his Deutschland ohnejuden, wherehe described the damage caused to Germany by the Nazi racist policy. Iwholeheartedly approve of his bitter concluding remark: "In order to expose thereal damage caused to Germany by expelling and killing the Jews, there isnothing like the comparison between the cultural niveau of late nineteenth- andearly twentieth-century Germany and that of the small German states of today.Worst of all: the people do not seem to miss anything . . ."22 This remark isironically appropriate in the case of German historiography as well. There it wasvery easy after the war not to miss anything, because 1933 did not mean a breakwith a long and glorious tradition of research on Jewish history, and did notextinguish a remarkable area of Jewish academic activity within the "guild"(excluding rare exceptions like Eugen Taubler), as was the case in physics,chemistry etc.

IV

About twenty years ago a German historian, Werner Schochow, wrote a book onthe history of German-Jewish historiography in which he lamented the fact that22Bernt Engelmann, Deutschland ohne Juden, Miinchen 1974, p. 312.

at Universite L


Dow

nloaded from



in post-war Germany German-Jewish history was overshadowed by workswritten by non-Germans. A glance at the list of publications dealing withGerman-Jewish history reveals that most of them appeared during the post-warperiod outside Germany, in the USA, UK and Israel. As most of the Germanhistorians, even those who touch upon items of Jewish history, do not readHebrew, they have to rely on works written by their German colleagues,occasional translations into German, and on literature in English. Indeed, mostof the research stimulation in this field came to Germany from abroad. The storyof the Ostjuden for instance was to be "discovered" first by non-German historiansbefore a German scholar stepped in.23 Another example: in order to learn aboutso central a topic as German antisemitism, the German reader had to wait tenyears for the German translation of Paul W. Massing's Rehearsal for Destruction. AStudy of Political Antisemitism in Imperial Germany (which appeared in 1958) andanother six years (1964) for Peter Pulzer's book about the German and Austrianantisemitism, The Rise of Political Anti-Semitism in Germany and Austria. This specificsubject became a legitimate item of German historiography not in the fiftieswhen Eleonore Sterling's and Eva G. Reichmann's books were published, butwhen a member of the "guild", Reinhard Riirup, began to deal with the issue inthe late sixties.24 However his thesis about emancipation and antisemitism astwo faces of the same coin, "the Jewish Question", was not new to Israelihistorians who dealt with Jewish history. Yet his authority as a member of the"guild" was instrumental in furthering this kind of research in Germany. Still,the traditional approach was difficult to change. There are not too manyprominent historians who deal with Jewish history beyond the connection of theThird Reich. It is my impression, that even where prominent historians (aproblematic term in itself) try to integrate German and German-Jewish historythey are misunderstood. Such was the fate of the opening lecture at the 35thHistorikertag in Berlin (1984) which dealt with the problem of minorities, and ofthe summary in the section on the change of generations and "Jugendprotest"until 1933 in which the Jewish problem was intensively noted. This misunder-standing was felt even though the first speaker was Reinhard Rurup and thesecond Hans Mommsen.

Misunderstanding and suppressive tendencies have also an institutionalaspect. Beyond the traditional attempts to annex Jewish history to institutes ofJudaica (i.e. institutes based on the religious definition of Judaism whichconcentrate on pre-medieval history) only isolated attempts were made to foundinstitutes or chairs for Jewish or German-Jewish history. The first attempts were

2 3S. Adler-Rudel, Ostjuden in Deutschland 1880-1940. Zugleich tine Geschichte der Organisational, die siebetreuten, Tubingen 1959 (Schriftenreihe wissenschaftlicher Abhandlungen des Leo Baeck Instituts1); Steven E. Aschheim, Brothers and Strangers, Madison 1982; Jack Wertheimer, Unwelcome Strangers,East European Jews in Imperial Germany, New York 1987 (appeared as Diss. 1978); Trude Maurer,Ostjuden in Deutschland 1918-1933, Hamburg 1986.

24Cf. Schochow, op. cit., pp. 230ff; Eleonore Sterling, Er ist vote Du, Munchen 1956; Eva G.Reichmann, Die Flucht in den Hass. Die Ursachen der deutschen Judenkatastrophe, Frankfurt a. Main[1956]; Reinhard Riirup, 'Die Judenemanzipation in Baden', in Zeitsckrift Jur die Geschichte desOberrheins, Bd. 144, pp. 241-300; Wiederabdruck in idem, Emancipation und Antisemitismus, Gottingen1975.

at Universite L


Dow

nloaded from


44 Moshe Zimmermann

made at the end of the fifties and the beginning of the sixties, at the same timethat the "guild" began to change in other respects - the best known exampleswere the departments of Jewish history in Miinster and Frankfurt. Until veryrecently only three institutes in Germany were primarily dedicated to Jewishhistory: Germania Judaica in Koln, Institutfir die Geschichte der deutschen Juden inHamburg and the Zentrum fir Antisemitismusforschung in Berlin — none of themrepresentative institutes of the "guild". Of course, establishments like the Institutfir Zeitgeschichte in Munich and the Forschungsstelle fir die Geschichte des Nationalso-zialismus in Hamburg do work on Jewish history within the framework of theirprojects, but again - only concerning the history of National Socialism and after.The Chair of Jewish History in Munich is a refreshing novelty, but the problemof its incumbent points to the shortcomings of the "guild" in this area. Whetherthe new Steinheim Institute in Duisburg means a real leap forwards is still anopen question.

It is not surprising again, that the most ambitious project on social German-Jewish history ("The history of the Jewish Burgertum in the Kaiserreich") wasinitiated in Israel, received German (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft) financialaid, but enjoyed only partial success. Only four German historians were ableand/or willing to participate. On the other hand, several proposals made byIsraeli historians were turned down because of the rigid definition of socialhistory used. So, in the end, the whole project dwindled into a few monographs.The fate of this project proved the lack of infrastructure for research on German-Jewish history in Germany in the seventies. Yet, a project that was premature inthe seventies might become - with the change both in methodology and politicalorientation in Germany of the eighties — feasible now.

The difficulties of the "guild" in handling this history produced severalalternative solutions. One natural solution was the policy of translations of therelevant Hebrew and English literature into German. This is how the works ofMassing, Pulzer, Edmund Silberner, Alex Bein, George L. Mosse, Katz, JacobToury and Shlomo Na'aman came to be translated. It is true that the leadingfigures of German social history opened the doors to Israeli historians withwhom they share methods, such as Shulamit Volkov and Avraham Barkai.25

This is an important change, of course, but only a partial one, not so muchbecause it did not automatically initiate intensive research on this "alien" topicbut because the work done still remained "off-side". The overlap of German andJewish history still presented a pitfall for German historical understanding, inspite of the efforts made inside the "guild" to bring about a change.

A different way to overcome the problems besides translating material, is the

25See for e.g., Shulamit Volkov, 'Antisemitismus in Deutschland als Problem judisch-nationalenDenkens und jiidischer Geschichtsschreibung', GuG, Heft 4 (1979), pp. 519-544; idem, 'JudischeAssimilation und judische Eigenart im deutschen Kaiserreich', GuG, Heft 3 (1983), pp. 331-348;idem, 'Soziale Ursachen des Erfolgs in der Wissenschaft -Juden im Kaiserreich', HZ, 1987, pp.315-342; Avraham Barkai, Das Wirtschqftssystem des Nationalsozialismus 1933-1936, Koln 1977; idem,'Die deutschen Unternehmer und die Judenpolitik im "Dritten Reich" ', GuG, Heft 2 (1989), pp.227-249; E. Silberner, Sozialisten zurjudenfrage, Berlin 1962 (appeared seven years after the English

at Universite L


Dow

nloaded from



publication of proceedings of symposia, which are too often imperfect. Take twopopular collections that appeared not long ago — Die Juden als Minderheit in derGeschichte (1981) and Geschichte der Juden (1983) .26 Here we find some authors fromoutside Germany, some less prominent historians of the "guild", and others whoare prominent "guild" members but have (with one exception) only a slightconnection to the Jewish subject. These articles give, to a certain extent, theimpression of "bon pour I'orient" - good for Jewish history in Germany. Thestructure of these, and other books, reflects a misapprehension of the specificbuild-up of universal Jewish or specific German-Jewish history. Further thanthat, the typical erudition of German history-writing was not always deployedbecause literature in certain languages, such as Hebrew or Yiddish, was notaccessible to the authors.27 One should, of course, beware of generalisations -but a comparison with similar collections edited by American historians, whereJewish historians (American, Israeli, German-born emigrants) are in themajority, tends to confirm my basic assumption.28 It is worth mentioning thatthe professional periodica (with the important exception of Geschichte undGesellschaft) did not create collections (Sonderhefte) on Jewish history, while otherhistories of lesser importance for German historiography did receive thistreatment. There are, for instance, Sonderhefte of the Historische Zeitschrift onScandinavian and African histories, but not on Jewish history. Nevertheless, avery encouraging development is taking place lately, led by the youngerperiodicals like Geschichte und Gesellschaft and Zeitschrift fir historische Forschung, butalso joined by the Historische Zeitschrift, where articles about German-Jewishhistory no longer constitute a rarity.

Another institutional compensation was introduced in the second half of theseventies. Not only did the Federal Republic finance projects like the abovementioned DFG project, but institutes for German history were founded in Israelwith the help and advice of German authorities, including the "guild" itself. Inthe Universities of Jerusalem and Tel-Aviv, and to a smaller extent in otheruniversities, institutes or chairs for German history began to function, engagingin research and teaching, and cooperating with German colleagues. However,even the activity of the Institutfir deutsche Geschichte in Tel-Aviv, did not, untilrecently, compensate for the voids within German historiography, even though itcounts German historians among the participants to its symposia and publi-cations. Until recently it was mainly the Leo Baeck Institute that functioned asmediator between German and non-German historiography and fostered theirinterrelation quite effectively.

There is an exception to the general trend - the chapter about the Holocaust -with which I do not propose to deal here, since several articles in respectable

^ e e e.g., Bernd Martin and Ernst Schulin (Hrsg.), Die Juden als Minderheit in der Geschichte, Munchen1981; Franz J. Bautz (Hrsg.), Geschichte der Juden. Von der biblischen Zeit bis zur Gegenwart, Munchen1983.

27See e.g., Thomas Rahe, Fruhzionismus und Judentum, Frankfurt a. Main 1988.MDavid Bronsen, Jews and Germans from 1860 to 1933. The Problematic Symbiosis, Heidelberg 1979;

Jehuda Reinharz and Walter Schatzberg (eds.), The Jewish Response to German Culture. From theEnlightenment to the Second World War, Hanover-London 1985.

at Universite L


Dow

nloaded from


46 Moshe Zimmermann

periodicals on the theme have already been published, and since the famousHistorikerstreit revolved mainly around the topic of the Germans and theHolocaust. I would like to refer only to one aspect of that issue, which relates tothe central theme of my article. Since Nazism became subject to modernresearch, the Holocaust also received much attention in Germany. A glance atthe bibliography of Peter Hiittenberger (1980) on National-Socialism will reveal141 books and articles under the sub-title "Jews".29 Yet this very list indicates thedelicate problem with which German historiography is still confronted. First —which is the appropriate term?: "Jews" or "Holocaust"? Secondly - theclassification: do descriptions of the Holocaust and of Jewish life belongtogether? Should the history of the German Jews become an integral part of thehistory of "the Jews" or of "the Holocaust"? The last question is especially tricky,because it opens the way to a possible exclusion of the history of the German Jewsaround 1933 from the history of German society, and to its inclusion in thehistory of the Holocaust only, thus circumventing the unpleasant conclusion thatGerman society before the Second World War systematically discriminatedagainst an integral part of its own, and not against an exotic alien, group.

In my opinion, the subtitle "Jews" in this bibliography unwittingly servesmore to isolate the German-Jewish history than to integrate it in Germanhistory. So, even if the theme is not ignored, as this instance shows, its handlingremains undifferentiated, thus demonstrating an aspect of continuity with thetraditional approach. In this respect, one can only welcome the Alltagsgeschichte,the "history from below"-trend that emerged since this bibliography waspublished, a trend that proves to be most important - despite its methodologicalshortcomings - in overcoming this deficiency. Here is a paradoxical phenome-non: this mass of regional and local research on Jewish history, running parallelto the same sort of research of current history writing, which used to be an outletfor the uneasiness of German historiography in relation to this special chapter,changed its function radically, and became a framework for the integrativeapproach.30 One has to admit, that the amount of outstanding works of this kind,like Paul Sauer's (on Wiirttemberg) or Werner Jochmann's (on Hamburg) is stillsmall. Most of the work is done by local historians, archivists, amateurs (evenschoolboys) who do a serious job, but often lack the broader perspective — that ofgeneral history as well as of Jewish history.* Also, the search for more history hasvery often a conservative and antiquarian scent. Yet - the developments over thelast few years demonstrate clearly a new trend and a qualitative change.31 Still -the well-documented Leo Baeck Institute Year Book bibliographies also reveal the

^Peter Hiittenberger, Bibliographic zum Nationalsozialismus, Gottingen 1980, pp. 193-200.30The sheer numbers of publications on German-Jewish history in the last decade - many of them

works on local history written in Germany - as given in the bibliography of the LBI Year Book isoverwhelming: more than a thousand a year. A good example is Wolfgang Benz, Die Juden inDcutschland 1933-1945. Leben unter nationalsozialisHscher Herrschqfi, Miinchen 1988.

*In this connection see the essay by Oded Heilbronner, 'The Role of Nazi Antisemitism in the NaziParty's Activity and Propaganda. A Regional Historiographical Study', in this volume of the YearBook-(Ed.) .

31The phenomenon of so-called 'barefoot historians" is even more conspicuous in this field. Cf. RogerFletcher, 'History from Below comes to Germany', JMH 1988 (3), pp. 557-568.

at Universite L


Dow

nloaded from



striking fact that many of the works - until the eighties and in the eighties alike -concern themselves with Jewish cemeteries in Germany. The situation is betterwhen it comes to church history and its relationship to the Jews, especiallyduring the Nazi period.32 But there theology and apology are too often strongerthan history. In general it may be stated that the smell of death emerges from thissector of research, and not accidentally: it is safer to deal with a presumablyclosed chapter. This explains the following statement of P. Baumgart in a bookreview of Selma Stern's Der Preufiische Stoat und diejuden, written in 1964:

"Precisely because for us the German-Jewish figure, the Ashkenazi, the same as the Prussianstate, has only a historical significance, it is imperative to discover the historical intercon-nections that bind together the events of the past with the catastrophe of German Jewry andthe collapse of the Prussian state in the present. Because the knowledge of truth redeems andliberates".33

The weakness of this assumption lies not only in the forced equation between theJewish and the Prussian catastrophe, but mainly in the contention that ahistorical chapter must be terminated before it can be worthy of historicalinterest, implying that without the Holocaust research in German-Jewish historywould have not been engaged upon! It is also significant that Baumgart's remarkdid not receive any attention, whereas Andreas Hillgruber's Zweierlei Untergang,which appeared 22 years later, came under heavy fire. Were it not for the factthat this time it was not merely a book review, that the author was caught in theHistorikerstreit and that his message went far beyond the previous equation — onemight assume, that the basic assumption about the way to handle German-Jewish history would have remained the same.

Perhaps it was the apparent deluge of morbid descriptions concerning the fateof the Jews during the Second World War that paved the way for anotherdangerous outlet. In the opening phrases of this paper I mentioned IanKershaw's critical remark regarding the lack of concern with the JewishQuestion. In this respect the astonishing reaction of a German reviewer toKershaw's book is worth quoting: "The title of the last chapter shows clearly thatresearch still concentrates too much [sic] on clarifying the background andcircumstances of the terrible extermination of the Jews." It is a riddle to me howresearch could overly concern itself with this question in any case, and especiallyin Germany, where the amount of effort invested in this field was — as Kershawremarked — so small. The reviewer tried to found his criticism on the alleged needto enlarge the scope of research: "Broader possibilities to interpret racism in theThird Reich will be provided only when research relates to the whole spectrum ofracist measures taken by the NS regime." This is not an innocent proposal towiden the scope of research by rightfully incorporating Jewish history intoGerman history. On the contrary, it is a way to deviate from the uneasy topic ofGerman-Jewish relations to the abstract catch-all called racism, to shake off the

32Otto D. Kulka and Paul R. Mendes-Flohr (eds.), Judaism and Christianity under the Impact of National-Socialism, Jerusalem 1987; Wolfgang Gerlach, Als die Zeugen Schwiegen, Berlin 1987.

33P. Baumgart, 'Zur Geschichte der Juden im absoluten Staat', in Vierteljahresschrift fir Sozial- undWirtschaftsgeschichte, 51 (1964), p. 107.

at Universite L


Dow

nloaded from


48 Moshe Zimmermann

Jewish problem by attributing the Holocaust to racism in general, not to thespecific history of German-Jewish relations, and thereby open the gate to aselective approach to the history of the atrocities of the Third Reich. To exemplifyracism one may take the Gypsy instead of the Jew and yet remain within theboundaries of the "broader" explanation of the general phenomenon. I have nodoubt that the words "too much" and the evasive explanation are no accident.They indicate a trend meant to nip in the bud all research on Jewish andGerman-Jewish history, including the Holocaust.34

Another completely different outlet focuses on the attempt to transform theaccused into an accuser, and the victim into an accessory to the crime. Theoriespertaining to the so-called revisionist interpretation of Nazism etc. haveflourished in the last years, often for the wrong reasons. There is of course ameasure of truth in these interpretations and the psychological explanation fortheir receptibility is obvious. I will not refer to historians like Hellmut Diwald,David Irving (who has become the idol of neo-Nazis) or Ernst Nolte, but to"solid" historians, who in a more sophisticated manner helped tip the scalesagainst the victims, the Jews, by highlighting instances of cooperation on thepart of Jews with Nazi authorities, as, for example, between Zionism andNazism.35 Paradoxically this is the point where the dichotomy between Jewishand German history disappears in order to make room for a frighteningharmony. Another historical irony can be observed in the affinity between theJewish and German traumata, and the evolving of similar hyper-revisionistapproaches — as for example the book written not long ago by an American Jew(Edwin Black) about the "transfer" agreement which could as well have beenwritten by people like Nolte in Germany.36 Anyway it is not surprising, that theeffort to overcome the dichotomy between the two histories should concentrateon the Nazi period, while other, longer periods remain relatively neglected orunintegrated. This conclusion may be deduced from the Arbeitsinformationen - ofthe Germania Judaica in Koln.37 A natural step further in this approach is thepassage via the history of the Third Reich to contemporary history, andparticularly to that of Israel and the Middle East, in an attempt to overcome thevery complexity that renders the "expansion" of Jewish and German-Jewishhistory so problematic. On the one hand there is of course a real interest in thehistory of the Jews in post-war Germany or of the Jewish emigrants. Yet, on theother hand, there is an instrumentalisation of post-war Zionist history. It istypical that a scholarly article on Nazism, Zionism and Arabs reappeared in acollection on the Palestinian problem which is extremely critical of Israel. Theauthor of this article happened to be the chairman of the section dealing with the

34Reiner Pommerin in Das Historisch-PoliHsche Buck, XXXIII, 7 (1985), p. 221.35Alexander Scholch, 'Das deutsche Reich, die zionistische Bewegung und der Palastina-Konflikt', in

Vierteljahrshefie fur Zeitgeschichte , 4 (1982), pp. 647-674; again in Dietrich Wetzel (Hrsg.), DieVerldngerung der Geschichte. Deutsche, Juden undder PalastinakonJUkt, Frankfurt a. Main 1983, pp. 65-92.

^Edwin Black, The "Transfer Agreement". The Secret Pact between Nazi Germany and Zionist Palestine, NewYork 1984.

37The whole chapter concerning the period prior to 1933 includes (1986) only 43 items, 20 of whichwere prepared in Germany.

at Universite L


Dow

nloaded from



history of the Palestinian question in the German Historikertag in 1980, to whichno Israeli and only one non-German was invited — a Palestinian from Syria.38

The "guild" probably felt entitled to act in this way, because the previousHistorikertag in 1978 carried a section on Zionism within the framework of Jewishsocial history. Thus, in 1978 the impression was created, that the "guild" hadfinally accepted Jewish and German-Jewish history as legitimate objects of itsinterest. But, as has been already mentioned, this normalisation is stillambivalent. On the one hand the further Historikertage preview more Mid-Eastern (1984 - Egypt, including a Jewish aspect) and German-Jewish topics,but at the same time have difficulties in integrating German-Jewish or Jewishthemes into overall, general presentations.

V

Beyond the relevance of the complicated psychological background to theattitude of the "guild" towards Jewish history, another basic "professional"problem should be considered: there is often a fundamental misunderstandingand lack of differentiation when it comes to Jewish history. A schematic andgeneralising approach to social history terminology not only did not help erasethe misunderstandings rooted in traditional German historiography but inseveral instances even deepened them. The terms mentioned — "minority","prejudice", "assimilation" - were often used in the Jewish context as if therewere no need to consider analogies and specifica pertaining to this particularcase. Are the German Jews a minority? Are they a religious, social or nationalminority? Are they a minority in the same sense as the Polish workers of theRuhr, Polish Jews in Poland, or Israeli Arabs are? Unfortunately questions ofthis kind are rarely asked because the use of cliches and labels seems to precludethe necessity to look for intelligent answers — in those instances where this historyis dealt with at all. Not too many German historians tried to analyse Jewishemancipation within the context of the emancipatory struggle of other sectors ofthe German society. Jiirgen Kocka's project on "Biirgerlichkeit" may be animportant precedent.39 In this special case, another problem arises: becausethere is almost no German historian with mastery of the Hebrew language. TheHebrew differentiation between the terms relevant to assimilation "Tmi'a" and"hitbolelut" cannot be made in German although it plays a decisive role in Israelihistoriography. True, this is a problem of semantics, but semantics lead directlyto problems of interpretation and are revealing of attitudes. A short time beforehis death, Werner Conze published an article in the Historische Zeitschrift abouthis mentor Hans Rothfels — a baptised Jew who was forced to emigrate andreturned to Germany after 1945 to become one of the pillars of the conservative

S8Helmut Mejcher and Alexander Scholch (eds.), Die Paldstina-Frage 1917-1918. Historische Ursprungeund Internationale Dimensionen tints Nationenkonflikts, Paderborn 1981.

^Jurgen Kocka included four chapters on German-Jewish history in his project on Burgertum im 19.Jahrhundert, Munchen 1988.

at Universite L


Dow

nloaded from


50 Moshe Zimmermann

German "guild".40 The article reveals that despite the empathy of the writer withhis subject he worked under a basic misunderstanding of the nature of Jewishassimilation. When he mentions the baptism Conze does not ponder over thequestion why a Jew had to go to such lengths in order to become a part ofGerman society, but states:

"Thus the contacts with the Jewish tradition, that hardly existed hitherto, were disrupted,and so the precarious situation of unapparent assimilation [die Schwebelage unmerklicherAssimilation . . . durch einen bekenntnishaften Ubertritt uberwunden] was resolved throughchange in confessional affirmation."41

The statement is typical of the approach that real assimilation could not meananything less than baptism and formal disowning of Jewishness. There are evenmore extreme approaches. A book published (admittedly not by a "guild"member) in 1978 about Jewish sport in Germany between 1933—1938 includesthe following statement:

"The extreme harshness of the anti-Jewish measures lies in the fact that they do not only affectthose who count themselves Jewish because of religious conviction or origin. The expulsion isespecially tragic for those half- and quarter-Jews who do not identify themselves with Jewryand who are forced to revise or give up their German national consciousness only because ofpolitical persecution."42

This sentence bluntly expresses an attitude prevalent in many instances despitethe fall of the Second and Third Reich. No assimilation without giving up ethnicidentity! When such prejudices dominate the background of research, researchitself must necessarily suffer.

Before concluding, I would like to refer to Germany outside the FederalRepublic. Austria and the DDR, who were part of Greater Germany, have fewerdifficulties with Jewish history, both because they do not consider themselvesheirs to the German Reich and because their history writing is not burdened bythe tradition of the German "guild". In contrast to the Federal Republic, theDDR perpetuated a certain tradition of previous "anti-history" — FranzMehring, who was a clear "outsider" during the Second Reich became thecornerstone of DDR historiography, and, despite his negative approach to theJewish Question, his legacy can go on. It is easy to disperse all doubts about theGerman-Jewish problem when one follows the Marxist rule that the Jews are justpart of the class struggle. The book Juden unterm Hakenkreuz provides a goodexample.43 Yet the eighties brought changes in the DDR even before therevolutionary turmoil of 1989. Interest in local history already produced workson German-Jewish history, and an openness to cooperation on this theme wassignalled in 1989 even to Israeli authorities. At the same time, in the newhistoriography of the Federal Republic, a tendency towards proto-Marxism hasalso established itself, and historians are sometimes tempted to follow the same

^Werner Conze, 'Hans Rothfels', in HZ, 237 (1983), pp. 311-360.4lIbid., pp. 312-313.42Hajo Bernett, Derjudische Sport im nationalsozialistischen Deutschland 1933-1938, Schorndorf 1978, p. 37.43Klaus Drobisch etal., Juden unterm Hakenkreuz, Frankfurt a. Main 1973; cf. Kurt Patzold, Faschismus,

Rassenwahn, Judenverfolgung, Berlin (East) 1975; Konrad Kwiet, 'Historians of the GermanDemocratic Republic on Antisemitism and Persecution', in LBI Year Book XXI (1976), pp. 173-198.

at Universite L


Dow

nloaded from



rule when dealing with Jewish history. Needless to say, this is not the proper wayto solve the problem either. The problem of German historiography is rooted inits confrontation with the complexity of historical awareness resp. unawareness,as demonstrated on all levels of socialisation, from school to the "guild" ofhistorians. In this respect a three stage development becomes apparent. First,when there was no substantial methodological change but a rising awareness tothe burden of history, German-Jewish history in Germany was pushed back to itsplace as an exclave of German history where the uneasy but fresh memoriescould be controlled. The second stage, beginning in the mid-sixties, wascharacterised by the drastic methodological change and an anti-conservativepolitical atmosphere which legitimised the inclusion of aspects of German-Jewish history within the scope of the "guild" but at the same time paradoxicallycreated a way to circumvent history as a discipline and to avoid real integrationof German-Jewish history into the now broadening scope of historical interest.The third stage is that of the eighties, where a marginal change in method("history from below") and the political rise of the Right reintroduced andpopularised history, thus enabling more inquiry also into the history of GermanJews and an integrative, though limited and sometimes controversial, approachto this chapter of German history. However, this "history from below" did notcorrect the basic flaw of German institutionalised historiography concerningJewish history, but partly compensated for it, especially on the more popularlevel of history writing. Today one could not complain any longer about thequantity of German-Jewish history: more and more of it is taught in schools,44

hundreds of books, articles, dissertations and lectures are in preparation inGermany itself,43 more organised effort is made to enhance this research. It mayeven be stated, that German-Jewish history entered the phase of quantitativeoverproportion (both in German and in Jewish historiography). Yet, most of itstill remains exclusive history, not integral German history. In this respect thebasic problem is still there, and not in Germany alone.46 The indecisiveness inthis respect has been demonstrated above by the examples of the last Historiker-tage, but above all by the Historikerstreit and its repercussions. Not only did theStreit revolve around the closing chapter of German-Jewish history under theNazi regime only - it helped to concentrate on very important historical andexistential problems (Germany in Mitteleuropa, German-German relations,history and self-determination, War and Crime etc.) in a way that blurred theJewish hangover and German-Jewish history. To mention just one example, asurvey prepared by two non-historians. This survey, called 'The Present Imageof the Past. A Bibliographical Report', which appeared late in 1987, managed toblot out the Jewish element from the "image of the past" altogether, despite the

^Cf. Deutsch-Israelische Schulbuchempfehlungen, Braunschweig 1985.45According to the report of Germaniajudaica, about 300 German scholars do research on this theme.^That the problem concerns the history of European Jewry in general is a conclusion of Paula

Hyman in her article, 'The History of European Jewry. Recent Trends', JMH, 2 (1982), p. 319: ". . .European social historians may be discarding their reluctance to deal with a group which . . . doesnot fit neatly into a rigid class analysis". This reluctance, as implied by Hyman, still exists, andovercoming it is no certainty.

at Universite L


Dow

nloaded from


52 Moshe Zimmermann

rising number of publications on German-Jewish history!47 In the face of thistendency it is no accident that prominent representatives of the second stageinsist on including and integrating the "Jewish" chapter of German history intheir arguments and publications. It is my contention that as long as Germansociety does not come to terms with its own history, Jewish history will continueto be an open wound in the flesh of German historiography. It remains to be seenwhether the political upheaval in the DDR and the potential reunification ofGermany can bring German historiography closer to the integration of Jewishhistory into the German past.

47A. Meusch and F. Ph. Lutz, 'Das gegcnwartige Bild vom Vergangenen. Ein Literaturbcricht', inW. Weidenfeld (Hrsg.), Geschichtsbewusstsein der Deutschen, Koln 1§87.

at Universite L


Dow

nloaded from


jewish history and jewish historiography: a challenge to contemporary german historiography

Documents